Assessing software review meetings: results of a comparative analysis of two experimental studies

Software review is a fundamental tool for software quality assurance. Nevertheless, there are significant controversies as to the most efficient and effective review method. One of the most important questions currently being debated is the utility of meetings. Although almost all industrial review...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:IEEE transactions on software engineering 1997-03, Vol.23 (3), p.129-145
Main Authors: Porter, A.A., Johnson, P.M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aggregates
Applied sciences
Collaborative work
Comparative analysis
Computer science
control theory
systems
Computer Society
Conferences
Costs
Defects
Design
Exact sciences and technology
Experiments
Inspection
Inspections
Job shop scheduling
Meetings
Methods
Programming
Quality control
Questionnaires
Software
Software engineering
Software quality
Software reviews
Studies
Systems development
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Software review is a fundamental tool for software quality assurance. Nevertheless, there are significant controversies as to the most efficient and effective review method. One of the most important questions currently being debated is the utility of meetings. Although almost all industrial review methods are centered around the inspection meeting, recent findings call their value into question. In prior research the authors separately and independently conducted controlled experimental studies to explore this issue. The paper presents new research to understand the broader implications of these two studies. To do this, they designed and carried out a process of "reconciliation" in which they established a common framework for the comparison of the two experimental studies, reanalyzed the experimental data with respect to this common framework, and compared the results. Through this process they found many striking similarities between the results of the two studies, strengthening their individual conclusions. It also revealed interesting differences between the two experiments, suggesting important avenues for future research.
ISSN:0098-5589
1939-3520
DOI:10.1109/32.585501