Anywhere, Anytime Code Inspections: Using the Web to Remove Inspection Bottlenecks in Large-Scale Software Development

The dissemination of critical information and the synchronization of coordinated activities are critical problems in geographically separated, large-scale, software development. While these problems are not insurmountable, their solutions have varying trade-offs in terms of time, cost and effectiveness. Our previous studies have shown that the inspection interval is typically lengthened because of schedule conflicts among inspectors which delay the (usually) required inspection collection meeting. We present and justify a solution using an intranet web that is both timely in its dissemination of information and effective in its coordination of distributed inspectors. First, exploiting a naturally occurring experiment (reported here), we conclude that the asynchronous collection of inspection results is at least as effective as the synchronous collection of those results. Second, exploiting the information dissemination qualities and the on-demand nature of information retrieval of the web, and the platform independence of browsers, we built an inexpensive tool that integrates seamlessly into the current development process. By seamless we mean an identical paper flow that results in an almost identical inspection process. The acceptance of the inspection tool has been excellent. The cost savings just from the reduction in paper work This work is supported in part by a National Science Fotmdation Faculty Early Career Development Award, CCR-9501354. Permission to make digitnbhnrd copies of all or pert of this material for pcrsonnl or chtssroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, the copyright notice, the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copyright is by permission of the ACM, Inc. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires specific pcnnission and/or fee ICSE 97 Boston MA LJSA Copyright I997 ACM O-89791-914-9/97/05 ..$3.50 14 M. W. Wade Quality Management Group Lucent Technologies Inc Naperville, IL 60566 michaelwwade@lucent .com and the time savings from the reduction in distribution interval of the inspection package (sometimes involving international mailings) have been substantial. These savings together with the seamless integration into the existing environment are the major factors for this acceptance. From our viewpoint as experimentalists, the acceptance came too readily. Therefore we lost our op portunity to explore this tool using a series of controlled experiments to isolate the underlying factors or its effectiveness. Nevertheless, by using historical data we can show that the new process is less expensive in terms of cost and at least as effective in terms of quality (defect detection effectiveness).

[1]  L. G. Votta,et al.  Organizational congestion in large-scale software development , 1994, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process. Applying the Software Process.

[2]  Harvey Siy,et al.  Identifying the mechanisms driving code inspection costs and benefits , 1996 .

[3]  Dewayne E. Perry,et al.  People, organizations, and process improvement , 1994, IEEE Software.

[4]  Adam A. Porter,et al.  Evaluating Workflow and Process Automation in Wide-Area Software Development , 1996, EWSPT.

[5]  Lawrence G. Votta,et al.  Design Process Improvement Case Study Using Process Waiver Data , 1995, ESEC.

[6]  Harvey P. Siy,et al.  An experiment to assess cost-benefits of inspection meetings and their alternatives: a pilot study , 1996, Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Metrics Symposium.

[7]  Dewayne E. Perry,et al.  Understanding and Improving Time Usage in Software Development , 1995 .

[8]  Ronald M. Baecker,et al.  Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration , 1992 .

[9]  Lawrence G. Votta,et al.  Does every inspection need a meeting? , 1993, SIGSOFT '93.

[10]  Adam A. Porter,et al.  Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Inspections: A Replicated Experiment , 1995, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[11]  J. S. Hunter,et al.  Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. , 1979 .

[12]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination in software development , 1995, CACM.