Peer reviews in real life - motivators and demotivators

Peer reviews are an efficient quality assurance method in software development. Several reviewing methods exist to match the needs of different organizations and situations. Still, peer reviews are not practiced as commonly as one would suppose. This study aims at finding out what types of reviewing methods are in use in software companies, surveying the most important benefits of peer reviews and investigating reasons for not utilizing reviews. The study is carried out in companies locating in the Oulu region, but the results can be generalized to all small software companies. The results show that companies that use reviews have adjusted the process for their own needs. The main motivator for arranging reviews is the decreased amount of defects in products while the other aspects of reviews, such as process improvement or knowledge sharing are not considered as important. The main demotivator for reviews is lack of time and people resources.

[1]  Robert L. Glass.  Practical programmer: inspections—some surprising findings , 1999, CACM.

[2]  Pankaj Jalote,et al.  Overcoming the NAH syndrome for inspection deployment , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[3]  Robert B. Grady,et al.  Key lessons in achieving widespread inspection use , 1994, IEEE Software.

[4]  Andy Huber,et al.  Peer reviews in software: a practical guide , 2002, SOEN.

[5]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Using multiple adaptive regression splines to support decision making in code inspections , 2004, J. Syst. Softw..

[6]  Df Rico.  How to estimate ROI for inspections , 2002 .

[7]  Robert L. Glass,et al.  Inspections - Some Surprising Findings. , 1999 .

[8]  Marc Roper,et al.  Practical Code Inspection Techniques for Object-Oriented Systems: An Experimental Comparison , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[9]  Barry Boehm,et al.  Top 10 list [software development] , 2001 .

[10]  G. Chroust,et al.  Software inspections-theory, new approaches and an experiment , 1999, Proceedings 25th EUROMICRO Conference. Informatics: Theory and Practice for the New Millennium.

[11]  Robert L. Glass,et al.  Persistent Software Errors , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[12]  Robert L. Glass,et al.  Facts and fallacies of software engineering , 2002 .

[13]  Stefan Biffl,et al.  Software Reviews: The State of the Practice , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[14]  Michael E. Fagan.  Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development , 1976, IBM Syst. J..

[15]  Tom Gilb.  Planning to Get the Most Out of Inspection , 2000 .

[16]  Diane Kelly,et al.  How to do inspections when there is no time , 2001, ICSE.

[17]  Peter J. Middleton,et al.  Software Inspection , 1994, J. Inf. Technol..

[18]  Alexander Chatzigeorgiou,et al.  Efficient management of inspections in software development projects , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[19]  Arthur L. Price,et al.  Managing code inspection information , 1994, IEEE Software.

[20]  Tomoo Matsubara,et al.  Issues in Software Inspection , 1997 .

[21]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List , 2001, Computer.

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

[23]  Robert L. Glass.  Software Engineering: Facts and Fallacies , 2002 .

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

[25]  D. O'Neill,et al.  Issues in software inspection , 1997 .

[26]  Philip M. Johnson.  Reengineering inspection , 1998, CACM.