Post-process feedback with and without attribute focusing: a comparative evaluation

Historically, the identification and correction of inadequacies in the process of software production called process feedback has been a difficult, time-consuming, manual exercise. Recently, a methodology for process feedback, called attribute focusing, has been developed. The authors compare post-process feedback with and without attribute focusing to determine how the methodology fares against current practice in post-process correction. Five project teams analyzed post-process defect data and made recommendations to improve the quality of a large operating systems product. That data was based on a multiple-choice questionnaire that was completed for every defect in a sample of defects that was chosen by each team. Subsequently, the same data was reanalyzed using attribute focusing. The comparison suggests attribute focusing can do at least as well or better than current practice in postprocess analysis, while reducing cost of analysis substantially.<<ETX>>

[1]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[2]  Jeffrey D. Uuman Principles of database and knowledge- base systems , 1989 .

[3]  Ronald A. Radice,et al.  A Programming Process Architecture , 1985, IBM Syst. J..

[4]  A. Ram Knowledge Goals : A Theory of Interestingness Ashwin , 1990 .

[5]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  The TAME Project: Towards Improvement-Oriented Software Environments , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[6]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Paradigms for experimentation and empirical studies in software engineering , 1991 .

[7]  John D. Musa,et al.  Software reliability - measurement, prediction, application , 1987, McGraw-Hill series in software engineering and technology.

[8]  Carole L. Jones A Process-Integrated Approach to Defect Prevention , 1985, IBM Syst. J..

[9]  Anneliese von Mayrhauser Software Engineering: Methods and Management , 1990 .

[10]  Nancy Martin,et al.  Programming Expert Systems in OPS5 - An Introduction to Rule-Based Programming(1) , 1985, Int. CMG Conference.

[11]  Adam A. Porter,et al.  Learning from Examples: Generation and Evaluation of Decision Trees for Software Resource Analysis , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[12]  John Bibby,et al.  The Analysis of Contingency Tables , 1978 .

[13]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Principles of database and knowledge-base systems, Vol. I , 1988 .

[14]  Ram Chillarege,et al.  Reliability growth for typed defects (software development) , 1992, Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium 1992 Proceedings.

[15]  Michael R. Lowry,et al.  Automating software design , 1989, Digest of Papers. COMPCON Spring 89. Thirty-Fourth IEEE Computer Society International Conference: Intellectual Leverage.

[16]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Software development: a paradigm for the future , 1989, [1989] Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual International Computer Software & Applications Conference.

[17]  Yeou-Wei Wang,et al.  Knowledge Based Quality Assurance Tools , 1990 .

[18]  Robert G. Mays,et al.  Experiences with Defect Prevention , 1990, IBM Syst. J..

[19]  Ram Chillarege,et al.  Reliability Growth for Typed Defects , 1992 .

[20]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  Managing the software process , 1989, The SEI series in software engineering.

[21]  J. F. Mccarthy Engineering in the 21st century , 1978 .

[22]  William Frawley,et al.  Knowledge Discovery in Databases , 1991 .

[23]  Amrit L. Goel,et al.  Software Reliability Models: Assumptions, Limitations, and Applicability , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.