(Quasi-)Experimental Studies in Industrial Settings

Software engineering research primarily deals with technologies that promise software organisations to deliver high quality products on time and within budget. However, in many cases researchers do not investigate the validity of the promises and, therefore, information about the relative strengths and weaknesses of those technologies in comparison with the already existing ones is often missing. Although experimentation and experimental software engineering have been suggested to address this issue and significant progress has been made throughout the last couple of years in this area, there is still a lack of experimental work in industrial settings. The reasons for this poor situation range from practical constraints, such as, the costs associated with a study and the benefits for a single company, to more methodological ones, such as the level of control that can be imposed on the different treatment conditions in an industrial setting. In this chapter we present an practical approach that helps overcome most of the objections. The approach represents a balance between the benefits for practitioners and methodological rigor. In essence, it uses training situations to set up and run empirical studies. While this procedure disqualifies the study as a pure controlled experiment, the characteristics of a quasi-experiment can often be preserved. The chapter explains the principle of the approach, differences between controlled experiments and quasi-experiments and finally, presents an example of a quasi-experiment in an industrial setting.

[1]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[2]  D. Holt,et al.  Planning and Analysis of Observational Studies. , 1983 .

[3]  Mark E. Graden,et al.  Report: The effects of software inspections on a major telecommunications project , 1986, AT&T Technical Journal.

[4]  Anas N. Al-Rabadi,et al.  A comparison of modified reconstructability analysis and Ashenhurst‐Curtis decomposition of Boolean functions , 2004 .

[5]  Jean D. Gibbons,et al.  P-values: Interpretation and Methodology , 1975 .

[6]  Forrest Shull,et al.  The empirical investigation of Perspective-Based Reading , 1995, Empirical Software Engineering.

[7]  W. Shadish,et al.  Assignment methods in experimentation: When do nonrandomized experiments approximate answers from randomized experiments? , 1996 .

[8]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[9]  Per Runeson,et al.  Are the Perspectives Really Different? – Further Experimentation on Scenario-Based Reading of Requirements , 2000, Empirical Software Engineering.

[10]  Frank L. Schmidt,et al.  What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. , 1992 .

[11]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[12]  Colin Atkinson,et al.  Generalizing perspective-based inspection to handle object-oriented development artifacts , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).

[13]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Evolving and packaging reading technologies , 1997, J. Syst. Softw..

[14]  Oliver Laitenberger,et al.  Perspective-based reading of code documents at Robert Bosch GmbH , 1997, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[15]  E. P. Doolan,et al.  Experience with Fagan's inspection method , 1992, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[16]  James Miller,et al.  Further Experiences with Scenarios and Checklists , 1998, Empirical Software Engineering.

[17]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Research methods in social relations , 1962 .

[18]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  Active design reviews: principles and practices , 1985, ICSE '85.

[19]  Ola Blomkvist,et al.  An Extended Replication of an Experiment for Assessing Methods for Software Requirements Inspections , 1998, Empirical Software Engineering.

[20]  Edward A. Youngs Human Errors in Programming , 1974, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[21]  G. Yule NOTES ON THE THEORY OF ASSOCIATION OF ATTRIBUTES IN STATISTICS , 1903 .

[22]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[23]  Ruven E. Brooks,et al.  Studying programmer behavior experimentally: the problems of proper methodology , 1980, CACM.

[24]  M J Slakter,et al.  *, **, and ***; statistical nonsense at the .00000 level. , 1991, Nursing research.

[25]  Yuri Chernak A Statistical Approach to the Inspection Checklist Formal Synthesis and Improvement , 1996, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[26]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[27]  Oliver Laitenberger,et al.  An encompassing life cycle centric survey of software inspection , 2000, J. Syst. Softw..

[28]  R. Kirk Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[29]  Michael Dyer The Cleanroom Approach to Quality Software Development , 1992, Int. CMG Conference.

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

[31]  Harvey P. Siy,et al.  An Experiment ot Assess the Cost-Benefits of Code Inspections in Large Scale Software Development , 1997, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[32]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Using Experiments to Build a Body of Knowledge , 1999, Ershov Memorial Conference.

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

[34]  S. Shapiro,et al.  A Comparative Study of Various Tests for Normality , 1968 .

[35]  M. Hills,et al.  The two-period cross-over clinical trial. , 1979, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[36]  A. Aron,et al.  Statistics for Psychology , 1994 .

[37]  Glenford J. Myers,et al.  A controlled experiment in program testing and code walkthroughs/inspections , 1978, CACM.

[38]  Mark I. H. Hwang,et al.  The use of meta-analysis in MIS research: promises and problems , 1996, DATB.

[39]  Ramon E. Henkel Tests of Significance , 1976 .

[40]  Helena Chmura Kraemer,et al.  How many subjects , 1989 .

[41]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1986 .

[42]  James Miller,et al.  Applying meta-analytical procedures to software engineering experiments , 2000, J. Syst. Softw..

[43]  Harlan D. Mills,et al.  Structured programming - theory and practice , 1979, The systems programming series.

[44]  Shinji Kusumoto,et al.  A promising approach to two-person software review in educational environment , 1998, J. Syst. Softw..

[45]  James R. Lyle,et al.  A Two-Person Inspection Method to Improve Prog ramming Productivity , 1989, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[46]  R. Rosenthal Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[47]  Will Hayes,et al.  Research synthesis in software engineering: a case for meta-analysis , 1999, Proceedings Sixth International Software Metrics Symposium (Cat. No.PR00403).

[48]  Thomas Gilb,et al.  Software Inspection , 1994 .

[49]  Chris Sauer,et al.  Validating the defect detection performance advantage of group designs for software reviews: report of a laboratory experiment using program code , 1997, ESEC '97/FSE-5.

[50]  Adam A. Porter,et al.  Comparing Detection Methods For Software Requirements Inspections: A Replication Using Professional Subjects , 1998, Empirical Software Engineering.

[51]  Barbara A. Kitchenham,et al.  Critical review of quantitative assessment , 1994, Softw. Eng. J..

[52]  Tom Moher,et al.  Methodology and experimental research in software engineering , 1982 .

[53]  Allan Birnbaum,et al.  Combining Independent Tests of Significance , 1954 .

[54]  D. Campbell Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. , 1957, Psychological bulletin.

[55]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[56]  Michael E. Fagan Advances in software inspections , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[57]  J. Grizzle THE TWO-PERIOD CHANGE-OVER DESIGN AN ITS USE IN CLINICAL TRIALS. , 1965, Biometrics.

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

[59]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .

[60]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Using simulation to build inspection efficiency benchmarks for development projects , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[61]  Dennis A. Christenson,et al.  Statistical Quality Control Applied to Code Inspections , 1990, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[62]  Khaled El Emam,et al.  An Internally Replicated Quasi-Experimental Comparison of Checklist and Perspective-Based Reading of Code Documents , 2001, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[63]  Philip M. Johnson,et al.  Does Every Inspection Really Need a Meeting? , 1998, Empirical Software Engineering.

[64]  David J. Sheskin,et al.  Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures , 1997 .

[65]  Adam Morawiec Some Statistical Issues , 2004 .

[66]  Priscilla J. Fowler In-process inspections of workproducts at AT&T , 1986, AT&T Technical Journal.

[67]  M. Cowles,et al.  On the Origins of the .05 Level of Statistical Significance , 1982 .

[68]  Giuseppe Visaggio,et al.  A Replicated Experiment to Assess Requirements Inspection Techniques , 2004, Empirical Software Engineering.

[69]  E. H. Simpson,et al.  The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables , 1951 .

[70]  Jacob Cohen The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

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

[72]  J Cohen,et al.  AIDS vaccine research. A new goal: preventing disease, not infection. , 1993, Science.

[73]  D. Ross Jeffery,et al.  Comparing inspection strategies for software requirement specifications , 1996, Proceedings of 1996 Australian Software Engineering Conference.

[74]  A. Ehrenberg,et al.  The Design of Replicated Studies , 1993 .

[75]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[76]  A. Greenwald Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use? , 1976 .