Are the perspectives really different? Further experimentation on scenario-based reading of requirements

被引:64
作者
Regnell B. [1 ]
Runeson P. [1 ]
Thelin T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Communication Systems, Lund University, Lund
关键词
First of all; the authors would like to thank the students who participated as subjects in the experiment. We would also like to give a special acknowledgement to Forrest Shull at University of Maryland who provided support on the UMD lab-pack and gave many good comments on a draft version of this paper. We are also grateful for all constructive comments made by the anonymous reviewers. Thanks also to Claes Wohlin; Martin Höst and Håkan Petersson at Dept. of Communication Systems; Lund University; who have carefully reviewed this paper. Special thanks to Anders Holtsberg at Centre for Mathematical Sciences; for his expert help on statistical analysis. This work is partly funded by the National Board of Industrial and Technical Development (NUTEK); Sweden; grant; 1K1P-97-09690;
D O I
10.1023/A:1009848320066
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Perspective-Based Reading (PBR) is a scenario-based inspection technique where several reviewers read a document from different perspectives (e.g. user, designer, tester). The reading is made according to a special scenario, specific for each perspective. The basic assumption behind PBR is that the perspectives find different defects and a combination of several perspectives detects more defects compared to the same amount of reading with a single perspective. This paper presents a study which analyses the differences in perspectives. The study is a partial replication of previous studies. It is conducted in an academic environment using graduate students as subjects. Each perspective applies a specific modelling technique: Use case modelling for the user perspective, equivalence partitioning for the tester perspective and structured analysis for the design perspective. A total of 30 subjects were divided into 3 groups, giving 10 subjects per perspective. The analysis results show that (1) there is no significant difference among the three perspectives in terms of defect detection rate and number of defects found per hour, (2) there is no significant difference in the defect coverage of the three perspectives, and (3) a simulation study shows that 30 subjects is enough to detect relatively small perspective differences with the chosen statistical test. The results suggest that a combination of multiple perspectives may not give higher coverage of the defects compared to single-perspective reading, but further studies are needed to increase the understanding of perspective difference.
引用
收藏
页码:331 / 356
页数:25
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] Basili V.R., Green S., Laitenberger O., Lanubile F., Shull F., Sorumgard S., Zelkowitz M., The Empirial Investigation of Perspective-Based Reading, Empirical Software Engineering, 1, 2, pp. 133-164, (1996)
  • [2] Basili V.R., Green S., Laitenberger O., Lanubile F., Shull F., Sorungard S., Zelkowitz M., Lab Package for the Empirical Investigation of Perspective-Based Reading, (1998)
  • [3] Ciolkowski M., Differding C., Laitenberger O., Munch J., Empirical Investigation of Perspective-Based Reading: A Replicated Experiment, (1997)
  • [4] Cook T.D., Campbell D.T., Quasi-Experimentation - Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, (1979)
  • [5] Doolan E.P., Experiences with Fagan’s Inspection Method, Software Practice and Experience, 22, 2, pp. 173-182, (1992)
  • [6] Eick S.G., Loader C.R., Long M.D., Votta L.G., Wiel V., A S., Estimating Software Fault Content before Coding, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’92), pp. 59-65, (1992)
  • [7] Fagan M.E., Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development, IBM System Journal, 15, 3, pp. 182-211, (1976)
  • [8] Fusaro P., Lanubile F., Visaggio G., A Replicated Experiment to Assess Requirements Inspection Techniques, Empirical Software Engineering, 2, 1, pp. 39-57, (1997)
  • [9] Hayes W., Research Synthesis in Software Engineering: A Case for Meta-Analysis, Proceedings of the 6th International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS’99), pp. 143-151, (1999)
  • [10] Humphrey W.S., Managing the Software Process, (1989)