R 1. Biffi, S. (2000) “Using inspection data for defect estimation”, IEEE Software,

8 R 1. Biffi, S. (2000) “Using inspection data for defect estimation”, IEEE Software,

ev

iews

2. Cusumano, M. A. (1991) Japan’s Software Factories – A challenge to U.S. Management, Oxford University Press, New York. 3. Dobbins, J. H. (1998) “Inspections as an up-front quality technique”, in G.G Schulmeyer and J. I. McManus (eds), Handbook of Software Quality Assurance, Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex, UK.

4. DOD (1994) MIL-STD-498, US Department of Defense. 5. Fagan, M. E. (1976) “Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program

development”, IBM Systems Journal, 15(3), 182–211. 6. Fagan, M. E. (1986) “Advances in software inspections”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-12, (7), 744–751. 7. Gilb, T. and Graham, D. (1993) Software Inspection, Addison-Wesley, Harlow, Essex, UK. 8. Hollocker, C. P. (1990) Software Reviews and Audits Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 9. IEEE (1990) “IEEE Std 610.12-1990 – IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology”, in IEEE Software Engineering Standards Collection, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York. 10. IEEE (1997) “IEEE Std 1028-1997 – IEEE Standard for Software Reviews”, in IEEE Software Engineering Standards Collection, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York. 11. MacFarland, R. (2001) “Case study of an improvement program featuring reviews and inspections”, Software Quality Professional (ASQ), 3(3), 26–29. 12. Pressman, R. S. (2000) Software Engineering – A Practitioner’s Approach, European adaptation by D. Ince, 5th edn, McGraw-Hill International, London. 13. Sauer, C. and Jeffery, D. R. (2000) “The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: behaviorally motivated program of research”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(1), 1–14. 14. Shull, F., Rus, I. and Basili, V. (2000) “How perspective-based reading can improve requirement inspections”, Computer, 33(7), 73–79. 15. Yourdon, E. (1979) Structured Walkthrough, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall International, London.

Review questions

8.1 There are four direct objectives and two indirect objectives attached to the various review methods.

(1) List the direct and indirect objectives of each review method surveyed. (2) For each objective, indicate the review technique or techniques that con-

tribute(s) the most to achieving that objective. 8.2 One of the objectives of reviews is to identify deviations from templates and style

procedures and conventions. Explain the importance of enforcing templates and sticking to style procedures and conventions.

8.3 Some people claim that one of the justifications for a small design review team is

the need to schedule the review session within a few days after the design prod- uct has been distributed to the team members.

view ques

(1) Could you list additional reasons for preferring small DR teams apart from the

anticipated delays in convening a DR session composed of large teams? (2) What reasons motivate attempts to schedule the review session as soon as possible after distribution of the design reports to the team members?

tion

8.4 One can expect that in many cases, participants in an inspection session are able to suggest solutions for a detected defect or, at least, point out possible directions

for its solution. While it is clear that these suggestions are crucial for the develop- ment team, it is commonly recommended to avoid any discussion about solutions during the inspection session.

(1) List your arguments in favor of this recommendation. (2) What other kinds of cooperation between the moderator and the review team

would you prefer to observe in a session? 8.5 It is quite natural to expect participation of the document’s author (the designer)

in a review of any type. (1) What are the arguments in favor of his or her participation?

(2) What are the differences in the part played and the status of the author in each of the review methods discussed?

8.6 The preparations made by members of inspection teams are considered to be of greater depth and thoroughness when compared with the preparations for walkthroughs.

(1) What activities are included in such high levels of preparation? (2) Do you think that inspection teams having 15 members can achieve similarly

high levels of preparation? 8.7 Pressman lists 13 golden guidelines for successful design review (see Frame 8.3). (1) Four of the golden rules deal with design review infrastructure. Can you list

these golden guidelines and elaborate on the importance of the infrastructure elements and how they affect software quality?

(2) It is often claimed that the six golden guidelines dealing with the design review session are as applicable to inspection as they are to walkthrough ses- sions. Can you list these common golden guidelines and explain the reasons for their broad applicability?

174 Topics for discussion

8.1 A proposal for changing an inspection procedure involves adding a new reporting

ev

requirement, as follows: “At the end of the session or the series of sessions, the

iews

inspection leader will submit to management a copy of the inspection session findings report and a copy of the inspection session summary report”.

(1) Consider the proposal and list possible arguments, pro and con, regarding the change. (2) What is your recommendation – to add the new reporting requirement or not? Explain.

8.2 David Martin has just finished his inspection coordinator course. After obtaining his first appointment, he plans to add his personal secretary, who is not an IT pro- fessional, to the inspection team for the purpose of serving as session scribe and producing the required reports. He assumes that her participation will free him for the coordination tasks and enable him to conduct the session successfully.

Is it advisable to employ a secretary who is not an information technology pro- fessional as a scribe in an inspection session? List your arguments pro and con.

8.3 Compare the various review techniques. (1) In what aspects are design reviews more formal than inspections?

(2) In what aspects are inspections more formal than walkthroughs? 8.4 The chapter offers three different methodologies for team review of design

documents. (1) Which of the methodologies should a software development organization

choose? (2) Can more than one method be chosen and applied for the same document? Alternatively, is it recommended to apply all three methods? List your arguments.

Appendix8A DR report form 175 Appendi