We consider reading techniques a fundamental means of achieving high quality software. Due to the lack of research in this area, we are experimenting with the application and comparison of various reading techniques. This paper deals with our experiences with a family of reading techniques known as Perspective-Based Reading (PBR), and its application to requirements documents. The goal of PBR is to provide operational scenarios where members of a review team read a document from a particular perspective, e.g., tester, developer, user. Our assumption is that the combination of different perspectives provides better coverage of the document, i.e., uncovers a wider range of defects, than the same number of readers using their usual technique.To test the effectiveness of PBR, we conducted a controlled experiment with professional software developers from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration / Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA/GSFC) Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL). The subjects read two types of documents, one generic in nature and the other from the NASA domain, using two reading techniques, a PBR technique and their usual technique. The results from these experiments, as well as the experimental design, are presented and analyzed. Teams applying PBR are shown to achieve significantly better coverage of documents than teams that do not apply PBR.We thoroughly discuss the threats to validity so that external replications can benefit from the lessons learned and improve the experimental design if the constraints are different from those posed by subjects borrowed from a development organization.

Abstract.In recent years, the use of, interest in, and controversy about Agile methodologies have realized dramatic growth. Anecdotal evidence is rising regarding the effectiveness of agile methodologies in certain environments and for specified projects. However, collection and analysis of empirical evidence of this effectiveness and classification of appropriate environments for Agile projects has not been conducted. Researchers from four institutions organized an eWorkshop to synchronously and virtually discuss and gather experiences and knowledge from eighteen Agile experts spread across the globe. These experts characterized Agile Methods and communicated experiences using these methods on small to very large teams. They discussed the importance of staffing Agile teams with highly skilled developers. They shared common success factors and identified warning signs of problems in Agile projects. These and other findings and heuristics gathered through this valuable exchange can be useful to researchers and to practitioners as they establish an experience base for better decision making. The rise of Agile MethodsPlan-driven methods are those in which work begins with the elicitation and documentation of a "complete" set of requirements, followed by architectural and high level-design development and inspection. Examples of plandriven methods include various waterfall and iterative approaches, such as the Personal Software Process (PSP) [1]. Beginning in the mid-1990's, some practitioners found these initial requirements documentation, and architecture and design development steps frustrating and, perhaps, impossible [2]. As Barry Boehm [3] suggests, these plan-driven methods may well start to pose difficulties when change rates are still relatively low. The industry and the technology move too fast and customers have become increasingly unable to definitively state their needs up front. As a result, several consultants have independently developed methodologies and practices to embrace and respond to the inevitable change they were experiencing. These methodologies and practices are based on iterative enhancement, a technique which was introduced in 1975 [4] and that has been come to be known as Agile Methodologies [2,5].Agile Methodologies are gaining popularity in industry although they comprise a mix of accepted and controversial software engineering practices. It is quite likely that the software industry will find that specific project characteristics will determine the prudence of using an agile or a plan-driven methodology -or a hybrid of the two. In recent years, there have been many stories and anecdotes [6][7][8] of industrial teams experiencing success with Agile methodologies. There is, however, an urgent need to empirically assess the applicability of these methods, in a structured manner, in order to build an experience base for better decision-making. This paper contributes to the experience base and discusses the findings of a synchronous, virtual eWorkshop in which experiences and knowledge we...

No abstract

The