What we have learned about fighting defects

Shull, Forrest; Basili, Victor R.; Boehm, Barry; Brown, Alan W.; Costa, Paolo; Lindvall, Mikael; Port, Dan; Rus, Ioana; Tesoriero, Ricardo; Zelkowitz, Marvin V.

doi:10.1109/metric.2002.1011343

Cited by 186 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The CeBASE project defined the eWorkshop and has used the technology to collect valuable empirical evidence on defect reduction and COTS. [9] The rise of Agile Methods provides a fruitful area for such empirical research. This paper discusses the results of the first eWorkshop on Agile Methods sponsored by the Fraunhofer Center Maryland and North Carolina State University using the CeBASE eWorkshop technology.…”

Section: An Experience Base For Software Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical Findings in Agile Methods

Lindvall

Basili

Boehm

et al. 2002

Extreme Programming and Agile Methods — XP/Agile Universe 2002

180

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: An Experience Base For Software Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical Findings in Agile Methods

Lindvall

Basili

Boehm

et al. 2002

Extreme Programming and Agile Methods — XP/Agile Universe 2002

180

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, primary detectors should be paired with low pf secondary detectors. While we hope test engineers are the most effective defect detectors, the available empirical evidence is, at best, anecdotal [8]. As shown here, much is known about the pf, pd, accuracy, ef f ort, precision of static code measures.…”

Section: Buy Not Build?mentioning

confidence: 91%

Mining repositories to assist in project planning and resource allocation

Menzies

2004

"International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2004)" W17S Workshop - 26th International Conference on Software E

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Looking at these figures, one can observe that the most efficient procedures are unfortunately hardly applicable to HPC scientific simulation software as they typically rely either on a formal definition of the underlying model that changes too fast to be useful in HPC scientific simulation software or on beta testing that does not apply when [20]. Approaches that are difficult to apply to HPC scientific simulation software such as beta testing at large scale or formal verification have been grayed.…”

Section: Proposed Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approach to increase reliability of HPC simulation, application to the Gysela5D code

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Reproducibility of results is a strong requirement in most fields of research for experimental results to be called science. For results obtained through simulation software using high performance computing (HPC) this translates as code quality requirements. While there are many works focusing on software quality, these typically do not take the specificities of HPC scientific simulation software into account. This paper presents an approach to introduce quality procedures in HPC scientific simulation software while remaining the less invasive as possible so as to ease its adoption. The approach relies on quality procedures including human code review and automated testing and offers a dedicated procedure to help correct defects found this way. These procedures are integrated in a development work-flow designed to improve the traceability of defects. By implementing this approach for the development of the Gysela code, we show that it is indeed viable and that the return on investment is positive. We also identify multiple reusable elements developed for this experiment that should reduce the cost of adopting the approach for other codes as well as some aspects that can still be improved to ensure a widespread propagation of the approach in the community.

show abstract

What we have learned about fighting defects

Abstract: The

Cited by 186 publications

References 8 publications

Empirical Findings in Agile Methods

Empirical Findings in Agile Methods

Mining repositories to assist in project planning and resource allocation

An approach to increase reliability of HPC simulation, application to the Gysela5D code

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About