Monvorath Phongpaibul
ABSTRACT
Although pair programming and software inspection have the common aim of minimizing the defects of the software product, each practice has its strengths and weaknesses. We need to understand their costs and benefits under given conditions to be able to select a practice to execute in a development project. The objective of this study is to compare the commonalities and differences between pair development and software inspection as verification techniques in Thailand. One classroom experiment and one industry experiment were conducted. The development effort and effect of quality were investigated with some additional calendar time comparisons. The classroom results showed that average development effort of the pair development group was 24% less than inspection group with the improved product quality. The industry experiment showed pair development to have about 4% more effort but about 40% fewer major defects. In addition, the impacts of cultural differences to the adoption of pair programming or software inspection in Thailand are discussed.
- eWorkshop on Software Inspections and Pair Programming Report. December 2003. http://www.cebase.org/www/home/index.htmGoogle Scholar
- Ackerman, A.F., Buchwald, L.S., and Lewski, F.H., Software Inspection: An Effective Verification Process. IEEE Software, Vol. 6, No. 3, May 1989, pp. 31--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aurum, A., Petersson, H., and Wohlin, C., State-of-the-Art: Software Inspections after 25 Years. Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability, Vol. 12, 2002, pp. 133--154.Google Scholar
- Boehm, B., and Turner, R., Balancing Agility and Discipline. Addison-Wesley, 2004 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cockburn, A., and Williams, L., The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming. eXtreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering XP2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dion, R., Process Improvement and the Corporate Balance Sheet. IEEE Software, Vol. 10, No. 4, July 1993, pp. 28--35. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fagan, M.E., Advances in Software Inspections. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. 12, No. 7, July 1986, pp. 744--751. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fagan, M.E., Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development. IBM Syst. J., Vol. 15, No. 3, 1976, pp. 181--211.Google Scholar
- Gilb, T. and Graham, D., Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1993 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kelly, J.C., Sherif, J.S. and Hops, J., An Analysis of Defect Densities Found During Software Inspections. J. of Systems and Software, Vol. 17, No. 2, Feb. 1992, pp. 111--117. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hofstede, G., Culture's Consequences -- Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2001Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G., Culture and Organizations -- Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, 1997Google Scholar
- Jirachiefpattana, W., The Impact of Thai Culture on Executive Information Systems Development. Proceeding of the 6th International Conference Theme 1, Globalizaion: Impact on and Coping Strategies in Thai Society, 14-17 October, Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp 97--110, 1996.Google Scholar
- Lee, K., and Boehm, B., Empirical Results from an Experiment on Value-Based Review (VBR) Processes. Proceeding of ISESE 2005, 17-18 November, 2005.Google Scholar
- Myers, W., Shuttle Code Achieves Very Low Error Rate. IEEE Software, Vol. 5, No. 5, Sept. 1988, pp. 93--95Google Scholar
- Phongpaibul, M., Improving Quality Through Software Process Improvement in Thailand: Initial Analysis. Proceeding of 3-WoSQ, ICSE 2005, 17 May, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Russell, G.W., Experience with Inspection in Ultralarge- Scale Development. IEEE Software, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan. 1991, pp. 25--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Miller, C., Balik, S., Ferzli, M., Petlick, M., Pair Learning: With an Eye Toward Future Success. Extreme Programming/Agile Universe 2003.Google Scholar
- Shull, F., Basili, V., Zelkowitz, M., Boehm, B., Brown, A.W., Port, D., Rus, I., and Tesoreiro, R., What we have Learned about Fighting Defects. Proceeding of International Conference on SW Metrics, June 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Siegel, A.F., Statistic and Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Singapore, 1988.Google Scholar
- Slaughter, S.A., Harter, D.E., and Krishnan M.S., Evaluating the Cost of Software Quality. Communications of ACM, Vol. 41, No. 8, August 1998, pp. 67--73. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Succi, G., Marchesi, M., Pedrycz,W., Williams, L., Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of Pair Programming on Job Satisfaction. Fourth International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (XP2002).Google Scholar
- Thanasankit, T., and Corbitt B., Towards Understanding Managing Requirements Engineering -- A Case Study of a Thai Software House. Proceedings of Conference on Computers and Information Technology in Asia 99, September, Sarawak, East Malaysia, pp 993--1013, 1999.Google Scholar
- Thanasankit, T., and Corbitt B., Cultural Context and its Impact on Requirements Elicitation in Thailand. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, http://www.ejisdc.org, 2000.Google Scholar
- Weller, E.F., Lessons from Three Years of Inspection Data. IEEE Software, Vol. 10, No. 5, Sept. 1993, pp. 38--45. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wernick, P., and Hall, T., The Impact of Using Pair Programming on System Evolution: a Simulation-Based Study. Proceedings of ICSM' 04, IEEE, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wheeler, D.A., Brykczynski, B., and Meeson, R.N.Jr., Peer Review Processes Similar to Inspection. Software Inspection: An Industry Best Practice, IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996.Google Scholar
- Wheeler, D.A., Brykczynski, B., and Meeson, R.N.Jr., Software Inspection: An Industry Best Practice. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wiegers, K.E., Peer Reviews in Software: A Practice Guide. Addison-Wesley, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, L., The Collaborative Software Process. PhD Dissertation, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, L., and Kessler, R.R., Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., and Miller, C., In Support of Pair Programming in the Introductory Computer Science Course. Computer Science Education, September 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- An empirical comparison between pair development and software inspection in Thailand
Recommendations
A Replicate Empirical Comparison between Pair Development and Software Development with Inspection
ESEM '07: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and MeasurementIn 2005, we studied the development effort and effect of quality comparisons between software development with Fagan's inspection and pair development. Three experiments were conducted in Thailand: two classroom experiments and one industry experiment. ...
Demotivators of software process improvement: an empirical investigation
We have conducted an empirical study with 23 Vietnamese software practitioners to determine Software Process Improvement (SPI) demotivators. We have compared the demotivators identified by the Vietnamese practitioners with the demotivators identified by ...
Comments