Investigating Model Quality Assurance with a Distributed and Scalable Review Process

D. Winkler, R. Sabou, S. Petrovic, G. Carneiro, M. Kalinowski, S. Biffl:
"Investigating Model Quality Assurance with a Distributed and Scalable Review Process";
Vortrag: 20th Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering, Experimental Software Engineering (ESELAW) Track, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 22.05.2017 - 23.05.2017; in:"Proceedings of the 20th Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering, Experimental Software Engineering (ESELAW) Track", IEEE, (2017), ISBN: 978-987-3806-98-8; S. 141 - 154.

Zusätzliche Informationen


Abstract:


Models play an important role in Software and Systems
Engineering processes. Reviews are well-established methods for model quality
assurance that support early and efficient defect detection. However, traditional
document-based review processes have limitations with respect to the number
of experts, resources, and the document size that can be applied. [Objective] In
this paper, we introduce a distributed and scalable review process for model
quality assurance to (a) improve defect detection effectiveness and (b) to
increase review artifact coverage. [Method] We introduce the novel concept of
Expected Model Elements (EMEs) as a key concept for defect detection. EMEs
can be used to drive the review process. We adapt a best-practice review
process to distinguish (a) between the identification of EMEs in the reference
document and (b) the use of EMEs to detect defects in the model. We design
and evaluate the adapted review process with a crowdsourcing tool in a
feasibility study. [Results] The study results show the feasibility of the adapted
review process. Further, the study showed that inspectors using the adapted
review process achieved results for defect detection effectiveness, which are
comparable to the performance of inspectors using a traditional inspection
process, and better defect detection efficiency [Conclusions] Although the study
shows promising results of the novel inspection process, future investigations
should consider larger and more diverse review artifacts and the effect of the
limited scope of artifact coverage for an individual inspector.