Groupware support for asynchronous document review

ABSTRACT

The formal document review process has basically remained unchanged since it was first introduced by Fagan in 1976. Central to this process is the review meeting, which all participants attend. However, recent empirical work has indicated that this meeting is not necessarily effective.A review model and a prototype co-operative work tool, InspectA, that dispense totally with the need for reviewers to hold face-to-face meetings, are presented. They replace the meeting with further individual reviews combined with communication between reviewers facilitated by electronic mail. The model and tool are both compared with other existing work in the area of meetingless review.

REFERENCES

• 1: S. A. Bly , J. K. Rosenberg, A comparison of tiled and overlapping windows, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.101-106, April 13-17, 1986, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
• 2: L. Brothers , V. Sembugamoorthy , M. Muller, ICICLE: groupware for code inspection, Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.169-181, October 07-10, 1990, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/99332.99353]
• 3: T. Connolly , L. M. Jessup , J. S. Valacich, Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups, Management Science, v.36 n.6, p.689-703, Jun. 1990 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.36.6.689]
• 4: John Gintell , John Arnold , Michael Houde , Jacek Kruszelnicki , Roland McKenney , Gérard Memmi, Scrutiny: A Collaborative Inspection and Review System, Proceedings of the 4th European Software Engineering Conference on Software Engineering, p.344-360, September 13-17, 1993
• 5: Watts S. Humphrey, Managing the software process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1989
• 6: Michael E. Fagan. Design and code reviews to reduce errors in program development. IBM System Journal, 15(3): 182-- 21 1,1976.
• 7: T. Gilb and D. Graham. Software Review. Addison-Wesley, 1993.
• 8: Software Engineering Institute. The Capability Maturity Model. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
• 9: L. M. Jessup , Terry Connolly , Jolene Galegher, The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task, MIS Quarterly, v.14 n.3, p.313-321, Sep. 1990 [doi>10.2307/248893]
• 10: Philip M. Johnson, An instrumented approach to improving software quality through formal technical review, Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Software engineering, p.113-122, May 16-21, 1994, Sorrento, Italy
• 11: John C. Knight , E. Ann Myers, Phased inspections and their implementation, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.16 n.3, p.29-35, July 1991 [doi>10.1145/127099.127101]
• 12: John C. Knight , E. Ann Myers, An improved inspection technique, Communications of the ACM, v.36 n.11, p.51-61, Nov. 1993 [doi>10.1145/163359.163366]
• 13: F. Lanubile and G. Visaggio. Assessing defect detection methods for software requirements reviews through external replication. Technical report, Dept. of Informatica, University of Bari, 1996.
• 14: F. Macdonald , J. Miller , A. Brooks , M. Roper , M. Wood, A Review of Tool Support for Software Inspection, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering, p.340, July 10-14, 1995
• 15: F. Macdonald, J. Miller, A. Brooks, M. Roper, and M. Wood. Automating the software review process. Automated Software Engineering, 3: 193--2 18, 1996.
• 16: Vahid Mashayekhi , Janet M. Drake , Wei-Tek Tsai , John Riedl, Distributed, Collaborative Software Inspection, IEEE Software, v.10 n.5, p.66-75, September 1993 [doi>10.1109/52.232404]
• 17: V. Mashayekhi, R. Glamm, and J. Riedl. AISA: Asynchronous review of software artifacts. Technical report, Computer Science Dept., University of Minnesota, 1995.
• 18: Vahid Mashayekhi , Chris Feulner , John Riedl, CAIS: collaborative asynchronous inspection of software, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.21-34, December 06-09, 1994, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
• 19: Patricia McCarthy , Adam Porter , Harvey Siy , Lawrence Votta, An experiment to assess cost-benefits to inspection meeting and their alternatives, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, 1995
• 20: Nuclear Safety Management 1997; URL - http:Nwww.hanford.gov/doe/djFect/rldirec~nsmm-3.htm
• 21: D. L. Parnas , D. M. Weiss, Active design reviews: principles and practices, Journal of Systems and Software, v.7 n.4, p.259-265, December 1, 1987 [doi>10.1016/0164-1212(87)90025-2]
• 22: Adam A. Porter , Lawrence G. Votta, Jr. , Victor R. Basili, Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Inspections: A Replicated Experiment, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.21 n.6, p.563-575, June 1995 [doi>10.1109/32.391380]
• 23: Carolyn B. Seaman , Victor R. Basili, An empirical study of communication in code inspections, Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering, p.96-106, May 17-23, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/253228.253248]
• 24: V. Sembugamoorthy and L. Brothers. ICICLE : Intelligent Code Review in a C Language Environment. In The 14th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, October 1994.
• 25: Lawrence G. Votta, Jr., Does every inspection need a meeting?, Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.107-114, December 08-10, 1993, Los Angeles, California, United States

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.4 INFORMATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS
      H.4.1 Office Automation
          Subjects: Groupware

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.7 Distribution, Maintenance, and Enhancement
          Subjects: Documentation

  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Computer-supported cooperative work; Asynchronous interaction

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Human Factors, Management, Performance, Theory

Keywords:
asynchrony, computer supported co-operative work, document review, groupware