Determinants of program repair maintenance requirements

ABSTRACT

Considerable resources are devoted to the maintenance of programs including that required to correct errors not discovered until after the programs are delivered to the user. A number of factors are believed to affect the occurrence of these errors, e.g., the complexity of the programs, the intensity with which programs are used, and the programming style. Several hundred programs making up a manufacturing support system are analyzed to study the relationships between the number of delivered errors and measures of the programs' size and complexity (particularly as measured by software science metrics), frequency of use, and age. Not surprisingly, program size is found to be the best predictor of repair maintenance requirements. Repair maintenance is more highly correlated with the number of lines of source code in the program than it is to software science metrics, which is surprising in light of previously reported results. Actual error rate is found to be much higher than that which would be predicted from program characteristics.

REFERENCES

• 1: Akiyama, F. An example of software system debugging. Proceedings of the IFIPS Congress, 1971, 353-359.
• 2: Bell, D.E., and Sullivan, J,E. Further investigations into the complexity of software. MITRE Technical Report MTR 2874, vol. IL Bedford, Maine, 1974.
• 3: John B. Bowen, Are current approaches sufficient for measuring software quality?, Proceedings of the software quality assurance workshop on Functional and performance issues, p.148-155, January 1978
• 4: John G. Burch , Gary Grudnitski , Felix R. Strater, Information Systems: Theory and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1983
• 5: Canning, R.G. Modular COBOL programming. EDP Anal. 10, 7 (July 1972). 1-14.
• 6: Canning, R.G. That maintenance "iceberg." EDP Anal. 10, 10 (Oct. 1972), 1-14.
• 7: Christensen, K., Fitsos, G.P., and Smith, C.P. A perspective on software science. IBM Syst. J. 20, 4 (1981), 372-387.
• 8: Curtis, B., Sheppard, S.B., Milliman, P., Borst, M.A., and Love, T. Measuring the psychological complexity of software maintenance tasks with the Halstead and McCabe metrics. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-5, 2 (Mar. 1979), 96-104.
• 9: James L. Elshoff, Measuring commercial PL/I programs using Halstead's criteria, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.11 n.5, p.38-46, May 1976 [doi>10.1145/956003.956006]
• 10: Endres, A. An analysis of errors and their causes in systems programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-1, 2 (June 1975), 140-149.
• 11: Ann Fitzsimmons , Tom Love, A Review and Evaluation of Software Science, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.10 n.1, p.3-18, March 1978 [doi>10.1145/356715.356717]
• 12: Funami, Y., and Halstead, M.H, A software physics analysis of Akiyama's debugging data. CSD-TR-144, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., May 1975.
• 13: Gilb, T. Software Metrics. Winthrop Publishers, Cambridge, Mass., 1977.
• 14: Maurice H. Halstead, Elements of Software Science (Operating and programming systems series), Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, 1977
• 15: Bennett P. Lientz , E. Burton Swanson, Software Maintenance Management, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1980
• 16: B. P. Lientz , E. B. Swanson , G. E. Tompkins, Characteristics of application software maintenance, Communications of the ACM, v.21 n.6, p.466-471, June 1978 [doi>10.1145/359511.359522]
• 17: B. Littlewood, How to measure software reliability, and how not to, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Software engineering, p.37-45, May 10-12, 1978, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
• 18: McCabe, T.J. A complexity measure. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. SE-2, 4 (Dec. 1976), 308-320.
• 19: Moore, T.E. The Traveling Man. Doubleday & Co., Inc.. Garden City, N.Y., 1972.
• 20: Musa, J,D. The use of software reliability measures in project management. Proceedings: COMPSAC '78, 493-498.
• 21: Ottenstein, L.M, Schneider, V.B., and Halstead, M.H. Predicting the number of bugs expected in a program module. CSD-TR-205, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., Oct. 1976.
• 22: B. A. Sheil, The Psychological Study of Programming, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.13 n.1, p.101-120, March 1981 [doi>10.1145/356835.356840]
• 23: Stevens, S.S. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103 (1946), 677-680.
• 24: Swanson, E.B. On the user-requisite variety of computer application software. IEEE Trans. Reliab. R-28, 3 (Aug. 1979), 221-226.
• 25: E. Burton Swanson, The dimensions of maintenance, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering, p.492-497, October 13-15, 1976, San Francisco, California, United States
• 26: Thayer, T.A.. et el., Software reliability study. RADC-TR-76-2238, Rome Air Development Center, Grifiss Air Force Base, N.Y., Aug. 1976,
• 27: Iris Vessey , Ron Weber, Some factors affecting program repair maintenance: an empirical study, Communications of the ACM, v.26 n.2, p.128-134, Feb. 1983 [doi>10.1145/358024.358057]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.3 Software Management
          Subjects: Software development

General Terms:
Design, Management, Performance, Theory

Keywords:
program complexity, program maintenance, repair maintenance, software science