Abstract
Background: Defect models capture faults and methods to provoke failures. To integrate such defect models into existing quality assurance processes, we developed a defect model lifecycle framework, in which the elicitation and classification of context-specific defects forms a crucial step. Although we could gather first insights from its practical application, we still have little knowledge about its benefits and limitations. Objective: We aim at qualitatively analyzing the context-specific elicitation and classification of defects to explore the suitability of our approach for practical application. Method: We apply case study research in multiple contexts and analyze (1) what kind of defects we can elicit and the degree to which the defects matter to a context only, (2) the extent to which it leads to results useful enough for describing and operationalizing defect models, and (3) if there is a perceived additional immediate benefit from a practitioner’s perspective. Results: Our results strengthen our confidence on the suitability of our approach to elicit defects that are context-specific as well as context-independent. Conclusions: We conclude so far that our approach is suitable to provide a blueprint on how to elicit and classify defects for specific contexts to be used for the improvement of quality assurance techniques.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Pretschner, A., Holling, D., Eschbach, R., Gemmar, M.: A generic fault model for quality assurance. In: Proceedings of the MODELS, pp. 87–103 (2013)
Pretschner, A.: Defect-based testing. In: Dependable Software Systems Engineering. IOS Press (2015). (to appear)
Garvin, D.: What does product quality really mean? MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 26(1), 25–43 (1984)
Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.: Software quality: the elusive target. IEEE Softw. 13(1), 12–21 (1996)
Holling, D.: A fault model framework for quality assurance. In: International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (2014)
Card, D.N.: Defect analysis: basic techniques for management and learning. In: Advances in Computers (2005)
Kalinowski, M., Mendes, E., Card, D.N., Travassos, G.H.: Applying DPPI: a defect causal analysis approach using bayesian networks. In: Ali Babar, M., Vierimaa, M., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2010. LNCS, vol. 6156, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Schneider, K.: Experience and Knowledge Management in Software Engineering, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, Heidelberg (2009)
Wagner, S.: Defect classification and defect types revisited. In: Defects in Large Software Systems. ACM (2008)
Beizer, B.: Software Testing Techniques, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York (1990)
Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 1, 11–35 (2004)
Avižienis, A., Laprie, J.C., Randell, B.: Dependability and its threats: a taxonomy. In: Jacquart, R. (ed.) Building the Information Society. IFIP, vol. 156, pp. 91–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Chillarege, R., Bhandari, I.S., Chaar, J.K., Halliday, M.J., Moebus, D.S., Ray, B.K., Wong, M.Y.: Orthogonal defect classification-a concept for in-process measurements. IEEE Trans. SE 18, 943–956 (1992)
Aslam, T., Krsul, I., Spafford, E.H.: Use of a taxonomy of security faults. In: NIST-NCSC, pp. 551–560, July 1996
Landwehr, C.E., Bull, A.R., Mcdermott, J.P., Choi, W.S.: A taxonomy of computer program security flaws. ACM Comput. Surv. 26, 211–254 (1994)
Ma, L., Tian, J.: Analyzing errors and referral pairs to characterize common problems and improve web reliability. In: ICWE (2003)
Ma, L., Tian, J.: Web error classification and analysis for reliability improvement. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 795–804 (2007)
Leszak, M., Perry, D.E., Stoll, D.: Classification and evaluation of defects in a project retrospective. J. Syst. Softw. 61, 173–187 (2002)
Gubrium, J., Holstein, J.: Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2001)
Hove, S., Anda, B.: Experiences from conducting semi-structured interviews in empirical software engineering research. In: Software Metrics, September 2005
Glaser, B., Strauss, A.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago (1967)
Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, Los Angeles (2006)
Kalinowski, M., Travassos, G.H., Card, D.N.: Towards a defect prevention based process improvement approach. In: SE&AA (2008)
Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. EMSE 14, 131–164 (2009)
Baker, S., Edwards, R.: How many qualitative interviews is enough? March 2012
Holling, D., Pretschner, A., Gemmar, M.: 8cage: lightweight fault-based test generation for simulink. ASE 2014, 859–862 (2014)
Shull, F., Rus, I., Basili, V.: How perspective-based reading can improve requirements inspections. Computer 33, 73–79 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Holling, D., Fernández, D.M., Pretschner, A. (2015). A Field Study on the Elicitation and Classification of Defects for Defect Models. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9459. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26843-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26844-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)