Introducing the Next Generation of Software Inspection Tools

  • Henrik Hedberg
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)


The area of tool support for software inspection has been under active research since the early 1990’s. Although numerous implementations exist and development is still taking place, no tool has achieved a break-through. The main reason is that one tool usually demonstrates only one new idea, neglecting other features. A different approach must be taken, and software inspection tools should be seen as integral parts of the development environment. This paper categorises the existing tools into four generations based on the transition from traditional meeting support to asynchronous distributed inspections implemented with web technologies. Based on the analysis of 16 tools and our experiences, we summarize the most important features and add two new aspects to be notified when implementing the next generation of inspection tools for use in modern software development, flexibility and integration. The major focus is on comprehension, and we have taken the first steps at achieving this.


Software Engineer Inspection Process Code Inspection Software Inspection Electronic Meeting System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fagan, M.: Design and code inspection to reduce errors in program development. IBM System Journal 5(3), 182–211 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Macdonald, F., Miller, J., Brooks, A., Roper, M., Wood, M.: A review of tool support for software inspection. In: Seventh International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering, pp. 340–349 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harjumaa, L., Hedberg, H., Tervonen, I.: A Path to Virtual Software Inspection. In: Proceedings of Procediings of Asia-Pacific Conference Quality Software (APAQS), pp. 283–287 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedberg, H., Harjumaa, L.: Virtual Software Inspections for Distributed Software Engineering Projects. In: Proceedings of the Internation Workshop on Global Software Engineering, International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tenhunen, V., Sajaniemi, J.: An Evaluation of Inspection Automation Tools. In: Kontio, J., Conradi, R. (eds.) ECSQ 2002. LNCS, vol. 2349, pp. 351–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellis, C., Gibbs, S., Rein, G.: Groupware - Some issues and experiennces. Communications of the ACM 34(1), 38–58 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tervonen, I., Harjumaa, L., Iisakka, J.: The Virtual Logging Meeting: a web-based solution to resource problems in software inspection. In: Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Software Quality. ADV Handlesgesellschaft m.b.H., pp. 342–351 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Genuchten, M., Cornelissen, W., Dijk, C.: Supporting Inspections With an Electronic Meeting System. Journal of Management Information Systems 14(3), 165–178 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brothers, L.R., Sembugamoorthy, V., Muller, M.: ICICLE: Groupware for code inspections. In: Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 169–181 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knight, J.C., Meyers, E.A.: An improved inspection technique. Communications of the ACM 36(11), 51–61 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gintell, J., Arnold, J., Houde, M., Kruszelnicki, J., McKenney, R., Memmi, G.: Scrutiny: A collaborative inspection and review system. In: Sommerville, I., Paul, M. (eds.) ESEC 1993. LNCS, vol. 717, Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mashayekhi, V., Drake, J., Tsai, W.-T., Reidl, J.: Distributed, collaborative software inspection. IEEE Software 10(5), 66–75 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mashayekhi, V., Feulner, C., Reidl, J.: CAIS: Collaborative Asynchronous Inspection of Software. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, P.: An instrumented approach to improving software quality through formal technical review. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Putaala, M., Tervonen, I.: Inspecting Postscript Documents in an Object-Oriented Environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Quality - Additional Papers, Dublin, Ireland (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macdonald, F., Miller, J.: A Comparison of Tool-based and Paper-based Software Inspection. Empirical Software Engineering (3) (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, J., Macdonald, F.: ASSISTing exit decisions in software inspection. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 281–284 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murphy, P., Miller, J.: A process for asynchronous software inspection. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, pp. 96–104 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stein, M., Riedl, J., Harner, S., Mashayekhi, V.: A Case Study of Distributed, Asynchronous Software Inspection. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) 1997, pp. 107–117. ACM, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perpich, J., Perry, D., Porter, A., Votta, L., Wade, M.: Anywhere, Anytime Code Inspections: Using the Web to Remove Inspection Bottlenecs in Large-Scale Software Development. In: Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 14–21. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harjumaa, L., Tervonen, I.: A WWW-based tool for software inspection. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 379–388 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tervonen, I., Iisakka, J., Harjumaa, L.: Software Inspection - a blend of discipline and flexibility. In: Kusters, R.J., Cowderoy, A., Heemstra, F.J., Trienekens, J.J.M. (eds.) Project Control for 2000 and beyond (Proceedings of ESCOM-ENCRESS 1998), pp. 157–166. Shaker Publishing B.V., Maastricht (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caivano, D., Lanubile, F., Visaggio, G.: Scaling up Distributed Software Inspections. In: Maurer, F., Dellen, B., Grund, J., Kötting, B. (eds.) 4th ICSE (International Conference on Software Engineering) Workshop on Software Engineering over the Internet, pp. 5–8 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hazeyama, A., Nakano, A.: Web-based Inspection Process Support Environment for Software Engineering Education. In: Maurer, F., Dellen, B., Grund, J., Kötting, B. (eds.) 4th ICSE (International Conference on Software Engineering) Workshop on Software Engineering over the Internet, pp. 13–18 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Basili, V.R., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Sormgård, S., Zelkowitz, M.V.: The Empirical Investigation of Perspectiove-based Reading. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering 2(1), 133–164 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilb, T., Graham, D.: Software Inspection. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Essex (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Komi-Sirviö, S., Tihinen, M.: Great Challenges and Opportunities of Distributed Software Development - An Industrial Survey. In: The 15th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2003), San Francisco Bay, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Porter, A.A., Johnson, P.M.: Assessing software review meetings: Results of a comparative analysis of two experimental studies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(3), 129–145 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson, P.M., Tjahjono, D.: Does every inspection really need a meeting? Empirical Sotware Engineering (3), 9–35 (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Laitenberger, O., Dryer, H.M.: Evaluating the usefulness and the ease of use of a webbased inspection data collection tool. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Software Metrics Symposioum, pp. 122–132 (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis, F.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceiced Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 318–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Hedberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations