Design Defect Trigger for Software Process Improvement

  • EunSer Lee
  • Kyung Whan Lee
  • Keun Lee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3026)


This research is intended to develop the empirical relationship between defects and their causes to estimate. Also, using defect cause, we understand associated relation between defects and design defect trigger. So when we archive resemblant project, we can forecast defect and prepare to solve defect by using defect trigger.


Defect Defect Trigger GQM method Defect cause prioritization COQUALMO Defect reduction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lee, K.-W.: Modelling for HDC. In: The 5th Korean Conference on Software Engineering, Korea information science society, February 20 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annual Research Review, USC/CSE workshop reports, (october 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software Cost Estimaition With Cocomo II. Prentice- Hall PTR, Upper saddle river (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Software Process Improvement Forum. KASPA SPI-7, (December 2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eckes, G.: The Six Sigma Revolution. John Willey & Sons, England (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SPICE Assessment in korea. The korea SPICE, May 13 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shin, K.-A.: Research about software reliability development model that defect importance is considered. Journal of the korea computer industry education society 03(07), 837–844 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunn, R.H.: Software defect removal. McGraw-Hill, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chillarrege, R., Prasad, K.R.: Test and Development Process Retrospective? a Case study using ODC Triggers. IEEE computer Society, Los Alamitos (April 2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fenton, N., Ohlsson, N.: Quantitative analysis_of faults and failures in a complex software system. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 26, 797–814 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCall, J.A., Richards, P.K., Walters, G.F.: Factors in software qualityVol 1, 2 and 3. Springfield VA., NTIS, AD/A-049-014/015/055 (1997) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vouk, M.A.: Software Reliability_Engineering. In: Tutorial Notes? Topics in Relia bility_ & Maintainability & Statistics, 2000 Annual_ Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Los Angeles, CA, January 24-27 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padberg, W.: A Fast Algorithm to Component_ Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Hypergeometric Software Reliability Model. In: Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software APAQS, vol. 2, pp. 40–49 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vamder Wiel, S.A., Votta, L.G.: Assessing Software Designs Using Capture-Recapture Methods .IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering 1045-1054 (1993) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P.: Defect Content Estimations from Review Data. In: Proceedings International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE, pp. 400-409 (1998) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaffney, J.: Some Models for Software Defect Analysis. In: Lockheed Martin (November 1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hatton, L.: Is Modularization Always Good Idea. Information and Software Technology 38, 719–721 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Compton, B., withrow, C.: Prediction and Control of Ada Software Defects. J. System sand Software 12, 199–207 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fenton, N., Neil, M.: Software Metrics: Successes, Failures, and New Directions. J. Systems and Software 47, 149–157 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering. International edition. Mcgraw-Hill, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kasse, T.: Actin Focused Assessment for Software Process Improvement. Artech House, Norwood (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.: The Experience Factory. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, Wiley, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.: The Goal Question Metric Approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, Wiley, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Basili, V.R.: The Experience Factory and its Relationship to Other Improvement Paradigms. In: Sommerville, I., Paul, M. (eds.) ESEC 1993. LNCS, vol. 717, Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ANSI/IEEE Std 610.12-1990, IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology (February 1991) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.. Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1 (CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, ADA263403).: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Carnegie Mellon University (February 1993) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Software Processes are Software Too. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, Monterey, CA, March 30 - April 2, pp. 2–13. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    SPICE Baseline Practices Guide (BPG) Version 1.00 (SPICE Project ISO/IECITC1/SC7/WG10). Internal draft, limited distribution (September 1994); defines the goals and fundamental activities that are essential to software engineering, structured according to increasing levels of process capabilityGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Seigel, J., Zubrow, D.: Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process (CMU/SEI-94-TR-13). Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh/PA (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Britz, T., Cameron, P.: Partially ordered sets. J. of Formalized Mathematics, Inst. of computer science, Univ. of Bialystok  1 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • EunSer Lee
    • 1
  • Kyung Whan Lee
    • 1
  • Keun Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringChung-Ang University 
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, School of EngineeringUniversity of Southern California 

Personalised recommendations