Advertisement

Improving Quality of Functional Requirements by Measuring Their Functional Size

  • Sylvie Trudel
  • Alain Abran
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5338)

Abstract

For many years, the software industry has been applying different types of reviews on their requirements documents to identify and remove defects that would otherwise propagate in the development life cycle, leading to rework and extra cost to fix at later phases. An inspection is a review technique known to be efficient at identifying defects but, like any other review technique, it does not guarantee that all defects are found. Requirements documents are also used as input for the measurement of the software size for estimation purposes; when carrying this measurement process, practitioners have often noticed defects in the requirements.

This paper reports on a research project investigating the contribution of the measurers in finding defects in requirements documents. More specifically, this paper describes an experiment where the same requirements document was inspected by a number of inspectors as well as by a number of measurers; the number and types of defects found by both inspectors and measurers are compared and discussed. For this experiment, the measurers used the COSMIC – ISO 19761 to measure the functional size and find defects. Results show significant increase in defects identification when both inspection and functional size measurement are used to find and report defects.

Keywords

Functional requirements COSMIC FSM Functional size measurement inspection review 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    IEEE Computer Society, IEEE-Std-830-1998, IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements SpeciÞcations, New York, NY (June 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiegers, K.: Peer Reviews in Doftware: A Practical Guide. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilb, T., Graham, D.: Software Inspections, pp. 13–20. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abran, A., et al.: COSMIC-FFP Measurement manual: the COSMIC implementation guide for ISO/IEC 19761:2003, version 2.2, Common Software Measurement International Consortium (January 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 19761:2003, Software engineering – COSMIC-FFP – A functional size measurement method (February 2003) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arlow, J., Neustadt, I.: UML 2 and the Unified Process, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trudel, S., Lavoie, J.M.: uObserve Software Specification. École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    GÉLOG, COSMIC Entry Level Practitioners Certificate Holders, http://www.gelog.etsmtl.ca/cosmic-ffp/entry_level_holders.html
  9. 9.
    Trudel, S.: Software Inspections Workshop. CRIM, Montreal, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Canadian Department of National Defence, Defect type definitions (unpublished)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stewart, R., Priven, L.: Revitalizing Software Inspections, presented at the Montreal Software Process Improvement Network (SPIN), Canada (February 6, 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie Trudel
    • 1
  • Alain Abran
    • 2
  1. 1.CRIM/R&DMontrealCanada
  2. 2.École de Technologie Supérieure – Université du Québec/Dept. of Software Engineering and Information TechnologiesMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations