James Perpich

dblp:17/4038 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Software maintenance and evolution · 77% Empirical software engineering · 23%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
software inspection
0.012002
Reducing Inspection Interval in Large-Scale Software Development · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002
Software maintenance and evolution › code review
code inspection
0.011997
Anywhere, Anytime Code Inspections: Using the Web to Remove Inspection Bottlenecks in Large-Scale Software Development · ICSE 1997
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.012002
Reducing Inspection Interval in Large-Scale Software Development · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

tool support · 0.0empirical study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Reducing Inspection Interval in Large-Scale Software Development
abstract
We have found that, when software is developed by multiple, geographically separated teams, the cost-benefit trade-offs of software inspection change. In particular, this situation can significantly lengthen the inspection interval (calendar time needed to complete an inspection). Our research goal was to find a way to reduce the inspection interval without reducing inspection effectiveness. We believed that Internet technology offered some potential solutions, but we were not sure which technology to use nor what effects it would have on effectiveness. To conduct this research, we drew on the results of several empirical studies we had previously performed. These results clarified the role that meetings and individuals play in inspection effectiveness and interval. We conducted further studies showing that manual inspections without meetings were just as effective as manual inspections with them. On the basis of these and other findings and our understanding of Internet technology, we built an economical and effective tool that reduced the interval without reducing effectiveness. This tool, Hypercode, supports meetingless software inspections with geographically distributed reviewers. HyperCode is a platform-independent tool, developed on top of an Internet browser, that integrates seamlessly into the current development process. By seamless, we mean the tool produces a paper flow that is almost identical to the current inspection process. HyperCode's acceptance by its user community has been excellent. Moreover, we estimate that using HyperCode has reduced the inspection interval by 20 to 25 percent. We believe that, had we focused solely on technology (without considering the information our studies had uncovered), we would have created a more complex, but not necessarily more effective tool. We probably would have supported group meetings, restricted each participant's access to review comments, and supported a wider variety of inspection methods. In other words, the principles derived from our empirical studies dramatically and successfully directed our search for a technological solution.
Dewayne E. Perry, Adam A. Porter, Michael W. Wade, Lawrence G. Votta, James Perpich
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.5
1997 Anywhere, Anytime Code Inspections: Using the Web to Remove Inspection Bottlenecks in Large-Scale Software Development
abstract
and the time savings from the reduction in distribution interval of the inspection package (sometimes involving international mailings) have been substantial.These savings together with the seamless integration into the existing environment are the major factors for this acceptance.From our viewpoint as experimentalists, the acceptance came too readily.Therefore we lost our opportunity to explore this tool using a series of controlled experiments to isolate the underlying factors or its effectiveness.Nevertheless, by using historical data we can show that the new process is less expensive in terms of cost and at least as effective in terms of quality (defect detection effectiveness).
James Perpich, Dewayne E. Perry, Adam A. Porter, Lawrence G. Votta, Michael W. Wade
ICSE1