A Novel Checklist: Comparison of CBR and PBR to Inspect Use Case Specification | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Novel Checklist: Comparison of CBR and PBR to Inspect Use Case Specification

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Requirements Engineering in the Big Data Era

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 558))

Abstract

High quality and cost effective software development entails early detection of errors from requirement specification artifact/s. For this purpose, various inspection techniques have been presented to identify requirement specification errors. In most reported studies, comparison of two commonly used inspection techniques CBR (Checklist Based Reading) and PBR (Perspective Based Reading) had been conducted to identify defects from the UCS (Use Case Specification); however no comparison was done based on IEEE STD 830-1998 defects’ types. Therefore, a novel checklist was developed to identify the IEEE STD 830-1998 specified defects’ types namely Ambiguousness, Incorrectness, Inconsistency and Incompleteness from UCS, a major contribution of this research. This developed checklist was later validated to be utilized during this experimental research. In this study, a quasi-experiment was conducted with industrial professionals to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of CBR and PBR using the developed checklist to inspect the UCS that was specified in Use Case 2.0 format. The result of this research showed significant difference between CBR and PBR, i.e. PBR found more defects for all defects’ types compared to the CBR technique, but CBR reported less False Positive defects by applying the developed checklist for all defects’ types. It was also proved that CBR is more efficient (time based) than PBR for all defects’ types. These findings will provide guidelines to industry practitioners for the selection of an inspection technique based on effectiveness, efficiency and false positive ratio for a particular type of defect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 5719
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 7149
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering. system 5, 47B (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Trochim, W.M., Donnelly, J.P.: Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog/Cengage Learning, Mason, OH (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rolland, C., Achour, C.B.: Guiding the construction of textual use case specifications. Data Knowl. Eng. 25(1), 125–160 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Boehm, B., Basili, V.R.: Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List, Softw. Eng. Barry W Boehms Lifetime Contrib. Softw. Dev. Manag. Res., 69(1), 75 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aurum, A., Petersson, H., Wohlin, C.: State-of-the-art: software inspections after 25 years. Softw. Test. Verification Reliab. 12(3), 133–154 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fagan, M.E.: Advances in software inspections. In: Pioneers and Their Contributions to Software Engineering, Springer, pp. 335–360 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gilb, T., Graham, D., Finzi, S.: Software inspection. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 35–46 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Neill, C.J., Laplante, P.A.: Requirements engineering: the state of the practice. Softw. IEEE 20(6), 40–45 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacobson, I.: Object-oriented software engineering: a use case driven approach. Pearson Education India (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual 1998, Harlow Addison-Wesley (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lange, C.F., Chaudron, M.R.: Effects of defects in UML models: an experimental investigation. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 401–411 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Somé, S.S.: Supporting use case based requirements engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 48(1), 43–58 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. I.C.S.S.E.S. Committee, I. Electronics Engineers, and I.-S. S. Board: IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications: approved June 25 1998, vol. 830. IEEE (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Basili, V.R., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Sørumgård, S., Zelkowitz, M.V.: The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empir. Softw. Eng. 1(2), 133–164 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ciolkowski, M.: S.E.G.S. mit Generischen, Empirical investigation of perspective-based reading: A replicated experiment. Fraunhofer-IESE (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Berling, T., Runeson, P.: Evaluation of a perspective based review method applied in an industrial setting, IEE Proc.-Softw., 150(3), 177–184 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cockburn, A.: Writing effective use cases, vol. 1. Addison-Wesley Boston (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lanubile, F., Mallardo, T., Calefato, F., Denger, C., Ciolkowski, M.: Assessing the impact of active guidance for defect detection: a replicated experiment, In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics 2004, pp. 269–278 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lanubile, F., Visaggio, G.: Evaluating defect detection techniques for software requirements inspections, ISERN Rep. No 00-08 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Halling, M., Biffl, S., Grechenig, T., Kohle, M.: Using reading techniques to focus inspection performance, In: Proceedings of the 27th Euromicro Conference 2001, pp. 248–257 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Anda, B., Hansen, K., Sand, G.: An investigation of use case quality in a large safety-critical software development project. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(12), 1699–1711 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Denger, C., Ciolkowski, M., Lanubile, F.: Does active guidance improve software inspections? A preliminary empirical study. In: Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering (SE) (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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. Softw. Eng. 18(11), 943–956 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Krogstie, J.: A semiotic approach to quality in requirements specifications. In: Organizational Semiotics, Springer, pp. 231–249 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Adolph, U.S., Bramble, P., Cockburn, A., Pols, A.: Patterns for effective use cases. Addison-Wesley Professional (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Achour, C.B., Rolland, C., Maiden, N.A.M., Souveyet, C.: Guiding use case authoring: Results of an empirical study. In: Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering 1999, pp. 36–43 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Denger, C., Paech, B.: An Integrated Quality Assurance Approach for Use Case Based Requirements. In: Modellierung, pp. 59–74 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sandahl, K., Blomkvist, O., Karlsson, J., Krysander, C., Lindvall, M., Ohlsson, N.: An extended replication of an experiment for assessing methods for software requirements inspections. Empir. Softw. Eng. 3(4), 327–354 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shull, F., Rus, I., Basili, V.: How perspective-based reading can improve requirements inspections. Computer 33(7), 73–79 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Halling, M., Biffl, S., Grechenig, T., Kohle, M.: Using reading techniques to focus inspection performance. In: Proceedings of the 27th Euromicro Conference 2001, pp. 248–257 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Anda, B., Sjøberg, D.I.: Towards an inspection technique for use case models. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering, pp. 127–134 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cox, K., Aurum, A., Jeffery, R.: An experiment in inspecting the quality of use case descriptions. J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol. 36(4), 211–229 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Phalp, K.T., Vincent, J., Cox, K.: Assessing the quality of use case descriptions. Softw. Qual. J. 15(1), 69–97 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brykczynski, B.: A survey of software inspection checklists. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 24(1), 82 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Laitenberger, O., Vegas, S., Ciolkowoski, M.: The state of the practice of review and inspection technologies in germany, Tech Report Number: ViSEK/011/E (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Thelin, T., Runeson, P., Wohlin, C.: An experimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(8), 687–704 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Thelin, T., Runeson, P., Wohlin, C.: Prioritized use cases as a vehicle for software inspections. Softw. IEEE 20(4), 30–33 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fogelström, N.D., Gorschek, T.: Test-case driven versus checklist-based inspections of software requirements–an experimental evaluation. In: WER07-Workshop em Engenharia de Requisitos, pp. 116–126. Toronto, Canada (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Belgamo, A., Fabbri, S., Maldonado, J.C.: TUCCA: improving the effectiveness of use case construction and requirement analysis. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering 2005, p. 10 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bernardez, B., Genero, M., Duran, A., Toro, M.: A controlled experiment for evaluating a metric-based reading technique for requirements inspection. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics 2004, pp. 257–268 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Asma Naveed & Naveed Ikram

  2. Ibn-e-Sina Empirical Software Engineering Lab, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Naveed Ikram

  3. Foundation University Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

    Asma Naveed

Authors
  1. Asma Naveed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naveed Ikram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naveed Ikram .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Lin Liu

  2. Dept, of Software Engineering, Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan

    Mikio Aoyama

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Naveed, A., Ikram, N. (2015). A Novel Checklist: Comparison of CBR and PBR to Inspect Use Case Specification. In: Liu, L., Aoyama, M. (eds) Requirements Engineering in the Big Data Era. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 558. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48634-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48634-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-48633-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-48634-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation