International Workshops on Global Software Development 2002, 2003

1. International Workshops on Global Software Development 2002, 2003 V. Ajanovski, A. Misev Institute of Informatics Faculty of Nat. Science and Mathematics Skopje, Macedonia

2. The workshops • International Workshop on Global Software Development, ICSE 2002, Orlando, Florida, USA, May 21, 2002 • International Workshop on Global Software Development ICSE Workshop: A co-located event at ICSE 2003, May 9th, 2003, Portland, Oregon, USA

3. The past • Natural extension to the “Software Engineering over the Internet” workshops (98, 99, 2000, 2001). • Intends to provide a forum for discussion • of the problems of software development in geographically distributed structures • of the factors that contribute to the success or failure of virtual corporations, and • to ways in which Internet technologies can be used to overcome current problems.

4. The focus • A major focus is on empirical studies of global software development practices and of methods and technologies employed to overcome geographical and cultural differences in multi-site projects. • Discuss how standard software engineering practicecan benefit from open-source approaches and vice-versa.

5. The people • 2002 • Daniela Damian, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia • Frank Maurer, University of Calgary, Canada • Nigamanth Sridhar, Ohio State University, USA • 2003 • Daniela Damian, University of Victoria, Canada • Filippo Lanubile, University of Bari, Italy • Heather L. Oppenheimer, Lucent Technologies, USA

6. The topics • Tools to support Global Software Development (GSD) • GSD and requirements engineering • Software inspections in GSD • Project management for GSD • Point-to-point organized GSD • Empirical studies and reports in GSD

7. Software inspections in GSD • 2003 • Bianchi A., Caivano D., Lanubile F. and Visaggio G.: "Defect Detection in a Distributed Software Maintenance Project" • 2002 • Hedberg H. and Harjumaa L.: "Virtual software inspections for distributed software engineering projects" • Lanubile F. and Mallardo T. D.: "Preliminary evaluation of tool-based support for distributed inspection" • 2001 • Hazeyama A. and Nakano A.: "Web-based Inspection Process Support Environment for Software Engineering Education" • Caivano D., Lanubile F. and Visaggio G.:"Scaling up Distributed Software Inspections"

8. Software inspections in GSD(2) • 2000 • Harjumaa L. and Tervonen I.: "Virtual Software Inspections over the Internet" • Kudo Y., Hirai C., Furuhata Y., Watanabe T. and Ohno O.:"A Review-Report-Oriented Knowledge-Management System" • 1999 • None • 1998 • Konno S., Tanaka, Ohno T.: "A Web-based Document Review System"

9. 1998Konno S., Tanaka, Ohno T.: "A Web-based Document Review System" • The paper describes a prototype of a web-based document review system • The system uses a tree view to display discussion flows at the titles of all chapters and sections. So reviewers can easily: • understand the structure of these discussions • refer to data about discussions at every chapter and section • The system establishes relationships between discussion processes and titles • members can refer to and record processes and rationales involved in reaching conclusions by reading and making comments in the discussion flow • The system automatically generates lists consisting of points and conclusions at the review time • the members can therefore easily identify unresolved issues by referring to this list

10. 2000Harjumaa L. and Tervonen I.: "Virtual Software Inspections over the Internet" • Refinement of the traditional inspection process • Tailored for the Web • Tools • WiT (Web Inspection Tool) • Represents and helps inspection process in full • Reviews can be made over HTML documents • One part of the screen shows the inspected document, while other part lists the checklist the inspectors should use for the document • At the same time, another windows makes it possible to annote problems. These annotations are linked to a specific checklist point and also marks severity. • Annotations are presented with special markers inside the reviewed document using color to depict the severity of the problematic part. • Inspection workflow is controlled via e-mail notifications of actions to be taken. • Inspection Window • Review is time-limited (interval set by the moderator) • The whole process is shrinked and looks the same as the public phase of WiT. • Useful for development teams working in a fast pace, not having time for full inspection process

11. 2000Kudo Y., Hirai C., Furuhata Y., Watanabe T. and Ohno O.:"A Review-Report-Oriented Knowledge-Management System" • The paper discusses a spiral process through data mining in the problem space, designing models, reviewing and reporting • The presented knowledge-management systems has two main components • Review report database • Subject, Sub-subject • Title, Date, Reviewers, Outline, Contents and • Referals to documents • Search system • Find reviews based on given key and arranged in a tree - grouping reviews per subject and sub-subject • Review item coverage report • number of reviews per item and • total coverage rate

12. 2001Hazeyama A. and Nakano A.: "Web-based Inspection Process Support Environment for Software Engineering Education" The presented environment allows: • Creating project groups or team groups • Creating list of artifacts of the the group for inspection by uploading the relevant documents and marking artifacts for inspection • Each groups' artifacts can be reviewed by one or more inspectors • The inspector is informed of new artifacts on the list for inspection for each group • The inspector can download the associated documents and put comments on them into the system • The inspector can mark the artifacts for re-inspection, in order to be invited for an re-inspection after the initial corrections are made • The inspector can access tools that monitor the overall process • Since the support for re-inspection, a simplified version and configuration management system is implemented - taking into account the version of the artifact that is currently inspected

13. 2001Caivano D., Lanubile F. and Visaggio G.:"Scaling up Distributed Software Inspections" • The system presented in this paper builds over Sauer et al. proposal of an alternative design which mainly consists of replacing the preparation and meeting phases of the classical inspection process with three new sequential phases: defect discovery, defect collection and defect discrimination. • The modification is enabling work by parallel inspectors at different time. • The paper only presents a global overview of the system, not going into details.

14. 2002Hedberg H. and Harjumaa L.: "Virtual software inspections for distributed software engineering projects" • The problems of software inspection in GSD • The need for new methods • Virtual software inspections • Tools to support virtual software inspections • Flexibility • Interoperability with project management tools • XATI tool – XML and web browser based tool to assist virtual software inspections

15. 2002Lanubile F. and Mallardo T. D.: "Preliminary evaluation of tool-based support for distributed inspection" • The traditional software inspections • a phased process to follow (e.g., planning, overview, preparation, meeting, rework, follow-up); • roles performed by peers during review (e.g., moderator, author, recorder, reader, and inspector); • a reading toolset to guide the review activity (e.g., defect taxonomies, product checklists, or scenario-based reading techniques); • forms and report templates to collect product and process data.

16. A new tool, IBIS (Internet-Based Inspection System), inspections based on a restructured inspection process to reduce synchronization and coordination problems. XML and web based tool, adopts a lightweight approach to achieve the maximum of simplicity of use and deployment. 2002Lanubile F. and Mallardo T.D.: "Preliminary evaluation of tool-based support for distributed inspection" (2)

17. 2003Bianchi A., Caivano D., Lanubile F. and Visaggio G.: "Defect Detection in a Distributed Software Maintenance Project" • A case study for validation and verification in a distributed software maintenance project • Issues • Strategic • Cultural • Inadequate communications • Knowledge management • Project and process management • Technical • The software: large banking system with a Y2K problem

18. 2003Bianchi A., Caivano D., Lanubile F. and Visaggio G.: "Defect Detection in a Distributed Software Maintenance Project" (2) • The drawback: distributed in only 2 locations, same company in the same country, no more than 300km apart • The results: • No significant changes with respect to traditional maintenance • Adequate management of the strategic, cultural, and technical issues in order to make effective the distribution of software process.

19. Conclusion • There are several tools for inspection management presented in these papers and all of them are Web based • The tools increase flexibility of the overall process allowing inspectors to work at their own pace • It can be said that tools converge in two groups • Simplified document management tools and databases • only gather information on whole documents • suitable for reviewing a large document repository, where only general reviews and remarks are important • Tools for reviewing and tracking changes inside documents • maintain annotations inside the documents and also hold different versions of the document • suitable for a smaller set of documents, where going into details (chapters, figures, tables, etc.) inside each document is important • In the case of the DAAD project, tools from the second group could be more helpful • e.g. WiT or XATI • Unfortunately these tools don't support office document types, like Powerpoint presentations, and could only be used on the exported text and lecture notes from the slides