Investigating a Distributed and Scalable Model Review Process

• Main Authors: Dietmar Winkler, Marcos Kalinowski, Marta Sabou, Sanja Petrovic, Stefan Biffl
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Centro Latinoamericano de Estudios en Informática 2018-04-01
• Series: CLEI Electronic Journal
• Online Access: http://www.clei.org/cleiej-beta/index.php/cleiej/article/view/79

[Context] Models play an important role in Software and Systems Engineering processes. Reviews are well-established methods for model quality assurance that support early and efficient defect detection. However, traditional document-based review processes have limitations with respect to the number of experts, resources, and the document size that can be applied. [Objective] In this paper, we introduce a distributed and scalable review process for model quality assurance to (a) improve defect detection effectiveness and (b) to increase review artifact coverage. [Method] We introduce the novel concept of Expected Model Elements (EMEs) as a key concept for defect detection. EMEs can be used to drive the review process. We adapt a best-practice review process to distinguish (a) between the identification of EMEs in the reference document and (b) the use of EMEs to detect defects in the model. We design and evaluate the adapted review process with a crowdsourcing tool in a feasibility study. [Results] The study results show the feasibility of the adapted review process. Further, the study showed that inspectors using the adapted review process achieved results for defect detection effectiveness, which are comparable to the performance of inspectors using a traditional inspection process, and better defect detection efficiency. Moreover, from a practical perspective the adapted review process can be used to complement inspection efforts conducted using the traditional inspection process, enhancing the overall defect detection effectiveness. [Conclusions] Although the study shows promising results of the novel process, future investigations should consider larger and more diverse review artifacts and the effect of using limited and different scopes of artifact coverage for individual inspectors.