Paper detail

An Industrial Experience Report on Retro-inspection

To reinforce the quality of code delivery, especially to improve future coding quality, one global Information and Communication Technology (ICT) enterprise has institutionalized a retrospective style inspection (namely retro-inspection), which is similar to Fagan inspection but differs in terms of stage, participants, etc. This paper reports an industrial case study that aims to investigate the experiences and lessons from this software practice. To this end, we collected and analyzed various empirical evidence for data triangulation. The results reflect that retro-inspection distinguishes itself from peer code review by identifying more complicated and underlying defects, providing more indicative and suggestive comments. Many experienced inspectors indicate defects together with their rationale behind and offer suggestions for correction and prevention. As a result, retro-inspection can benefit not only quality assurance (like Fagan inspection), but also internal audit, inter-division communication, and competence promotion. On the other side, we identify several lessons of retro-inspection at this stage, e.g., developers' acceptance and organizers' predicament, for next-step improvement of this practice. To be specific, some recommendations are discussed for retro-inspection, e.g., more adequate preparation and more careful publicity. This study concludes that most of the expected benefits of retro-inspection can be empirically confirmed in this enterprise and its value on the progress to continuous maturity can be recognized organization-wide. The experiences on executing this altered practice in a large enterprise provide reference value on code quality assurance to other software organizations.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.