|
Abstract
|
|
|---|---|
| Software intensive systems has taken a central place in everyday life. For instance advanced life-critical systems raging from fly-by-wire applications in modern aircrafts to wearable medical devices have on one hand the potential for immense economic and social benefit and on the other hand pose a major threat to industry, to society and to individuals. Hence the strategies to deliver dependable software has become ever so important. Inspired by the success of evidence-based medicine, Kitchenham et al. suggested the use of evidence in software engineering to enhance the dependability of software at the ICSE conference in 2004. It advocated the integration of the best of scientific results (the evidence) into the profession and decision-making process in software engineering domain. To facilitate the systematic literature reviews in software engineering, a process model was also suggested which was an analogy from medicine. It was further developed and published in 2007 as a guideline. Griman in her doctoral dissertation proposed a different process model as an alternative for the Kitchenham¿s. It intended to be more efficient, more precise and easily adopted even by a novice in software engineering research. However those claims are not yet verified by practice. Motivated by Griman¿s work, we present a critical comparison of the two systematic literature review process models, namely, Kitchenham¿s and Griman¿s to investigates their merits and criticism in terms of efficiency, appropriateness, precision and comprehensibility. Two reviews are carried out by the authors independently one using Kitchenham¿s and the other using Griman¿s. The process, results, completion time, problems faced are critically analyzed and conclusions are made. To evaluate the suitability of both models, the two reviews are compared with another review carried out by four prominent researcher in software engineering. Our experience shows that Griman¿s process is produce higher quality results, comprehensive analysis of retrieved literature and more precise guidance than Kitchenham¿s process. However it is more time intensive and still has space for improvements. | |
|
International
|
Si |
|
|
|
|
Type
|
Master |
|
Mark Rating
|
Notable |
|
Date
|
14/12/2010 |