Cost Effectiveness of Software Defect Prediction in an Industrial Project

Open access


Software defect prediction is a promising approach aiming to increase software quality and, as a result, development pace. Unfortunately, the cost effectiveness of software defect prediction in industrial settings is not eagerly shared by the pioneering companies. In particular, this is the first attempt to investigate the cost effectiveness of using the DePress open source software measurement framework (jointly developed by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, and Capgemini software development company) for defect prediction in commercial software projects. We explore whether defect prediction can positively impact an industrial software development project by generating profits. To meet this goal, we conducted a defect prediction and simulated potential quality assurance costs based on the best possible prediction results when using a default, non-tweaked DePress configuration, as well as the proposed Quality Assurance (QA) strategy. Results of our investigation are optimistic: we estimated that quality assurance costs can be reduced by almost 30% when the proposed approach will be used, while estimated DePress usage Return on Investment (ROI) is fully 73 (7300%), and Benefits Cost Ratio (BCR) is 74. Such promising results, being the outcome of the presented research, have caused the acceptance of continued usage of the DePress-based software defect prediction for actual industrial projects run by Volvo Group.

[1] Arisholm, E., Briand, L.C., Johannessen, E.B.: A Systematic and Comprehensive Investigation of Methods to Build and Evaluate Fault Prediction Models. The Journal of Systems and Software 83(1), 2–17 (2010)

[2] Atlassian: JIRA Homepage (2016),, accessed: 2016.01.06

[3] Bell, T.E., Thayer, T.A.: Software requirements: Are they really a problem? In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering. pp. 61–68. IEEE Computer Society Press (1976)

[4] Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Computers 25(12), 1226–1241 (1976)

[5] Boissier, G., Cassell, K.: Eclipse Metrics 2 Homepage (2016),, accessed: 2016.01.06

[6] Endres, A., Rombach, D.: A Handbook of Software and Systems Engineering. Addison-Wesley (2003)

[7] Hall, T., Beecham, S., Bowes, D., Gray, D., Counsell, S.: A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38(6), 1276–1304 (2012)

[8] Hryszko, J., Madeyski, L.: Bottlenecks in Software Defect Prediction Implementation in Industrial Projects. Foundations and Computing and Decision Sciences 40(1), 17–33 (2015),, DOI: 10.1515/fcds-2015-0002

[9] Hryszko, J., Madeyski, L.: Assessment of the Software Defect Prediction Cost Effectiveness in an Industrial Project. In: Software Engineering: Challenges and Solutions, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 504, pp. 77–90. Springer (2017), DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-43606-7_6

[10] Jureczko, M., Madeyski, L.: Towards Identifying Software Project Clusters with Regard to Defect Prediction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering. pp. 9:1–9:10. PROMISE ’10, ACM, New York, USA (2010),, DOI: 10.1145/1868328.1868342

[11] Jureczko, M., Madeyski, L.: A Review of Process Metrics in Defect Prediction Studies. Metody Informatyki Stosowanej 30(5), 133–145 (2011),

[12] Jureczko, M., Madeyski, L.: Cross–project defect prediction with respect to code ownership model: An empirical study. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal 9(1), 21–35 (2015),, DOI: 10.5277/e-Inf150102

[13] Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B., Hudepohl, J.P., Aud, S.J.: Application of Neural Networks To Software Quality Modelling Of a Very Large Telecommunications System. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 8(4), 902–909 (1997)

[14] Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Pandya, A.S., Lanning, D.L.: Application of Neural Networks for Predicting Faults. Annals of Software Engineering 1(1), 141–154 (1995)

[15] Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Seliya, N.: Comparative Assessment of Software Quality Classification Techniques: An Empirical Case Study. Empirical Software Engineering 9(3), 229–257 (2004)

[16] Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Seliya, N.: Assessment of a New Three-Group Software Quality Classification Technique: An Empirical Case Study. Empirical Software Engineering 10(2), 183–218 (2005)

[17] Kläs, M., Nakao, H., Elberzhager, F., Münch, J.: Predicting Defect Content and Quality Assurance Effectiveness by Combining Expert Judgment and Defect Data-A Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. pp. 17–26 (2008)

[18] KNIME.COM AG: KNIME Framework Documentation (2016),, accessed: 2016.11.06

[19] Li, P.L., Herbsleb, J., Shaw, M., Robinson, B.: Experiences and Results from Initiating Field Defect Prediction and Product Test Prioritization Efforts at ABB Inc. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. 413–422 (2006)

[20] Madeyski, L., Jureczko, M.: Which Process Metrics Can Significantly Improve Defect Prediction Models? An Empirical Study. Software Quality Journal 23(3), 393–422 (2015),, DOI: 10.1007/s11219-014-9241-7

[21] Madeyski, L., Majchrzak, M.: Software Measurement and Defect Prediction with DePress Extensible Framework. Foundations and Computing and Decision Sciences 39(4), 249–270 (2014),, DOI: 10.2478/fcds-2014-0014

[22] Madeyski, L., Majchrzak, M.: ImpressiveCode DePress (Defect Prediction for software systems) Extensible Framework (2016),

[23] Menzies, T., Jalali, O., Hihn, J., Baker, D., Lum, K.: Stable Rankings for Different Effort Models. Automated Software Engineering 17(4), 409–437 (2010)

[24] Monden, A., Shinoda, S., Shirai, K., Yoshida, J., Barker, M., Matsumoto, K.: Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Fault Prediction in Acceptance Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39(10), 1345–1357 (2013)

[25] Moser, R., Pedrycz, W., Succi, G.: A Comparative Analysis of The Efficiency of Change Metrics and Static Code Attributes for Defect Prediction. In: Software Engineering, 2008. ICSE ’08. ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on. pp. 181–190 (2008)

[26] Müller, M.M., Padberg, F.: About the Return on Investment of Test-Driven Development. In: International Workshop on Economics-Driven Software Engineering Research EDSER-5. pp. 26–31 (2003)

[27] Munson, J.C., Khoshgoftaar, T.M.: The Detection of Fault-Prone Programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(5), 423–433 (1992)

[28] Oracle Corporation: Java EE Homepage (2016),, accessed: 2016.01.06

[29] Ostrand, T.J., Weyuker, E.J.: The Distribution of Faults in a Large Industrial Software System. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 27, 55–64 (2002)

[30] Ostrand, T.J., Weyuker, E.J., Bell, R.M.: Predicting the Location and Number of Faults in Large Software Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(4), 340–355 (2005)

[31] Ostrand, T.J., Weyuker, E.J., Bell, R.M.: Programmer-Based Fault Prediction. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering. pp. 1–10 (2010)

[32] Pendharkar, P.C.: Exhaustive and Heuristic Search Approaches For Learning a Software Defect Prediction Model. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 23, 34–40 (2010)

[33] Pressman, R.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill (2010)

[34] Rahman, F., Sammer, K., Barr, E.T., Devanbu, P.: Comparing Static Bug Finders and Statistical Prediction. In: Software Engineering, 2014. ICSE ’14. ACM/IEEE International Conference on. ACM (2014)

[35] Rijsbergen, C.J.V.: Information Retrieval. Butterworth-Heinemann Newton (1979)

[36] Rizwan, M., Iqbal, M.: Application of 80/20 Rule in Software Engineering Waterfall Model. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies ‘09 (2009)

[37] Sauer, F.: Eclipse Metrics Homepage (2016),, accessed: 2016.01.06

[38] Selby, R.W., Porter, A.: Learning from Examples: Generation and Evaluation of Decision Trees for Software Resource Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(12), 1743–1756 (1988)

[39] Slaughter, S.A., Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S.: Evaluating The Cost of Software Quality. Communications of the ACM 41(8), 67–73 (1998)

[40] Source of Information on Salaries in Poland (2015),, accessed: 2015.02.28

[41] Succi, G., Pedrycz, W., Stefanovic, M., Miller, J.: Practical Assessment of the Models for Identification of Defect-Prone Classes in Object-Oriented Commercial Systems Using Design Metrics. Journal of Systems and Software 65(1), 1–12 (2003)

[42] The Apache Foundation: Apache Maven Homepage (2016),, accessed: 2016.01.06

[43] The Apache Foundation: Apache Subversion Homepage (2016),, accessed: 2016.01.06

[44] The Eclipse Foundation: Eclipse IDE Homepage (2016),, accessed: 2016.01.06

[45] Tosun, A., Bener, A., Turhan, B., Menzies, T.: Practical Considerations in Deploying Statistical Methods for Defect Prediction: A Case Study within the Turkish Telecommunications Industry. Information and Software Technology 52(11), 1242–1257 (2010)

[46] Tosun, A., Turhan, B., Bener, A.: Practical Considerations in Deploying AI for Defect Prediction: A Case Study within the Turkish Telecommunication Industry. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering. p. 11 (2009)

[47] Turhan, B., Kocak, G., Bener, A.: Data Mining Source Code for Locating Software Bugs: A Case Study in Telecommunication Industry. Expert Systems with Applications 36(6), 9986–9990 (2009)

[48] Turhan, B., Menzies, T., Bener, A., Stefano, J.D.: On the Relative Value of Cross-Company and within-Company Data for Defect Prediction. Empirical Software Engineering 14(5), 540–578 (2009)

[49] Witten, I.H., Frank, E., Hall, M.A.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann (2005)

[50] Wong, W.E., Horgan, J., Syring, M., Zage, W., Zage, D.: Applying Design Metrics to Predict Fault-Proneness: A Case Study on a Large-Scale Software System. Software: Practice and Experience 30(14), 1587–1608 (2000)

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences

The Journal of Poznan University of Technology

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.82

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.212
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.523

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2017: 0.02


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 288 288 24
PDF Downloads 163 163 19