An Analytical Comparison between Pair Development and Software Development with Inspection - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – An Analytical Comparison between Pair Development and Software Development with Inspection PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6d2edd-ZTcwO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

An Analytical Comparison between Pair Development and Software Development with Inspection

Description:

An Analytical Comparison between Pair Development and Software Development with Inspection By: Monvorath (Molly) Phongpaibul phongpai_at_usc.edu Present to: – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:11
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: Monvor
Learn more at: http://csse.usc.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: An Analytical Comparison between Pair Development and Software Development with Inspection


1
An Analytical Comparison between Pair Development
and Software Development with Inspection
  • By
  • Monvorath (Molly) Phongpaibul phongpai_at_usc.edu
  • Present to
  • USC- CSSE- ARR 2007
  • February 13, 2007

2
Content
  • Research Questions
  • Research Methodology
  • Quantitative Results
  • Conclusion
  • Future Work

3
Research Question
  • There are three main research questions
  • What are the commonalities / differences and
    relative strengths / weaknesses of each practice?
  • Under what conditions you might prefer one over
    the other?
  • Under what conditions you would merge the two
    practices?

4
Content
  • Research Objective and Approach
  • Research Methodology
  • Quantitative Results
  • Conclusion
  • Future Work

5
Pair Development (PD) Process
6
Software Cost of Quality (CoSQ) Krasner, 1998
TDC Total Development Cost
7
Activities of CoSQ
Conformance Costs Conformance Costs Non-Conformance Costs
Prevention Costs Appraisal Costs Rework Costs
Prototyping User requirement reviews Quality planning Training Reuse library Process improvements Metrics collection and analysis Quality standards Inspection / peer review Continuous review Testing Software quality assurance VV activities Quality audits Field performance trails Fixing defects Corrective rework Re-inspection, re-review, re-testing Re-design Updating documents Integration
8
Content
  • Research Objective and Approach
  • Research Methodology
  • Quantitative Results
  • Conclusion
  • Future Work

9
TDC CoSQ Results
TDC (man-hour) Production Costs (man-hour) Appraisal Costs (man-hour) Rework Costs (man-hour)
E1 (Thailand 05) PD Group 526.73 314.02 102.07 8.03
E1 (Thailand 05) FI Group 695.11 309.23 234.97 43.72
E2 (Thailand 05) PD Group 336.66 186.67 73.33 13.67
E2 (Thailand 05) FI Group 482.5 208.5 165 45
E3 (Thailand 05) PD Group 1392.9 654.2 325.7 233
E3 (Thailand 05) FI Group 1342 429 436 317
E4 (US 05) PD Group 187.54 68.16 88.83 20.05
E4 (US 05) FI Group 237.93 62.82 122.10 42.52
10
Costs VS. Quality
Team Team TDC Test Defects
E1 (Thailand 05) PD Group 526.73 4.429
E1 (Thailand 05) FI Group 695.11 5.142
E2 (Thailand 05) PD Group 336.66 0
E2 (Thailand 05) FI Group 482.5 0
E3 (Thailand 05) PD Group 1392.9 21 (11 Major)
E3 (Thailand 05) FI Group 1342 29 (18 Major)
E4 (US 06) PD Group 187.54 6.8 and 1.4
E4 (US 06) FI Group 237.93 6.5 and 2.0
11
Costs by Phase (E4)
Team Team Req. Des. Imp. Test
PD Group P1 16.05 41.75 63.73 26.65
PD Group P2 13.95 41.42 64.37 25.33
PD Group P3 16.20 35.70 66.53 27.12
PD Group P4 16.77 34.30 67.03 27.68
PD Group P5 12.40 37.92 73.03 32.05
FI Group I1 26.83 40.78 96.33 21.33
FI Group I2 22.65 41.50 90.27 35.30
FI Group I3 23.25 38.00 92.30 31.40
FI Group I4 21.70 39.37 84.83 43.98
12
Defect Type Analysis
  • Test defects were classified by Orthogonal
    Defect Classification (ODC) v.5.11
  • For requirement defects, pair development is
    better on detecting ambiguity/testability and
    correctness defects. Inspection is better on
    detecting consistency defects
  • For Design / Code defects, the weakness of pair
    development is internal and external interfaces.

13
Content
  • Research Objective and Approach
  • Research Background
  • Research Methodology
  • Quantitative Results
  • Qualitative Results
  • Conclusion
  • Future Work

14
Conclusion
  • PD offers an option of reducing the schedule.
  • PD spent less total development cost than
    inspection with the same level of quality.
  • Due to less appraisal costs and failure costs
  • Experiment provided insights on when to use pair
    development or inspections

15
Example of Pair Development Scenario
Team Size
5
0
5
5
Time to Market
Safety Criticality
16
Example of Software Development with Inspection
Scenario
Team Size
5
0
5
5
Time to Market
Safety Criticality
17
Example of Combination between Both Practices
Scenario
Team Size
5
0
5
5
Safety Criticality
Time to Market
18
Content
  • Research Objective and Approach
  • Research Background
  • Research Methodology
  • Quantitative Results
  • Qualitative Results
  • Conclusion
  • Future Work

19
Future Work
  • Simulate the Pair Development Model.
  • Develop an Extension to Ray Madachys System
    Dynamics model of inspections, to compare pair
    development and inspection dynamics and calibrate
    it to the experimental data.
  • Software development spending profiles analysis.

20
Questions Answer
  • Thank You
About PowerShow.com