Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

- Defect removal effectiveness by Roy Antony Arnold G 3712 views
- Wipro Mobility Testing Presentation by Wipro Technologies 1858 views
- Rayleigh model by Roy Antony Arnold G 5014 views
- Testing in agile is it easier sai... by Archana Joshi 565 views
- Sueño de amor by yurisa15 204 views
- Rall performance measures_tcs 2015 by TREC at PSU 176 views

4,617 views

Published on

License: CC Attribution License

No Downloads

Total views

4,617

On SlideShare

0

From Embeds

0

Number of Embeds

30

Shares

0

Downloads

90

Comments

0

Likes

1

No embeds

No notes for slide

- 1. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Overview Asking quality questions Defect removal efficiency (DRE, CDRE) Weighted DRE (DREw, CDREw) Demo Answering quality questions 1
- 2. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Asking Quality Questions How good was our testing? How good is our software? 2
- 3. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Cumulative Defect Removal Efficiency (Simple Method) “Cumulative defect removal efficiency = defects found before release defects found before and after release By this formula, if 100 defects are found in a program during its entire life -- in both development and in production -- and 90 of the defects are found before release, then the cumulative defect removal efficiency is considered to be 90 percent.” -- T.C. Jones, IBM Systems Journal, 1978
- 4. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Work-In-Process Defect Removal Efficiency defects found prior test defects found prior and current test How good was my testing? WIP DRE is retrospective.
- 5. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 A DRE by Any Other Name Defect Removal Effectiveness Defect Fix Percentage Defect Detection Effectiveness Defect Detection Percentage Defect Detection Rate 5
- 6. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 What are Actual DREs? -- data from table by Capers Jones, CrossTalk, 2008 6
- 7. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 What are Actual CDREs? < 80% 80-85% 85-90% 90-95% 95-99% >99% -- based on Capers Jones data published 2008 by ITMPI 7
- 8. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Jones’ Simplifying Assumptions All detection methods are equivalent All fixes are good and singular All defect causes are equivalent * All defects are equivalent -- T.C. Jones, IBM Systems Journal, 1978 8
- 9. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Defect Detection CRITICAL X MAJOR X MINOR COSMETIC INCONSEQUENTIAL Development CRITICAL MAJOR MINOR X COSMETIC X INCONSEQUENTIAL
- 10. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Work In Process Calculations WIP DRE 67% CRITICAL X MAJOR X MINOR X COSMETIC INCONSEQUENTIAL Development Acceptance CRITICAL MAJOR X MINOR X COSMETIC X INCONSEQUENTIAL WIP DRE 67%
- 11. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 WIP DRE becomes DRE WIP DRE 50% WIP DRE 50% CRITICAL X MAJOR X MINOR X COSMETIC X INCONSEQUENTIAL Development Acceptance Production CRITICAL X MAJOR X MINOR X COSMETIC X INCONSEQUENTIAL WIP DRE 50% WIP DRE 50% With Production counts, WIP DRE becomes DRE
- 12. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Cumulative Defect Removal Efficiency (CDRE) DRE 50% DRE 50% CRITICAL X MAJOR X CDRE 75% MINOR X COSMETIC X INCONSEQUENTIAL Development Acceptance Production CRITICAL X MAJOR X MINOR X COSMETIC X CDRE 75% INCONSEQUENTIAL DRE 50% DRE 50%
- 13. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Are these test results equivalent ????? CRITICAL X MAJOR X MINOR X COSMETIC X INCONSEQUENTIAL Development Acceptance Production CRITICAL X MAJOR X MINOR X COSMETIC X INCONSEQUENTIAL
- 14. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Severity Weighting “Obviously, it is important to measure defect severity levels as well as recording numbers of defects.” -- T. Capers Jones, 2008 15
- 15. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Weighted Defect Removal Effectiveness (DREw) Critical x 5 Major x 4 Minor x 3 Cosmetic x 2 Inconsequential x 1 Keep It Simple! (or use quantified potential business impact)
- 16. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Weighted Defect Removal Effectiveness (DREw) DREw 75% CRITICAL 5 MAJOR 4 MINOR 3 COSMETIC INCONSEQUENTIAL 9/12 5/9 CRITICAL MAJOR 4 MINOR 3 COSMETIC 2 INCONSEQUENTIAL DREw 56%
- 17. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Weighted Defect Removal Effectiveness (DREw) DREw 60% CRITICAL MAJOR MINOR 3 COSMETIC 2 INCONSEQUENTIAL 3/5 4/9 CRITICAL 5 MAJOR 4 MINOR COSMETIC INCONSEQUENTIAL DREw 44%
- 18. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Cumulative DREw (CDREw) CRITICAL 5 CDREw 86% MAJOR 4 MINOR 3 COSMETIC 2 INCONSEQUENTIAL 12/14 9/14 CRITICAL 5 MAJOR 4 MINOR 3 COSMETIC 2 CDREw 64% INCONSEQUENTIAL
- 19. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Why Measure Work-In-Process Testing? Consistent WIP DRE lends predictive value for product reliability from a stable process Consistent (WIP) DREw lends predictive value for product releasability from a stable process 20
- 20. IBM Rational Software Conference 2009 Answering Quality Questions Critical Major How good was our testing? Minor Cosmetic Weighted Total How good is our software? Dev Int QA Alpha Beta Prod 21

No public clipboards found for this slide

×
### Save the most important slides with Clipping

Clipping is a handy way to collect and organize the most important slides from a presentation. You can keep your great finds in clipboards organized around topics.

Be the first to comment