Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
What can you deduce if the rate of fault detection during design inspection doubles?
What can you deduce if the rate of fault detection during design inspection doubles?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

What can you deduce if the rate of fault detection during design inspection doubles?


Published on

Object oriented analysis and design

Object oriented analysis and design

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. What can you deduce if the rate of fault detection during design inspection doubles? Ans:Statement: Fault detection in design inspection doubles the quality and reliability of products, increases the implementation and testing time, and makes a loss in a business. Elaboration: Michael Fagan developed the formal software inspection process at IBM in the mid-1970s, hence the term "Fagan inspection." Fagan inspections are thoroughly discussed in Software Inspection by Tom Gilb and Dorothy Graham (Addison-Wesley, 1993). To qualify as a true inspection, the activity follows a specified process and the participants play well-defined roles. An inspection team consists of 3-8 members: Moderator, Author, Reader, Recorder and Inspector. A formal inspection consists of several activities: 1. Planning:The moderator selects the inspection team, obtains materials to be inspected from the author, and distributes them and any other relevant documents to the inspection team in advance. 2. Overview meeting:This meeting gives the author an opportunity to describe the important features of the product to the inspection team. 3. Preparation: Each participant is responsible for examining the work artifacts prior to the actual inspection meeting, noting any defects found or issues to be raised. 4. Inspection meeting: During this session, the team convenes and is led through the work product by the moderator and reader. 5. Casual Analysis: It can lead to improved quality on future work by helping to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. 6. Rework:The author is responsible for resolving all issues raised during the inspection. This does not necessarily mean making every change that was suggested, but an explicit decision must be made about how each issue or defect will be dealt with. 7. Follow-up:To verify that the necessary rework has been performed properly, the moderator is responsible for following up with the author. Exemplification: In 2011, Toyota; one of the famous company in Japan , recall about 235,000 vehicles in the United States, including about 133,000 Lexus and Toyota hybrids, for a loss of power or stalling .
  • 2. Illustration: Toyota got some problems in their car in 2011, which is about lacking of proper implementation and testing by the company in their products. This error makes a loss in business for Toyota Company, returning cars from different sales room from different states of USA and returning back to the company increases their amount of loss, implementation time and testing phase too. Due to this example, we can compare it with any software product also, if the software teams got some error in design phase and then they did not solved it in the same phase, then they have to tolerate that error in the next phases too.