4 isabelmargarido-2confcmmiportugal-v1-0-split

331 views

Published on

A Method to Improve the Classification of Requirements Defects - Isabel Lopes Margarido (Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto)

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
331
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

4 isabelmargarido-2confcmmiportugal-v1-0-split

  1. 1. Portugal A Method to Improve the Classification of Requirements Defects Isabel Margarido (isabel.margarido@gmail.com) Ph.D. Student Researcher Faculty of Engineering, University of PortoJoão Pascoal FariaFEUP/INESC 06-07-2012, Coimbra
  2. 2. agenda introductionIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra literature review proposal assessment conclusion 2 2/27
  3. 3. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion Explained Understood Designed Coded Sold Documented Installed Billed Supported Needed 3 3/27
  4. 4. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion v 4 4/27
  5. 5. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion v 5 5/27
  6. 6. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion v 6 6/27
  7. 7. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion 7 7/27
  8. 8. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices  Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra        8 8/27
  9. 9. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)  Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra        9 9/27
  10. 10. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD) Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra        10 10/27
  11. 11. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra        11 11/27
  12. 12. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient       12 12/27
  13. 13. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient Verification (VER)      13 13/27
  14. 14. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient Verification (VER)  SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”     14 14/27
  15. 15. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient Verification (VER)  SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”  SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”    15 15/27
  16. 16. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient Verification (VER)  SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”  SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”  SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”   16 16/27
  17. 17. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient Verification (VER)  SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”  SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”  SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”  SP 2.3 “Analyse Peer Review Data”  17 17/27
  18. 18. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient Verification (VER)  SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”  SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”  SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”  SP 2.3 “Analyse Peer Review Data” maturity level 5  18 18/27
  19. 19. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion related CMMI practices maturity level 3 (engineering process areas) Requirements Development (RD)  Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra ensure that they are necessary and sufficient Verification (VER)  SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”  SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”  SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”  SP 2.3 “Analyse Peer Review Data” maturity level 5 Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) 19 19/27
  20. 20. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion motivation Higher-severity Problem FactorsIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra (Chen and Huang, 2009) 20 20/27
  21. 21. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion motivation Higher-severity Problem FactorsIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra (Chen and Huang, 2009) (Hamill and Goseva-Popstojanova, 2009) 21 21/27
  22. 22. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion motivation “classifying or grouping problems helps to indentify clusters in which systematic errors are likely to be found” (Card, 1998)  our goal is to define classification scheme for requirements defectsIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra that facilitates  identification of more frequent defects with higher impact  analysis of root causes  preparation of reviews checklists  reduction of risks (bad communication, incomplete requirements, final acceptance difficulties)  22 22/27
  23. 23. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion motivation “classifying or grouping problems helps to indentify clusters in which systematic errors are likely to be found” (Card, 1998)  our goal is to define classification scheme for requirements defectsIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra that facilitates  identification of more frequent defects with higher impact  analysis of root causes  preparation of reviews checklists  reduction of risks (bad communication, incomplete requirements, final acceptance difficulties) ODC (Chillarege et al., 1992)  HP (Grady, 1976) 23 23/27
  24. 24. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion motivation “classifying or grouping problems helps to indentify clusters in which systematic errors are likely to be found” (Card, 1998)  our goal is to define classification scheme for requirements defectsIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra that facilitates  identification of more frequent defects with higher impact  analysis of root causes  preparation of reviews checklists  reduction of risks (bad communication, incomplete requirements, final acceptance difficulties) ODC (Chillarege et al., 1992)  more adequate for other phases than the requirements phase HP (Grady, 1976) 24 24/27
  25. 25. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion requirements reviewIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra 25 25/27
  26. 26. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion quality requirements for classification schemesIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra 26 26/27
  27. 27. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion quality requirements for classification schemesIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra clearly and meaningfully define attributes 27 27/27
  28. 28. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion quality requirements for classification schemes complete: every defect is classifiable using the schemeIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra 28 28/27
  29. 29. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion quality requirements for classification schemesIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra attributes values: • clear and meaningful definition • small number (5-9) • aggregate to reduce ambiguity (Freimut et al., 2005) • unambiguous 29 29/27
  30. 30. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion phase 1 – assemble classifiers list  review literature to compile list of existent classifiers and remove  the ones that do not apply to the phase or documentIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra  vague and generic classifiers  overdetailed  duplicates (classifiers with same meaning)  define each classifier and give examples, eliminate ambiguity through definition 30 30/27
  31. 31. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defectIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra 31 31/27
  32. 32. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Out of scope •Missing/Omission •IncompleteIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Incompatible •New (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement •Typos/Clerical •Unclear 32 32/27
  33. 33. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Out of scope •Missing/Omission •IncompleteIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Incompatible •New (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Unclear •Ambiguity •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Other 33 33/27
  34. 34. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Out of scope •Missing/Omission •IncompleteIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Incompatible •New (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Unclear (Walia and Craver, 2007) •Ambiguity •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Other •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate •General 34 34/27
  35. 35. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Missing Interface •Out of scope •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •IncompleteIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Incompatible •New (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Unclear (Walia and Craver, 2007) •Ambiguity (Ackerman et al., 1989) •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Other •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate •General 35 35/27
  36. 36. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Missing Interface •Out of scope •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect CheckingIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007) •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989) •Wrong Section/Misplaced (Chillarege et al., 1992) •Other •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate •General 36 36/27
  37. 37. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Missing Interface •Out of scope •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect CheckingIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007) •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989) •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992) •Other •Missing Software Interface (Grady, 1992) •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing •General Requirement/Specification 37 37/27
  38. 38. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect CheckingIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007) •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989) •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992) •Other •Missing Software Interface (Grady, 1992) •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface (Porter et al., 1992) •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing •General Requirement/Specification 38 38/27
  39. 39. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification •Not TraceableIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007) •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989) •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992) •Other •Missing Software Interface (Grady, 1992) •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface (Porter et al., 1992) •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing (Hayes et al., 2003/6) •General Requirement/Specification 39 39/27
  40. 40. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification •Not TraceableIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976) •Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge (Basilli and Weiss, 1981) •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007) •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989) •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992) •Other •Missing Software Interface (Grady, 1992) •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface (Porter et al., 1992) •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing (Hayes et al., 2003/6) •General Requirement/Specification 40 (Kalinowski et al., 2010) 40/27
  41. 41. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Not Traceable •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •New •Missing/Incorrect •Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Other •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing •General Requirement/Specification 41 41/27
  42. 42. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Not Traceable •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •New •Missing/Incorrect •Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge change management •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Other •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing •General Requirement/Specification 42 42/27
  43. 43. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge change management •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Other •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing •General Requirement/Specification 43 43/27
  44. 44. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect vague •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Other •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing •General Requirement/Specification 44 44/27
  45. 45. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect vague •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing Requirement/Specification 45 45/27
  46. 46. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation •Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation subsumed •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing Requirement/Specification 46 46/27
  47. 47. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation subsumed •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing Requirement/Specification 47 47/27
  48. 48. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Incorrect or Extra •Missing Interface •Out of scope Functionality •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm generic •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing Requirement/Specification 48 48/27
  49. 49. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Missing Interface •Out of scope •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm generic •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Missing Software Interface •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing Requirement/Specification 49 49/27
  50. 50. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Missing Interface •Out of scope •Missing Function/Description •Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency •Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Missing/Incorrect •Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information •Missing/Incorrect Build/Package/Merge •Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect •Unclear Documentation •Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature •Missing Software Interface over detailed •Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface •Redundant/Duplicate •Missing Requirement/Specification 50 50/27
  51. 51. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion type of defect •Out of scope •Missing/Omission •Incomplete •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Incorrect •Unachievable •Inconsistent •Intentional Deviation •Extraneous Information •Typos/Clerical •Unclear •Ambiguity •Wrong Section/Misplaced over detailed •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 51 51/27
  52. 52. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Out of scope •Over-specification •Missing/OmissionIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Unachievable •Incomplete •Intentional Deviation •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Extraneous Information •Typos/Clerical •Unclear •Ambiguity •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 52 52/27
  53. 53. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Out of scope •Missing/Omissio •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra n •Unachievable •Intentional Deviation •Incomplete •Incorrect •Extraneous Information •Inconsistent •Typos/Clerical •Unclear •Ambiguity •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 53 53/27
  54. 54. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Out of scope •Over-specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Unachievable •Intentional Deviation •Incorrect •Extraneous Information •Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete •Typos/Clerical •Unclear •Ambiguity •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 54 54/27
  55. 55. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Out of scope •Over- specificationIsabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra •Unachievable •Intentional •Extraneous •Incorrect Deviation Information •Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete •Typos/Clerical •Ambiguity •Unclear •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 55 55/27
  56. 56. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Unachievable •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete •Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous •Unclear •Ambiguity •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 56 56/27
  57. 57. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Unachievable •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete •Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous •Ambiguity •Unclear •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 57 57/27
  58. 58. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Unachievable •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete •Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous •Ambiguous or Unclear •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 58 58/27
  59. 59. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Unachievable •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete •Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous •Ambiguous or Unclear •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Infeasible •Untestable/Non-verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 59 59/27
  60. 60. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion •Unachievable •Incorrect •Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete •Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous •Ambiguous or Unclear •Infeasible •Wrong Section/Misplaced •Untestable/Non- verifiable •Redundant/Duplicate 60 60/27

×