The document outlines the establishment of a defect prediction model for system testing using product metrics and Six Sigma methodology. It details the project background, prior studies, and the systematic findings from defining, measuring, analyzing, designing, and verifying the model. Conclusions highlight that the model can effectively predict defects in the testing phase and improve the testing process, along with recommendations for enhancing its predictive capabilities.

1. Establishing A Defect Prediction
Model Using A Combination of
Product Metrics As Predictors Via
Six Sigma Methodology
Muhammad Dhiauddin Mohamed Suffian
(M.Sc., B.Tech., Six Sigma Green Belt , CTAL-TM, CTFL)
Senior Engineer, MIMOS Test Lab
21 November 2013
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

2. Agenda
• Defect Prediction Model – An Overview
• Project Background
• Six Sigma Overview
• Prior Studies on Defect Prediction
• Findings & Discussion – Define
• Findings & Discussion – Measure
• Findings & Discussion – Analyze
• Findings & Discussion – Design
• Findings & Discussion – Verify
• Conclusion & Recommendation
(2)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

3. Defect Prediction Model – An Overview
“Build a functional defect prediction model for system testing phase
in a form of mathematical equation by applying
Design for Six Sigma methodology”
(3)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

4. Project Background
(4)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

5. Six Sigma Overview
A disciplined, data-driven approach and methodology for eliminating defects (driving
toward six standard deviations between the mean and the nearest specification limit) in any
process -- from manufacturing to transactional and from product to service
(www.isixsigma.com)
Project scheduling
Financial
estimation
VOC analysis
Perform capability
analysis
Quantify issues &
determine
significant factors
Identify failure
modes
Re-define
significant factors
Optimize model
VERIFY
Measurement
system analysis
D-M-A-D-V (DfSS)
DESIGN
Develop team
charter & team
Identify functional
requirements
vs
ANALYZE
Identify
opportunity
MEASURE
DEFINE
D-M-A-I-C
Assess reliability
of selected design
Control plan
Close project
Generate concept
model
(5)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

6. Prior Studies on Defect Prediction
(6)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

7. Findings & Discussion - Define
Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) – Test Participation
Requirement
Review
Kick-Off
Design
Review
Test Plan
Test Cases
Test Scripts
Test Execution
Defects Raising
Test Summary Report
(7)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

8. Findings & Discussion – Define (cont.)
High Level Schematic Diagram
Zero-Known Post
Release Defects
Defect Containment
in Testing Phase
Potential # of
defects before test
Actual # of defects
after test
Customer
Satisfaction
Quality of
Process
Level of
satisfaction
Project
Management
People
capability
Timeline
allocation
Process
effectiveness
Resource
allocation
(8)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

9. Findings & Discussion – Define (cont.)
Detail Schematic Diagram – Y to X Tree
Test Defect
Prediction
Software
Complexity
Knowledge
Test Process
Errors
Fault
Historical
Defect
Project
Requirement
Pages
Developer
Knowledge
Test Case
Design
Coverage
Requirement
Error
Requirement
Fault
Defect
Severity
Design Pages
Tester
Knowledge
Targeted Total
Test Cases
Design Error
Design Fault
Defect Type/
Category
Component
Programming
Language
Test
Automation
CUT Error
CUT Fault
Defect
Validity
Application
Code Size
Test Case
Execution
Productivity
Test Plan Error
Integration
Fault
Total PR
(Defects)
Raised
Total Effort in
Test Design
Phase
Test Cases
Error
Test Case Fault
Project Domain
Project Thread
Total Effort in
Phases Prior to
System Test
Factors to consider
(9)
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

10. Findings & Discussion – Measure
Data for Attribute Agreement Analysis
TC
TC ID
Actual TC
Result
Tester 1
Tester 2
Tester 3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
TC1
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS PASS
PASS
2
TC2
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
PASS PASS
PASS
3
TC3
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
PASS PASS
PASS
4
TC4
PASS
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
PASS PASS
PASS
5
TC5
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS PASS
PASS
6
TC6
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS PASS
PASS
7
TC7
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS PASS
PASS
8
TC8
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
9
TC9
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS PASS
PASS
10
TC10
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS PASS
PASS
( 10 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

11. Findings & Discussion – Measure (cont.)
Result of Attribute Agreement Analysis
• Overall Result for MSA is PASS since Kappa value is greater than
0.7 or 70%
• 3 Persons (Vivek, Sandeep and Kamala) PASS the MSA based on Kappa value of 0.7
or 70%
• For the All Testers, the result is acceptable for accuracy of assessment against
standard as the Kappa value is greater than 0.7 or 70%
• Result is PASS for MSA Within Appraisers as the result shows 100%
assessment agreement
• Kappa = 1, which shows perfect agreement exist It demonstrates strong Repeatability of TestResult
within tester himself/herself
( 11 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

12. Findings & Discussion – Analyze
Data for Regression Analysis
KLOC
Total
Test
Cases
Test
Plan
Error
Test
Case
Error
Automation
%
Test
Effort
12
28.8
224
0
34
0
6.38
45.80
19
0
1
6.8
17
0
6
0
9.36
17.00
1
9
10
14
5.4
24
4
6
0
29.16
5.83
4
PROJECT D
7
12
2
1.1
25
4
9
0
13.17
7.00
0
PROJECT E
11
29
3
1.2
28
4
12
0
14.26
3.40
3
PROJECT F
0
2
7
6.8
66
1
7
0
32.64
31.00
16
PROJECT G
3
25
11
4.0
149
5
0
0
7.15
74.50
3
PROJECT H
4
9
2
0.2
24
4
0
0
18.78
7.67
0
PROJECT I
7
0
1
1.8
16
1
3
0
9.29
2.68
1
PROJECT J
1
7
2
2.1
20
1
4
0
6.73
1.95
0
PROJECT K
17
0
3
1.4
13
1
4
0
8.44
6.50
1
PROJECT L
3
0
0
1.3
20
1
7
0
14.18
9.75
1
PROJECT M
2
3
16
2.5
7
1
6
0
8.44
1.75
0
Project
Name
Req.
Error
Design
Error
CUT
error
PROJECT A
5
22
PROJECT B
0
PROJECT C
Test
Functional
Execution
Defects
Productivity
( 12 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

13. Findings & Discussion – Analyze (cont.)
Best Multiple Regression Result
• P-value for selected individual predictors shows significant relationship with
the Y (defects) which has value of less than 0.05
• R-sq and R-sq shows strong value which is more than 90%
( 13 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

14. Findings & Discussion – Design
•
Revise the predictors to generate prediction model that is logical and makes sense from the viewpoint of software practitioner
•
Filter the metrics to contain only valid data in order to generate the model
•
Reduced the model to have only coefficients that have logical correlation to the response (Defect)
•
Revisit the model to identify suitable response of the regression equation: Functional Defects or All Defects
Revised Data for Regression Analysis
TOTAL TEST
REQ. DESIGN
TOTAL TEST DESIGN
TEST CASES
PAGE PAGE
EFFORT
EFFORT
CASES ERROR
REQ .
ERROR
DESIGN
ERROR
CUT
ERROR
KLOC
FUNCTIONAL
DEFECTS
ALL
DEFECTS
PROJECT A
5
22
12
28.8
81
121
224
34
16.79
15.20
19
19
PROJECT B
0
0
1
6.8
171
14
17
6
45.69
40.91
1
1
PROJECT C
9
10
14
5.4
23
42
24
6
13.44
13.44
4
4
PROJECT D
7
12
2
1.1
23
42
25
9
4.90
4.90
0
0
PROJECT E
11
29
3
1.2
23
54
28
12
4.72
4.59
3
3
PROJECT F
0
2
7
6.8
20
70
66
7
32.69
16.00
16
27
PROJECT G
3
25
11
4.0
38
131
149
0
64.00
53.50
3
3
PROJECT H
4
9
2
0.2
26
26
24
0
5.63
5.63
0
0
PROJECT I
17
0
3
1.4
15
28
13
4
9.13
7.88
1
1
PROJECT J
61
34
24
36
57
156
306
16
89.42
76.16
25
28
PROJECT K
32
16
19
12.3
162
384
142
0
7.00
7.00
12
12
PROJECT L
0
2
3
3.8
35
33
40
3
8.86
8.86
6
6
PROJECT M
15
18
10
26.1
88
211
151
22
30.99
28.61
39
57
PROJECT N
0
4
0
24.2
102
11
157
0
41.13
28.13
20
33
PROJECT
( 14 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

15. Findings & Discussion – Design (cont.)
Y
Functional Defects
Y
All Defects
Xs
Requirement Error,
CUT Error, KLOC,
Requirement Pages,
Design Pages,
Targeted Total Test
Cases, Total Effort
Days
Xs
Requirement Error,
CUT Error, KLOC,
Requirement Pages,
Design Pages,
Targeted Total Test
Cases, Total Effort
Days
Y
Functional Defects
Y
All Defects
Xs
Requirement Error,
CUT Error, KLOC,
Requirement Pages,
Design Pages,
Targeted Total Test
Cases, Total Effort
Days in Test Design
Xs
Requirement Error,
CUT Error, KLOC,
Requirement Pages,
Design Pages,
Targeted Total Test
Cases, Total Effort
Days in Test Design
( 15 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

16. Findings & Discussion – Verify
•
•
•
Verification was done by applying the selected model on new/fresh project that have yet to go for System Test
The actual defects found after System Test completed are compared against the predicted defects
Verify that actual defects fall between 95% prediction interval of the model
Revised Data for Regression Analysis
Y
Functional
Defect
All Defect
Functional
Defect
All Defect
Effort
Predictors
All Tester
Effort Prior to
System Test
All Tester
Effort Prior to
System Test
All Tester
Effort in Test
Design Prior to
System Test
All Tester
Effort in Test
Design Prior to
System Test
Project
Predicted
Defects
Actual Defects
95% CI
(min, max)
95% PI
(min, max)
Agrimall Beta Release
182
187
(155, 210)
(155, 210)
Grid Workflow
6
1
(0, 12)
(0, 14)
TTS-English
1
1
(0, 3)
(0, 6)
Agrimall Beta Release
298
230
(242, 355)
(241, 356)
Grid Workflow
9
9
(0, 21)
(0, 24)
TTS-English
2
1
(0, 6)
(0, 12)
Agrimall Beta Release
183
187
(202, 390)
(201, 392)
Grid Workflow
8
1
(0, 17)
(0, 19)
TTS-English
2
1
(0, 5)
(0, 9)
Agrimall Beta Release
296
230
(142, 224)
(142, 225)
Grid Workflow
11
9
(0, 32)
(0, 37)
TTS-English
3
1
(0, 10)
(0, 19)
( 16 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

17. Findings & Discussion – Verify (cont.)
PROPOSED MODEL
Functional Defects (Y) = 4.00 - 0.204 Req. Error - 0.631 CUT Error + 1.90 KLOC 0.140 Req. Page + 0.125 Design Page - 0.169 Total Test Cases + 0.221 Effort Days
Verify against new project:
No
Req. Error
CUT Error
KLOC
Req. Page
Des. Page
Total TC
Effort Days
1.
12
6
84.03
75
293
102
69.75
2.
49
15
8.69
64
38
65
91.9
3.
0
1
0.4
10
10
18
1.13
Prediction result *:
No
Predicted Functional Defects
Actual Functional
Defects
95% CI (min, max)
95% PI (min, max)
1.
182
187
(155, 209)
(154, 209)
2.
6
1
(0, 12)
(0, 14)
3.
1
1
(0, 3)
(0, 6)
* The actual functional defects were raised after both functional and ad-hoc testing completed
( 17 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

18. Findings & Discussion – Verify (cont.)
( 18 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

19. Conclusion & Recommendation
CONCLUSION
• Defect prediction model for testing phase can be constructed
using identified factors via multiple regression
• Significant factors contributed to defects found in testing
phase have been discovered
• Six Sigma can be used to develop test defect prediction model
• Test defect prediction model does contribute to zero-known
post release defects and test process improvement
RECOMMENDATION
• To consider other factors that contribute in predicting
defects
• To improve model by being able to predict defect
based on different severity
• To predict defects to be found against time
• To predict defects based on different type of software
( 19 )
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence

20. Experience our Testing Excellence in
“End-to-End Testing Strategies” Workshop
See you again on 17th June 2010, 2.00 pm, Room 301
THANK YOU
testlab@mimos.my
testlab@mimos.my
© 2010 MIMOS Berhad. All Rights Reserved.
Testing Excellence