Defect Removal Metrics
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Defect removal metrics: concepts
All defect removal metrics computed from the measurements identified last time
Inspection reports, test reports, field defect reports
Used to get different views on whats going on
Each metric can be used to tell us something about the development process or results
Many are amazingly useful, though all have limitations
Need to learn how to use each tool effectively
For most defect metrics, filter out minor and cosmetic defects
Can easily make many metrics look good by finding more or fewer cosmetic problems (level of nitpicking)
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Measuring total number of defects
Many metrics have parameters such as total number of defects e.g. total number of requirements defects
Clearly, we only ever know about the defects that are found
So we never know the true value of many of these metrics
Further, as we find more defects, this number will increase
Hopefully, finding defects in asymptotic over time i.e. we find fewer defects as time goes along, esp. after release So metrics that require total defects type info will change over time, but hopefully converge eventually
The later in the lifecycle we compute the metric, the more meaningful the results If and when we use these metrics, we must be aware of this effect and account for it.
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
August 22, 2013
Measuring size
Many defect metrics have size parameters
The most common size metric is KLOC (thousands of lines of code)
Depends heavily on language, coding style, competence Code generators may produce lots of code, distort measures Does not take complexity of application into account Easy to compute automatically and reliably (but can be manipulated)
An alternative size metric is function points
See [Link] A partly-subjective measure of functionality delivered Directly measures functionality of application: number of inputs and outputs, files manipulated, interfaces provided etc. More valid but less reliable, more effort to gather
We use KLOC in our examples, but works just as well with FPs
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Defect density
Number of defects / size
Defect density in released code (defect density at release) is a good measure of organizational capability
Defects found after release / size of released software
Can compute phasewise and component-wise defect densities
Useful to identify problem components that could use rework or deeper review Note that problem components will typically be high-complexity code at the heart of systems
Defect densities (and most other metrics) vary a lot by domain
Can only compare across similar projects
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Using defect density
Very useful as measure of organizational capability to produce defect-free outputs
Can be compared with other organizations in the same domain
Outlier information useful to spot problem projects and problem components Can be used in-process, if comparison is with defect densities of other projects in same phase
If much lower, may indicate defects not being found
If much higher, may indicate poor quality of work
(In other words, need to go behind the numbers to find out what is really happening. Metrics can only provide triggers)
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Defect Density: Limitations
Size estimation itself has problems
We will discuss this in next class
Total defects problem Criticality and criticality assignment
Combining defects of different criticalities reduces validity
Criticality assignment is itself subjective
Defects != reliability (user experience) problem Statistical significance when applied to phases and components
Actual number of defects may be so small that random variation can mask significant variation
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Defect Removal Effectiveness
% of defects removed during a phase
(Defects found) / (Defects found during that phase + defects not found) Approximated by
(defects found) / (defects found during that phase + defects found later)
Includes defects carried over from previous phases Good measure of effectiveness of defect removal practices
Test effectiveness, inspection effectiveness
Correlates strongly with output quality
Other terms: Defect removal efficiency, error detection efficiency, fault containment etc.
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
DRE table example
Phase of Origin
Req Req Des 5 2 0 0 1 4 15 14 9 2 3 3 7 38 53 49 22 5 16 6 98 151 8 0 0 0 8 159 5 0 0 5 164 1 0 1 165 1 1 166 Des Code UT IT ST Field Total 5 16 61 32 13 21 18 166 Cum. 5 21 82 114 127 148 166
Code 3
Phase found
UT IT ST Field Total
Cum. 15
(Illustrative example, not real data)
August 22, 2013
Phase of Origin
Swami Natarajan
RIT Software Engineering
Phase found
DRE computation
[Link] moval_effectiveness.pdf See above link for an example of DRE computations The text has a good example on p.166
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
DRE value
Compute effectiveness of tests and reviews
Actual defects found / defects present at entry to review/test (Phasewise Defect Removal Efficiency: PDRE)
Compute overall defect removal efficiency
Problems fixed before release / total originated problems
Analyze cost effectiveness of tests vs. reviews
Hours spent per problem found in reviews vs. tests Need to factor in effort to fix problem found during review vs. effort to fix problem found during test To be more exact, we must use a defect removal model
Discussed later
Shows pattern of defect removal
Where defects originate (injected), where they get removed
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Counter-intuitive implication
If testing reveals lots of bugs, Likely that final product will be very buggy too
Not true that we have found and fixed a lot of problems, now our software is OK We can only make this second assertion if testing reveals lots of bugs early on, but the latter stages of testing reveal hardly any bugs and even then, only if you are not simply repeating the same tests!
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
DRE Limitations
Statistical significance
Note how small the numbers in each box are Hard to draw conclusions from data about 1 project
At best a crude indicator of which phases & reviews worked better
Organizational data has far more validity
Remember that when the numbers are small, better to show the raw numbers
Even if you showing DRE %s, include actual defects data in each box
Full picture only after project completion Easily influenced by underreporting of problems found
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Other related metrics
Phase containment effectiveness
% of problems introduced during a phase that were found within that phase
E.g. Table 1 design PCE = 14/38 = 0.37 ( 37%)
PCE of 70% is considered very good
Phasewise Defect Injection Rate
Number of defects introduced during that phase / size
High injection rates (across multiple projects) indicate need to improve the way that phase is performed
Possible solutions: Training, stronger processes, checklists
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Defect Removal Model
(From text)
Defects existing on phase entry
Defects injected during development
Undetected defects
Defect detection
Defect fixing
Defects remaining after phase exit Defects removed
Incorrect fixes
Can predict defects remaining, given
Historical data for phasewise defect injection rates Historical data for rates of defect removal Historical data for rates of incorrect fixes Actual phasewise defects found Phasewise costs of fixing defects Phasewise costs of finding defects (through reviews and testing) This is statistical process control. But remember all the disclaimers on its validity
Can statistically optimize defect removal, given (in addition to rates)
Can decide whether it is worthwhile to improve fault injection rates, by providing additional training, adding more processes & checklists etc.
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Additional metrics for inspections
Several simple (secondary) metrics can be tracked and managed within control limits
Inspection rates
Size / Duration of inspection meeting Very high or very low rates may indicate problem
Inspection effort
Preparation + meeting + tracking / size
Inspection preparation time
Avoid overloading others on team, make sure preparation happens
Inspection effectiveness is still the bottom line
These are just helping with optimizing inspections
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Cost of Quality (COQ)
Total effort put into quality-related activities
Testing and test development effort Inspections and reviews Quality assessments and preparation
COQ is a % of project effort
Pure number, suitable for comparisons across projects, organizations
Can observe relationships between COQ and defect removal efficiency, COQ and release defect density
Note that defect prevention reverses the normal relationships: reduces both COQ and release defect density
Will NOT show up in defect removal effectiveness!
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ)
Total effort put into rework
Cost of fixing defects Cost of revising/updating docs Cost of re-testing, re-inspecting Cost of patches & patch distribution, tracking defects
% of project effort pure number Would generally correlate well with defect densities
If there are fewer defects, less rework needed
COPQ < 10% is very good
Note that early defect detection (inspections) reduces COPQ
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Optimizing quality efforts
Normally, there is a balance between COQ and COPQ
To reduce rework, need to spend more effort on quality upfront Note that high COPQ increases COQ, because of re-testing
Defect prevention and superior quality approaches (better test methodologies, more effective reviews) cut both COQ and COPQ
Objective is to have a lower COQ while maintaining good (low) COPQ and low release defect density
More quality efforts will always improve quality, but there is a point of diminishing returns
COPQ, release defect density within targets -> adequate quality
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Limitations of COQ/COPQ
Assumes the numbers are accurate
That they fairly reflect all defect removal activities and all rework activities
COPQ easily distorted if there is one requirements or design bug that creates a large amount of rework Balancing COQ / COPQ is an organizational-level activity
Improves statistical significance, averages out variations Evens out distortions in COPQ due to a couple of high-rework bugs Need to wait till product has been in the field to get truer COPQ numbers
Can Use COQ / COPQ at the project level as indicators
But need to go behind the numbers to interpret better
Hard for COQ to account properly for unit tests if developers do it along with coding Inspections often have additional hidden effort because developers will go through their code extra carefully before submitting it for inspection
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
August 22, 2013
Levels of sophistication in quality efforts (yes, this is a repeat)
Systematic testing approaches
Multi-stage approach to quality: inspections, unit & integration testing Basic metrics: defect densities DRE chart
Identifying problem components
Inspection & test effectiveness
Checklists and quality tools Systematic defect prevention
Formal methods
Optimizing quality efforts
Minimizing COQ & COPQ Statistical process control using defect removal models
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Summary
Need multiple stages of defect removal
Inspections are well-known to be cost-effective
Early detection of defects saves work More expensive to fix bugs late in lifecycle
Release defect densities tell us about the quality of the product DRE chart helps us to
compute inspection and test effectiveness predict field defect rates see pattern of defect removal
Defect removal metrics can also help optimize effort spent on quality activities Notice how all these fancy metrics come from just the basic review and test reports! Dont gather lots of data, focus on meaningful analysis
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Exercises
From DRE table, compute
Effectiveness of the code inspections (how good are the code inspections?) Effectiveness of unit testing (how good are the unit tests?) Requirements PCE (how well are req problems found and fixed early?)
Given that the codesize is 30 KLOC, compute
Release defect density (how good is the product?) Coding defect injection rate (how many mistakes made during coding?)
The system has 6 modules, with sizes and defects found shown below. Which of the modules do you think may need redesign / redevelopment?
Module 1 Module2 Module3 Module4 Module5 Module6
Size (KLOC)
Req defects Des defects Code defects
1
1 6 16
15
2 8 26
8
3 6 12
1
5 8 19
3
1 7 11
2
3 3 14
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Exercises
Your organization has executed many projects over the past few years, inspects all documents and code, and fills out test and inspection reports regularly. Given this data, how would you figure out
Whether your requirements techniques need improvement? Whether your configuration management techniques need improvement? Whether your design inspections are effective? Whether you are doing a good job of delivering quality code? Whether coding mistakes are more likely in large modules, or in complex modules (i.e. complex functionality)? How effective the coding standards and checklists that you introduced two years ago have been in reducing coding mistakes? Whether teams consisting largely of highly experienced people are better at avoiding requirements and design errors that teams of less experienced people?
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Exercises
The graph below shows COQ & COPQ for 6 similar projects in a company.
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
What observations can you make about each project from the data? What (all) inferences can you make about what might be happening on each project? What all does this tell you about the organization? What are the assumptions and limitations underlying your inferences?
Project A
Project B
Project C
Project D
Project E
Project F
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
Exam Review
Sample questions
If you see that an organization is at CMM level 3, what does it tell you about their quality systems? If another organization tell you it is at CMM level 5, what does it tell you about their quality systems, relative to the first? What about their output quality? If you wanted to compare the quality of two products from different organizations, how and to what extent can you do that using metrics? How can you use metrics and quality tools to determine the extent to which requirements changes are a major reason for late delivery of projects? Your organization often gets complaints from customers that customer support reps are rude / unhelpful. How would you use the quality tools to systematically address this problem?
August 22, 2013
RIT Software Engineering
Swami Natarajan
