Reviews - MetaLab

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Efficiency of peer reviews• Dobbins(1998) quotes Madachy’s findings from an analysis of the designand code inspections conducted on the Litton project.• Madachy’s findings regarding the first two metrics cited above arepresented in table.• Dobbins(1998) also cites Don O’Neil’s 1992 National Software QualityExperiment.• It is conducted in 27 inspection laboratories operating in the US.• A total of 90925 source code lines were code-inspected
Efficiency of peer reviewsType ofdocumentNo. ofinspectionTotalnumber ofdefects andmajordefectsNo. ofpagesInspectionresourcesinvested(workhours)Defectdetectiondensity(defects/page)Inspectiondetectionefficiency(workhours/majordefect)RequirementdescriptionRequirementanalysisHigh-leveldesignTestprocedures21 1243(89 major)32 2165(117major)41 2398(198 major)18 1495(121 major)Code 150 7165(772 major)552 328 2.25 3.691065 769 2.03 6.571652 1097 1.45 5.571621 457 0.92 3.785047 4612 1.42 5.97DesignInspectionCodeInspection
Page 1 and 2: ReviewsPresented by:Lynn Tan Shun C
Page 3 and 4: Participants of Peer Reviews• 3 -
Page 5 and 6: Peer Review Session• Walkthroughs
Page 7 and 8: Post-peer Review Activities• Prom
Page 9: Efficiency of peer reviews• Peer
Page 13 and 14: Efficiency of peer reviewsTotal def
Page 15 and 16: Efficiency of peer reviewsYear Defe
Page 17 and 18: Process of inspection1) Organizatio
Page 19 and 20: Comparison of the teamreview method
Page 21 and 22: Process of reviewFormal designrevie
Page 23 and 24: Expert opinions
Page 25 and 26: Duties of Expert Opinion• Prepari
Page 27 and 28: Activity Time
Page 29 and 30: Any Question??
Page 31 and 32: 1. Name the 4 direct objectives of
Page 33: Thank you andGood Luck

Reviews - MetaLab

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?