cat executive review

CAT Executive CAT Executive ReviewReview

CAT Executive CAT Executive ReviewReview

Team 3: LionsTeam 3: LionsTeam 3: LionsTeam 3: Lions

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Quality

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Quality

Quality MetricsQuality Metrics

Goals

>85% defects found prior to compile

Requirements functions included at project completion: 100%

Error in estimated product size: <30%

Error in estimated development hours: <30%

No Compile Defects

Goals

>85% defects found prior to compile

Requirements functions included at project completion: 100%

Error in estimated product size: <30%

Error in estimated development hours: <30%

No Compile Defects

Actuals

~98% defects found prior to compile

Meeting minutes created for every meeting

Size/Time estimation errors: < 30%

100% requirements functions included at project completion

No Compile Defects

Actuals

~98% defects found prior to compile

Meeting minutes created for every meeting

Size/Time estimation errors: < 30%

100% requirements functions included at project completion

No Compile Defects

Process Quality IndexProcess Quality Index

Cycle 2 Defect TypesCycle 2 Defect Types

Inspection ResultsInspection Results

SRS Document

7 defects in 37 pages

Injected: Authoring of SRS

SRS Document

7 defects in 37 pages

Injected: Authoring of SRS

SDS Document

Inspection 1

10 defects in 21 pages

Injected: Authoring of SDS

SDS Document

Inspection 1

10 defects in 21 pages

Injected: Authoring of SDS

Design, Code, Testing QualityDesign, Code, Testing Quality

Design, Code and Testing Quality Metrics

Design time > Code time

Design review time is at least half Design time

Code review time is at least half Code authoring time

Code review has less than 200 lines per hour

Find more than 3 defects per hour

Find 0 defects during Compile

Find 0 defects in Unit Testing

Design, Code and Testing Quality Metrics

Design time > Code time

Design review time is at least half Design time

Code review time is at least half Code authoring time

Code review has less than 200 lines per hour

Find more than 3 defects per hour

Find 0 defects during Compile

Find 0 defects in Unit Testing

Team 3 Design Phase DLD authoring time: 894

minutes

Code authoring time: 552 minutes (62% of DLD time)

Code review time: 649 minutes (118% of Code Author time)

Average code review lines/hour: 90.2 (less than 200 lines/hour)

Average defect/hour rate: 3.5 (more than 3 defects/hour)

Total Defects in Compile: 0

Total Defects in Unit Testing: 2

Team 3 Design Phase DLD authoring time: 894

minutes

Code authoring time: 552 minutes (62% of DLD time)

Code review time: 649 minutes (118% of Code Author time)

Average code review lines/hour: 90.2 (less than 200 lines/hour)

Average defect/hour rate: 3.5 (more than 3 defects/hour)

Total Defects in Compile: 0

Total Defects in Unit Testing: 2

Integration and System TestingIntegration and System Testing

Integration Testing

The Use Class was being called incorrectly by the IPUT Class. (Use instead of USE)

Def-Use-Path Class did not initialize an array.

System Testing

The Def-Use-Path Class does not provide any outputs, therefore the module cannot be validated.

Integration Testing

The Use Class was being called incorrectly by the IPUT Class. (Use instead of USE)

Def-Use-Path Class did not initialize an array.

System Testing

The Def-Use-Path Class does not provide any outputs, therefore the module cannot be validated.

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Schedule

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Schedule

Work Breakdown Structure

Time EstimationTime Estimation

Cycle 2 Earned Value reached 100% approximately as planned.

Estimated hours turned out to be a higher estimate than actual values (302:20 vs 237:54).

Cycle 2 Earned Value reached 100% approximately as planned.

Estimated hours turned out to be a higher estimate than actual values (302:20 vs 237:54).

Time Estimation (contd.)Time Estimation (contd.)Code Review took more time than anticipated which was 191% of planned time.

Code Inspection took less time than anticipated which was only 44% of planned time.

Our estimations during the second cycle was much more faithful to our planned timed compared to the time estimations from the first cycle.

This was due to having some data from the first cycle.

Code Review took more time than anticipated which was 191% of planned time.

Code Inspection took less time than anticipated which was only 44% of planned time.

Our estimations during the second cycle was much more faithful to our planned timed compared to the time estimations from the first cycle.

This was due to having some data from the first cycle.

82:30164:3637.4%25:1462:5214.3%24:0036:378.31%9:0013:403.1%10:0010:352.4%35:3341:409.46%9:3023:065.24%2:305:011.14%9:009:072.07%2:5215:283.51%1:2612:342.85%2:303:230.77%2:309:092.08%1:169:302.16%0:140:310.12%3:304:030.92%1:111:560.44%1:301:320.35%3:305:061.16%7:301:430.39%7:300:250.09%0:291:220.31%243:35440:31

Size EstimationSize Estimation

Document sizes were based on actual industry experience.

Planned LOC from the STRAT form was 1154 LOC

Actual added LOC for this cycle was 976 LOC

The team’s size was 84% of the estimated size.

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Productivity

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Productivity

ProductivityProductivity

• Total time spent was 239 hours

• Total LOC produced was 976

Therefore...

• Achieved a productivity of 976/239 or 4.08 LOC/hour

• Total time spent was 239 hours

• Total LOC produced was 976

Therefore...

• Achieved a productivity of 976/239 or 4.08 LOC/hour

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Customer

Satisfaction

Cycle 2 Key Lessons:Customer

Satisfaction

Customer SatisfactionCustomer Satisfaction

• During the first cycle,Team 3 has obtained conditional approval from the customer in regards to the Software Requirements Specification for the CAT software.

• Awaiting customer approval on second cycle results.

Cycle 2 Process Changes and Results

Cycle 2 Process Changes and Results

Team Process ImprovementsTeam Process Improvements

• Proposal•Remove the STP and ITP Walkthrough

•Add a STP and ITP formal inspection

• Results• 12 Defects found

during STP and ITP Inspections

STP and ITP Process

Team Process ImprovementsTeam Process Improvements

• Proposal:•Provide a checklist for the DLD Inspection portion of the Implementation Script.

• Results• 44.6% Defect removal

just from DLD Inspection alone.

DLD Integrity

Elbonian Handoff PackageElbonian Handoff Package

We feel that our package is more than sufficient for implementation of Cycle 3. The Elbonians will have all code, logic, user manual, readmes, SRS, and SDS that would lead them through their STRAT, PLAN, REQ, DES, IMP, TEST phases.

All artifacts have been baselined and all applicable documents have been approved by Marketer Fredericks.

Questions?Questions?Questions?Questions?