cat executive review
DESCRIPTION
CAT Executive Review. Team 3: Lions. Cycle 2 Key Lessons: Quality. Quality Metrics. Goals >85% defects found prior to compile Requirements functions included at project completion: 100% Error in estimated product size:TRANSCRIPT
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?