1. Janet has used PSP for the last 6 months
Janet has used PSP for the last 6 months. Her latest PSP Summary is shown here for the last project she completed.
Janet completed this project with a cumulative LOC/Hour of 759LOC/1667Minutes which gives Janet a productivity of about 27 LOC per hour.
Why is her Base 0?
Why do we use 759 as Janet’s cumulative LOC?
Did she do Design Review?
Should she do Design Review on her next project?
How is Planning To Date % calculated?
Why plan number of errors?
This is so wrong (Bernal’s opinion) 7. What do you think?

2. PSP “new year’s resolutions”
She is starting a new project. But part of starting a new project is a meeting with her professional advisor. The outcome of this meeting is a new Process Improvement Proposal (PIP) shown below.
8. Explain what data points in her Summary form (slide 1) motivates the need for this PIP.
9. What should be documented in the problem description below?
PSP Process Improvement Proposal (PIP)
Problem Description Briefly describe the problems that you encountered.
Proposal Description Briefly describe the process improvements that you propose.
Will do the Design and Code Reviews
Other Notes and Comments Note any other comments or observations that describe your experiences or improvement ideas.
Professional advisor wants me to also do additional phases: Unit Test Plan & Development and also add Inspections done by external programmers.

3. Onto the project with the new PIP in mind..
Janet started planning her work on the HeatSeeker program module at 8:30 AM (Plan). She looks at her previous programming effort & time graphs and decides that a good plan for the “total new and changed”(or Added+Modified) lines of code would be She carefully plans the time she thinks she will spend on each phase, she gets about 10 total hours planned on project – which she agrees with after looking at her computed cumulative LOC/Hour. In Slide 1.
10. Any idea why she chose to “kind of double” her previous numbers? Also what did her computed cumulative LOC/Hour in Slide 1 tell her?
Time in Phase (min.)
Plan
Planning
80 
Design
 120
Design review(Design R)
 40
Unit Test Plan
Unit Test Development
Design Inspection Briefing (Insp B)
 20
Design Inspection Meeting (Insp M)
Design Fix Problems
Code
 100
Code Review(CDR)
 30
Code Inspection(Code I)
Code Fix
Compile
 10
Unit Test (UT)
 50
Postmortem (PM)

4. Janet’s actual data 1
She finished the plan at 10 AM and immediately started on the detailed design (Design). Janet design to use the heat engine project she did last year. It has 120 LOC. There was a class (50 LOC) in her private library that she could reuse. She worked the rest of the morning on the design for the new heat seeking algorithm totaling 110 minutes.
After lunch, Janet put a “Do not disturb” on her door & phone and got to work on the design review where she found one error and fixed it in one minute. Her total Design R was 30 minutes. She sent an to Beth & Amy about helping scheduling a design inspection the next morning at 10am.
Next day Janet started working on the Unit test plan first thing while the office was quiet and finished in 30 minutes. She then did , phone messages, etc. and had confirmation from both Beth & Amy for the design inspection at 10am which was soon. At 10 she went into the conference room where Beth & Amy were and did a briefing of 10 minutes. They ask a couple of questions which added 5 minutes. Then Janet left the conference room.
Beth & Amy did the inspection for 30 minutes and found one error.

5. Janet’s actual data 2
Janet was called into the Designing Inspection Meeting where Beth & Amy pointed the design error. This took 10 minutes.
Janet went to her office where she fixed the error in 10 minutes.
She then went to lunch and after she came back from lunch she started working on the code of the project with her “Do not disturb”. She finished the code in 70 minutes.
After a break, she started on the code review and complete the CDR in 30 minutes. She then called Beth & Amy to see how soon they could do a code inspection. Before starting on another task, Janet sent them copies of her source code and asked them to review it before they met first thing in the morning for the code inspection.
Next morning Beth & Amy had a 30 minute meeting with Janet showing her 18 syntax error in her code. Janet fix those errors in 15 minutes.

6. Janet’s actual data 3
Janet then started compiling her program. She only had to repair two more code defects, so she was finished compiling in 15 minutes.
She was so pleased with the way compiling went that she decided to start immediately on unit testing (UT). She found one error in her formatting of the heat seeking data output which she fixed in one minute. She completed unit testing in 35 minutes.
After taking a break for lunch, Janet worked from 1:20 to 1:28 to complete the postmortem on her work (PM). Her final heatseeker was 340 LOC. She had deleted 30; modified 60; and added 200.
Please fill out the PSP 0.1 Project Plan Summary for Janet.