1. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE1 An Analytical Comparison between Pair Development and Software Development with Inspection By: Monvorath (Molly) Phongpaibul phongpai@usc.edu Present to: USC- CSSE- ARR 2007 February 13, 2007

2. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE2 Content Research Questions Research Methodology Quantitative Results Conclusion Future Work

3. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE3 Research Question There are three main research questions: –What are the commonalities / differences and relative strengths / weaknesses of each practice? –Under what conditions you might prefer one over the other? –Under what conditions you would merge the two practices?

4. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE4 Content Research Objective and Approach Research Methodology Quantitative Results Conclusion Future Work

5. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE5 Pair Development (PD) Process

6. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE6 Software Cost of Quality (CoSQ) [Krasner, 1998] TDC: Total Development Cost

7. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE7 Activities of CoSQ Conformance CostsNon-Conformance Costs Prevention CostsAppraisal CostsRework Costs  Prototyping  User requirement reviews  Quality planning  Training  Reuse library  Process improvements  Metrics collection and analysis  Quality standards  Inspection / peer review  Continuous review  Testing  Software quality assurance  V&V activities  Quality audits  Field performance trails  Fixing defects  Corrective rework  Re-inspection, re-review, re-testing  Re-design  Updating documents  Integration

8. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE8 Content Research Objective and Approach Research Methodology Quantitative Results Conclusion Future Work

9. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE9 TDC & CoSQ Results TDC (man-hour) Production Costs (man-hour) Appraisal Costs (man-hour) Rework Costs (man-hour) E1 (Thailand 05) PD Group 526.73314.02102.078.03 FI Group 695.11309.23234.9743.72 E2 (Thailand 05) PD Group 336.66186.6773.3313.67 FI Group 482.5208.516545 E3 (Thailand 05) PD Group 1392.9654.2325.7233 FI Group 1342429436317 E4 (US 05) PD Group 187.5468.1688.8320.05 FI Group 237.9362.82122.1042.52

10. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE10 Costs VS. Quality TeamTDC#Test Defects E1 (Thailand 05) PD Group526.734.429 FI Group695.115.142 E2 (Thailand 05) PD Group336.660 FI Group482.50 E3 (Thailand 05) PD Group1392.921 (11 Major) FI Group134229 (18 Major) E4 (US 06) PD Group187.546.8 and 1.4 FI Group237.936.5 and 2.0

11. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE11 Costs by Phase (E4) Team#Req.Des.Imp.Test PD Group P116.0541.7563.7326.65 P213.9541.4264.3725.33 P316.2035.7066.5327.12 P416.7734.3067.0327.68 P512.4037.9273.0332.05 FI Group I126.8340.7896.3321.33 I222.6541.5090.2735.30 I323.2538.0092.3031.40 I421.7039.3784.8343.98

12. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE12 Defect Type Analysis Test defects were classified by Orthogonal Defect Classification (ODC) v.5.11 For requirement defects, pair development is better on detecting ambiguity/testability and correctness defects. Inspection is better on detecting consistency defects For Design / Code defects, the weakness of pair development is internal and external interfaces.

13. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE13 Content Research Objective and Approach Research Background Research Methodology Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Conclusion Future Work

14. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE14 Conclusion PD offers an option of reducing the schedule. PD spent less total development cost than inspection with the same level of quality. –Due to less appraisal costs and failure costs Experiment provided insights on when to use pair development or inspections

15. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE15 Example of Pair Development Scenario Team Size Safety Criticality Time to Market 5 5 5 0

16. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE16 Example of Software Development with Inspection Scenario Team Size Safety Criticality Time to Market 0 5 5 5

17. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE17 Example of Combination between Both Practices Scenario Team Size Safety Criticality Time to Market 5 5 5 0

18. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE18 Content Research Objective and Approach Research Background Research Methodology Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Conclusion Future Work

19. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE19 Future Work Simulate the Pair Development Model. –Develop an Extension to Ray Madachy’s System Dynamics model of inspections, to compare pair development and inspection dynamics and calibrate it to the experimental data. –Software development spending profiles analysis.

20. 2/13/07(c) USC-CSSE20 Questions & Answer – Thank You –