Assume that 10 errors have been introduced in the requirements model and that each error will be amplified by a factor of 2:1 into design and an addition 20 design errors are introduced and then amplified 1.5:1 into code where an additional 30 errors are introduced. Assume further that all unit testing will find 30 percent of all errors, integration will find 30 percent of the remaining errors, and validation tests will find 50 percent of the remaining errors. Assume that requirements, design, and code reviews are conducted and are 60 percent effective in uncovering all errors at that step.10 requirements errors with 60% caught during reviews reducing the error count to 4 which are amplified 2:1 to become 8 errors in design20 new design errors introduced 20 + 8 = 28 with 60% caught during

Question

reviews leaving 17 errors which are amplified 1:1.5 to become 26 errors30 new errors introduced during coding 30 + 26 = 56 with 60% caught during reviews leaving 34 errors at the start of testing30% of 34 errors uncovered during unit testing leaving 34 - 0.3 * 34 = 24 errors30% of 24 errors uncovered during integration testing leaving 24 - 0.3 * 24 = 17 errors50% of 17 errors uncovered during validation testing leaving 17 - 0.5 * 17 = 9 errorsIf each of the errors released to the field costs $4,800 to find and correct and each error found in review costs $240 to find and correct, how much money is saved by conducting review?

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

It always cheaper to discover and correct errors before they become defects.