![]() |
![]()
|
| Main Site > Software / IT Channel > Best Practices > Information Technology | Search: | for |
|
Six Sigma Software Metrics, Part 1
Six Sigma brings sharp focus to customer and business requirements and the defects connected with the failure to satisfy them. While the relevance of that view is clear enough to software professionals, their introduction to Six Sigma is often gets stopped short in questions about how the notions of yield, sigma level, or defects per million opportunities (DPMO) fit their world. As those are the toughest concepts to map to software, this article will suggest it's better to end the Six Sigma metrics discussion there, when a foundation in other defect metrics provides suitable measurement systems and perspective. This is the first in a series of three articles that views the range of software measures that support Six Sigma software goals and results. Table 1 illustrates how those goals "start simple" with the fundamental need to reduce released defects, progressing to more sophisticated goals where each build on prior work and understanding. Defect density metrics like DPMO appear at the end of the table as a culminating goal for software metrics. Rather than starting by wrestling with questions like "What's an opportunity for a defect?", many software businesses would be better off to work through those goals in sequence, recovering significant dollars with DMAIC projects as they go. By the time the last few goals are tackled, the measurement system and understanding about defects frames the DPMO question in a way that is much more understandable. "Maturity" In The Use Of Defect Metrics Table 1 shows that the progression in defect metrics refinement and richness of data-use can be seen as a series of goals, each of which call for some disciplined processes and which enable particular uses of the data. We will see that there is a lot to do before the question about DPMO even begins to make sense. Further, we'll recognize that a software organization can be fully successful with Six Sigma without even implementing DPMO metrics. Goal 1: Reduce Released Defects
Where: Obviously, a high TCE is best. While TCE data can be collected and the metric can be easily computed, many software organizations cannot document their performance on this basic metric. Benchmarking shows a range of TCE in the industry from about 65% to 98%, with many organizations somewhere in the 75% - 85% range. In some software businesses where there are particularly strong penalties for escaped defects (high end data storage systems, for example) the TCE can approach and reach 100%.
For Software Projects of Different Size and "Schedule Compression" From Patterns of Software System Failure and Success by Capers Jones, pp. 31-32. If the same defects that are counted to compute TCE are classified and grouped according to type and, even better, with respect to where they were inserted into the process, some rudimentary Defect Causal Analysis can be done.
In Figure 2 we see that, for defects found in test, most were inserted during coding. Building a measurement system for classifying these defects by type would be the next step in uncovering the key defect root causes. That, of course, would help us to reduce or remove root causes. In concert with root cause (defect insertion) reduction we may want to step up efforts to reduce the escape of defects from upstream phases to test. That highlights the next goal. Goal 2: Find And Fix Defects Closer To Their Origin With inspections and perhaps supplementary defect-finding activity in place we could track defect insertion rates at each key development or delivery stage. Figure 3 shows where defects attributed to Design were found. Note that 35% were found "in phase" (during Design) and lesser proportions found by Test, during Coding, and by the Customer (post release).
Data like this enables the computation of two related containment metrics: Phase Containment Effectiveness (PCE) and Defect Containment Effectiveness (DCE).
PCE tracks the ability of each phase to find defects before they escape that phase. DCE tracks the ability of each phase to find defects passed to it by upstream phases. Each of these measures provides insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the error and defect detection processes in each phase. Tracking these numbers together with defect type classifications, can identify patterns that shed light on the causes of the types of defects that are found. As a system like this matures, with data over time and across multiple projects, an understanding of the defect "time dynamics" can begin to come into view, setting the stage for the next goal. The use of a defect containment scorecard to track TCE, DCE, PCE, and Defect Repair Costs is described in this related article: Is Software Inspection Value Added?
Looking Ahead Read Six Sigma Software Metrics, Part 2 » About The Author Footnotes And References Reproduction Without Permission Is Strictly Prohibited Copyright Requests Publish an Article: Do you have a Six Sigma tip, learning or case study? Share it with the largest community of Six Sigma professionals, and be recognized by your peers. It's a great way to promote your expertise and/or build your resume. Read more about submitting an article.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home | Discussion Forum | Event Calendar | Job Shop | |
| Link To iSixSigma | Rate This Page | Report A Problem | Free Content For Your Site | Submit Article For Publishing | |
| Terms of Service. �2000-2009 iSixSigma. All rights reserved. v3.0lb, 0.1 |
About iSixSigma � Contact Us � Privacy Policy � Site Map. |