[SystemSafety] Data on Proof effectiveness from real projects

[Littlewood, Bev]

On 2 Apr 2016, at 16:02, Martyn Thomas <martyn at thomas-associates.co.uk<mailto:martyn at thomas-associates.co.uk>> wrote:

On 02/04/2016 06:37, Steve Tockey wrote:
Generally speaking, efficiency is looking at investment per unit of work done. In other words, increasing efficiency means that the same work is done at lower investment—the same (number of?) defects are found for a lower investment. Maximizing the chance of finding defects would be an issue of effectiveness. Effectiveness is looking at the rate at which the job is done correctly (I.e., a defect is found, not missed). One needs to look at both efficiency and effectiveness of processes to make a fair comparison.



Is anyone actually interested in the number of defects found? Surely that's not a measure of anything useful about the software.

Exactly! That was what my post of a couple of days ago was about (although I’m not sure it went to the list). I suggested that not all defects are born equal w.r.t. their impact on unreliability.


An important benefit of verification is that it can tell you (for some classes of defect) that the number of defects remaining is zero.

Or at least high confidence that it is zero…

Bev


Martyn
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE<mailto:systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>

_______________________________________________

Bev Littlewood
Professor of Software Engineering
Centre for Software Reliability
City University London EC1V 0HB

Phone: +44 (0)20 7040 8420  Fax: +44 (0)20 7040 8585

Email: b.littlewood at csr.city.ac.uk<mailto:b.littlewood at csr.city.ac.uk>

http://www.csr.city.ac.uk/
_______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160402/e1c7fa32/attachment.html>