1. 1 UDME Unit Development, Measurement and Efforts A programmer‘s experience What is possible?

2. 2 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Agenda q Problem q Process q Steps and Tests q System q Efforts q Errors q Measures q Conclusion

3. 3 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts The Problem Too expensive... Too difficult... Too long... Too... Too...

4. 4 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Process

5. 5 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Basics for Start: Details

6. 6 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Standard Test: Details

7. 7 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Measured Quality: Details

8. 8 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Algorithm

9. 9 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Asserts assert ( tabel space ) assert ( overflow ) assert ( compiler restriction ) assert ( declaration of table limits ) assert ( underflow )

10. 10 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Standard Test Case Tree (in Parts) low = high + - more than one x i  a Asserts are tested separately. i = low no x i  a x i > a x i = a + + + + + - - - - - !

11. 11 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Planning the System Per Level  Order of importance  Conditions sine qua non

12. 12 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Implementing the System  Hardest first  Bottom up  Complete sub tree  Independent first  Condition first  Sub tree first

13. 13 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Selected Location Parameter Data collected: 7.2002 - 7.2003 # of modules: 168  Effort in minutes  Size in editor lines  Maintenance index no dimension

14. 14 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Particular Efforts

15. 15 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Efforts Groups

16. 16 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Errors Benefit dynamic measurement  5:1

17. 17 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Maintenance Measuring Measure Tool Formula

18. 18 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Comment and MI

19. 19 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Regions of Maintenance More than 95 % of the modules have at least a fair maintainability index. Benefit of static measurement

20. 20 Unit Development, Measurement and Efforts Effort and Poor Maintenance Within poor region HP (n=5 %=2.98) Effort Type- --Group--- Percent mean part mean all- Basic------ 1645 7.48 329.00 130.96 Std. Test-- 759 7.33 151.80 61.61 Measurement 98 5.82 19.60 10.03 Sum Effort- 2502 7.35 500.40 202.60

21. 21 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Effort and Fair Maintenance Within fair region HP (n=28 %=16.67) Effort Type- --Group--- Percent mean part mean all- Basic------ 8340 37.91 297.86 130.96 Std. Test-- 3125 30.19 111.61 61.61 Measurement 480 28.49 17.14 10.03 Sum Effort- 11945 35.09 426.61 202.60

22. 22 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts Effort and Excellent Maintenance Within excellent region HP (n=135 %=80.36) Effort Type- --Group--- Percent mean part mean all- Basic------ 12016 54.62 89.01 130.96 Std. Test-- 6467 62.48 47.90 61.61 Measurement 1107 65.70 8.20 10.03 Sum Effort- 19590 57.56 145.11 202.60 Honi soit qui mal y pense!

23. 23 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts It is possible... To develop programs so that  Measuring requires less than 5 % of the effort,  Test reach a code coverage of 100% LCSAJs within less than 2 % of the effort,  Source codes fulfils the high level quality requirements without any additional effort for 98 % of the modules,  An excellent maintainability is achieved with less effort per module than the mean value for more than 80 % of the modules,  A poor maintainability appears for less than 3 % of the modules and  Quality benefits are earned during the development process.

24. 24 U nit D evelopment, M easurement and E fforts