SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 10
2012 ARS, India: Chennai
            Track 2, Session 11
        Begins at 2:40 PM, Thursday, October 11



  Successive Software Reliability
Growth Model: A Modular Approach
           Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey
Cognizant Technology Solution, Hyderabad, India
PRESENTATION SLIDES
The following presentation was delivered at the:




                 International Applied Reliability Symposium, India
                        October 10 - 12, 2012: Chennai, India
                               http://www.ARSymposium.org/india/2012/


   The International Applied Reliability Symposium (ARS) is intended to be a forum for reliability and maintainability
     practitioners within industry and government to discuss their success stories and lessons learned regarding
      the application of reliability techniques to meet real world challenges. Each year, the ARS issues an open
     "Call for Presentations" at http://www.ARSymposium.org/india/presenters/index.htm and the presentations
             delivered at the Symposium are selected on the basis of the presentation proposals received.

    Although the ARS may edit the presentation materials as needed to make them ready to print, the content of the
         presentation is solely the responsibility of the author. Publication of these presentation materials in the
      ARS Proceedings does not imply that the information and methods described in the presentation have been
                                  verified or endorsed by the ARS and/or its organizers.




                The publication of these materials in the ARS presentation format is
                       Copyright © 2012 by the ARS, All Rights Reserved.
Brief: Myself and Proposal                                                                                                                   Vocabulary
                                                Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Ph.D. (Software Reliability) from IIT Kharagpur,                                                                    COMP Error: Commission/Omission/Misinterpretation/Performance Error
                                                 working as Sr. RAMS Engineer at Cognizant Technology Solution,
                                                 Hyderabad, India.                                                                                                                           DC: Defect Checklist

                                                Division: CoE (Centre of Excellence).                                                                                                       FDR : Fault Density Indicator at Requirement Phase
                                                Area: Reliability and Safety (Assessment and Prediction), Regulatory and                                                                    FDD: Fault Density Indicator at Design Phase
                                                 Compliance of Safety Critical System (Rail/ Automotive/ Avionics and
                                                 Medical).                                                                                                                                   FDC: Fault Density Indicator at Coding Phase

                                                Proposal: To improve the reliability of software successively by predicting                                                                 FDT: Fault Density Indicator at Testing Phase
                                                 and fixing the faults before they propagate.
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                             Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                                                                                                                                                             RRSM: Reliability Relevant Software Metrics
                                                Key Points: Realistic (Birth to Death) approach for software, early reliability
                                                 assurance before testing, reliability relevant software metrics and review                                                                  SDLC: Software Development Life Cycle
                                                 defect checklist.
                                                                                                                                                                                             SRGM: Software Reliability Growth Model

                                                                                                                                                                                             SSRGM: Successive Software Reliability Growth Model




                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 2                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 3




                                            Agenda                                                                                                                                       Introduction: Software Reliability

                                                Introduction                                                                 5 min                                                          Applicability of software keeps on increasing, from basic home
                                                                                                                                                                                              appliances to safety critical business applications.
                                                Earlier Works                                                                8 min
                                                Observation and Motivation                                                   7 min                                                          Size, complexity and dependency on software based systems are
                                                                                                                                                                                              growing.
                                                Proposed SSRGM Model                                                        20 min
                                                Results and Discussion                                                       5 min                                                          Software reliability becomes a challenging objective for both
                                                                                                                                                                                              developer as well as user.
                                                Summary                                                                      5 min
                                                Relevant References                                                                                                                                  • Developer: How to develop fault free software (system)?
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                             Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                Questions                                                                   10 min                                                                   • User: How to choose a reliable (failure free) system?
                                                                                                                                                                                             System failures due to a software failure are very common and
                                                                                                                                                                                              can result in undesirables situations.




                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 4                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 5
Introduction: H/W Reliability vs. S/W Reliability                                                                                            Introduction: Software Reliability

                                                                                                                                                                                          Reliability is the probability that a                            Software reliability: probability that a
                                                                                                                                                                                          system or component performs its                                 software system or component
                                                                                                                                                                                          required functions under stated                                  performs its intended function under
                                                                                                                                                                                          conditions for a specified period of                             the specified operating conditions
                                                                                                                                                                                          time.                                                            over the specified period of time.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           A software failure is defined as “the
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Software faults are the                              deviation of the program behavior
                                                                                                                                                                                                      root cause of failures,                              from requirements,” whereas a fault
                                                                                                                                                                                                       making the software                                 is defined as “the defect in the
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                             Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                                                                                                                                                                            unreliable.                                    program that causes failures when
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           executed.
                                                                                                                                                                                                 One measure of software
                                                                                                                                                                                                 reliability is the number of
                                                                                                                                                                                                 residual faults, and it has been                 The proposal is to develop a new model
                                                                                                                                                                                                 observed that the more                           to predict and fix the number of faults at
                                                                                                                                                                                                 residual faults a software has,                  each phase of SDLC before they
                                                                                                                                                                                                 the less reliable it is.                         propagate, thus growing the reliability
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  successively.

                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 6                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2              Session 11       Slide Number: 7




                                            Earlier Works: Software Reliability Models                                                                                                   Earlier Works: Software Reliability Models
                                                A software reliability model usually refers to the mathematical form                                                                        SRGM assumes that the reliability of S/W will continue to grow if
                                                 of the equation that is used in estimating/predicting the number of                                                                          the observed error (during testing) are removed (i.e., number of
                                                 faults/failures in a software.                                                                                                               residual faults decreases with progression of testing).
                                                Software reliability models can be broadly categorized into two                                                                             SRGM Limitations:
                                                 types (Pham, 2006): Deterministic and Probabilistic.
                                                                                                                                                                                                Can be applied once coding is done, and is useful only if
                                                Some probabilistic models are: failure rate models (times between                                                                               failure data ID is available.
                                                 failure models), failure or fault count models (NHPP models),
                                                                                                                                                                                                Can’t do much with requirements and design phase in term of
                                                 error or fault seeding models, Markov structure models, reliability
                                                                                                                                                                                                 reliability.
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                             Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                 growth models, etc.
                                                                                                                                                                                                Costly and unrealistic reliability improvement approach.
                                                Reliability growth: Fix the defect, grow the reliability.
                                                                                                                                                                                             Reliability is a Birth to Death process, so it will be good enough if
                                                A SRGM is a mathematical equation by which version (i) reliability
                                                                                                                                                                                              the reliability growth process is applied since the beginning.
                                                 is improved by using data of version (i-1) or any earlier version.
                                                                                                                                                                                             Key References: [1], [2], and [3].


                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 8                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2              Session 11       Slide Number: 9
Earlier Works: Early Software Reliability Models                                                                                              Earlier Works: Affecting Factors
                                                Predicting the reliability of a software system before the testing phase is                                                                  Around 40 reliability relevant software measures are given IEEE STD-982.2
                                                 known as early software reliability prediction.                                                                                               to produce reliable software.

                                                Early prediction attracts both software professionals and managers                                                                           A study was conducted by Zhang and Pham (2000) to find the factors
                                                 because it provides insight towards optimal development strategies.                                                                           affecting software reliability.

                                                Failure data are not available in the early phase of the software                                                                            Li, et al. (2003) have shown that there are 30 software metrics associated
                                                 development life cycle, and reliability can be predicted on the basis of the                                                                  with different phases of the software life cycle, and among these metrics,
                                                 software metrics, developer’s process maturity level and expert opinions.                                                                     some are relevant to reliability and can be identified at the early stage of the
                                                                                                                                                                                               life cycle.
                                                Early reliability prediction seems to be useful, but the problem with early
                                                                                                                                                                                              The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) has become a popular methodology to
                                                 software reliability predictions are :
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                              Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                                                                                                                                                               develop high-quality software within budget and time. Harter et al. (2000)
                                                       First, how to find the software failure intensity function without                                                                     found that a 1% improvement in process maturity resulted in 1.6% increase
                                                        executing the software, which is required to calculated the software                                                                   in product quality.
                                                        reliability?                                                                                                                          Krishnan and Kellner (1999) found process maturity and personnel capability
                                                       Second, how the time parameter of reliability evaluation can be                                                                        to be significant predictors (both at the 10% level) of the number of defects.
                                                        found during the early stage of software development?                                                                                 Ref: [7], [8], [9],[10] and [11].
                                                Key References: [4], [5], and [6].

                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 10                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 11




                                            Observation & Motivation                                                                                                                      Proposed SSRGM Model
                                                Around hundreds of software reliability growth models (SRGMs) have                                                                           The proposed model assumes that the software is being developed
                                                 been developed to date. Limitation with SRGM are: late applicability,                                                                         through a waterfall process model.
                                                 cost of fixing, failure data availability, not suitable for requirement/design
                                                                                                                                                                                              A software engineer collects, measures and develops metrics so that
                                                 phase, etc.
                                                                                                                                                                                               indicators will be obtained. An indicator is a metric or combination of
                                                SRGM approaches for reliability prediction are not very useful in a                                                                           metrics that provides insight into a software process, a software project,
                                                 practical scenario because version (i) reliability depends on the data of                                                                     or the product itself.
                                                 version (i-1) or any earlier version.
                                                                                                                                                                                              The proposed model utilizes software metrics and finds fault density
                                                Due to the several practical limitations with earlier software reliability                                                                    indicators for each development phase using a fuzzy inference system
                                                 models, this work focuses on fault prediction model. A software system                                                                        (FIS).
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                              Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                 fails only if the residual faults are executed, causing failure and making it
                                                                                                                                                                                              Also, the proposal is to use a defect checklist (DC) to fix the common
                                                 unreliable.
                                                                                                                                                                                               defects quickly and update the fault density indicator value, before
                                                The reliability of a software system depends on the number of residual                                                                        passing it unto the next phase.
                                                 faults sitting dormant inside. Therefore, this work aims to predict and fix
                                                                                                                                                                                              Finally, using the fault density indicator of the testing phase, the number
                                                 residual faults across the SDLS, growing reliability successively.
                                                                                                                                                                                               of residual faults is predicted.



                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 12                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 13
Proposed Model Architecture                                                                                                                                       Proposed Model Architecture
                                                                                                         #     Phase          Metrics
                                                                                                         1     Requirement    RC, RS, RIW                                                                                                                                  #     Phase             Input Variables           Output
                                                                   RRSM                                  2     Design         FDR, DTE, PM                                                                                                                                                                                   Variables
                                                                                     Extracts                                                                                                                                                                              1     Requirement       RC, RS, RIW               FDR
                                                                                                         3     Coding         FDD, CTE, DPF
                                                                                                         4     Testing        FDT, TTE, SI,                                                                                                                                2     Design            FDR, DTE, PM              FDD
                                                                                                                              SIZE                                                                                                                                         3     Coding            FDD, CTE, DPF             FDC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           4     Testing           FDT,    TTE,        SI,   FDT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   SIZE
                                                                                                                  Defect Checklists (Req. Phase)                                                                                                                           5     Fault             FDT                       Faults
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Prediction
                                                  Derive COMP Error                                 #         Description [Prob.] Severity Reason
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                                  Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                  phase wise defects                                1.        Missing    0.8              M         Change
                                                  and make a defect                                           Var.                                  Request
                                                  checklist.                                        2.        …          …..              ….        …..
                                                                                                    3.
                                                                                                    4.
                                                Sources: [7], [8], [9], and [12]


                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution            Track 2         Session 11        Slide Number: 14                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2                 Session 11             Slide Number: 15




                                            Proposed SSRGM Approach                                                                                                                                           Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d)
                                                Model assumption: Waterfall development process model.                                                                                                         Step 1: Identification of independent and dependent variables

                                                The model is based on fuzzy logic and implemented in MATLAB. The model
                                                 consists of the following steps:                                                                                                                               Table: Independent Variables                                      Table: Dependent Variables
                                                                                                                                                                                                              No. Independent Variables                                         No Dependent Variables
                                                            Identification of independent/dependent variables
                                                                                                                                                                                                              1    Requirements Complexity (RC)                                 1   Fault density indicator at
                                                            Development of fuzzy profile (on the basis of nature variables)                                                                                  2    Requirements Stability (RS)                                      requirements phase (FDR)
                                                            Developing fuzzy rules (expert opinions)                                                                                                         3    Review, Inspection and                                       2   Fault density indicator at
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Walkthrough (RIW)                                                design phase (FDD)
                                                            Information Processing (Mamdani FIS)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              4    Design Team Experience (DTE)                                 3   Fault density indicator at
                                                            Residual fault prediction
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                                  Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                                                                              5    Process Maturity (PM)                                            coding phase (FDC)
                                                Software metrics (independent variables) are considered as input variables                                                                                   6    Coding Team Experience (CTE)                                 4   Fault density indicator at
                                                 to the model to get dependent variables (output). Independent variables are                                                                                  7    Defined Process Followed (DPF)                                   testing phase (FDT)
                                                 taken from PROMISE repository [14].                                                                                                                          8    Testing Team Experience (TTE)                                5   Total number of residual faults
                                                Fault density indictors and residual faults are the dependent variables in this                                                                              9    Stake holder Involvement (SI)                                    predicted (Faults)
                                                 study. There are four fault density indicators (FDR, FDD, FDC and FDT)                                                                                       10   Size of program in LOC (SIZE)
                                                 associated with requirements, design, coding and testing phase,
                                                 respectively.

                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution            Track 2         Session 11        Slide Number: 16                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2                 Session 11             Slide Number: 17
Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d)                                                                                                                  Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d)
                                              Step 2: Development of fuzzy profile
                                                                                                                                                                                                 For logarithmic nature software metrics,
                                               Software metrics may follow either linear scale or logarithmic scale.
                                               Out of ten input variables, only three variables (RIW, PM and DPF)                                                                                  The profiles may take the values as VL (0; 0; 0.14), L (0; 0.14; 0.32), M
                                                variation follow a linear nature. The remaining variables follow a                                                                                  (0.14; 0.32; 0.57), H (0.32; 0.57; 1.00), and VH (0.57; 1.00; 1.00).
                                                logarithmic nature.
                                                                                                                                                                                                 For linear nature software metrics,
                                               All output variables are assumed to follow a logarithmic nature.
                                               On the basis of their nature, fuzzy profiles of software metrics are
                                                developed and triangular fuzzy profiles are considered.                                                                                             The profiles may take the values as VL (0; 0; 0.25), L (0; 0.25; 0.50), M
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                  Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                                                                                                                                                                    (0.25; 0.50; 0.75), H (0.50; 0.75; 1.00), and VH (0.75; 1.00; 1.00).
                                               For all input variables, we have considered five levels, i.e., very low (VL)
                                                to very high (VH).                                                                                                                               For outputs,
                                               For all output variables, we have considered seven levels, i.e., very very
                                                low (VVL) to very very high (VVH).
                                                                                                                                                                                                    The profiles may take the values as VVL (0; 0; 0.08), VL (0; 0.08; 0.17), L
                                                                                                                                                                                                    (0.08; 0.17; 0.29), M (0.14; 0.32; 0.57), H (0.17; 0.29; 0.44), VH (0.44; 0.64;
                                                                                                                                                                                                    1.00), and VVH (0.64; 1.00; 1.00).
                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution      Track 2    Session 11   Slide Number: 18                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution           Track 2                  Session 11          Slide Number: 19




                                            Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d)                                                                                                                  Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d)
                                                                                                                                                                                                Step 3: Development of fuzzy rules
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Rules are developed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Table : Rules at Req. Phase
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               using two or more
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Rule       RC     RS     RIW      FDR                             domain expert engineers.
                                                                                                                                                                                                               1         L      L      L        VL
                                                                                                                                                                                                               2         L      L      M           L
                                                                                                                                                                                                               3         L      L      H        M
                                                                                                                                                                                                               .         .      .       .          .


                                                                                                                                                                                                Step 4: Information Processing: The Mamdani fuzzy inference system is
                                                                                                                                                                                                  used. For defuzzification process, “Centroid Method” is considered.
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                  Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       RC     RS     RIW    DTE        PM     CTE       DPF     TTE        SI       Size
                                                                                                                                                                                                              VL       0.05   0.05   0.08   0.05       0.08   0.05      0.08    0.05      0.05      0.05
                                                                                                                                                                                                               L       0.15   0.15   0.25   0.15       0.25   0.15      0.25    0.15      0.15      0.15
                                                                                                                                                                                                               M       0.34   0.34   0.50   0.34       0.50   0.34      0.50    0.34      0.34      0.34
                                                                                                                                                                                                               H       0.63   0.63   0.75   0.63       0.75   0.63      0.75    0.63      0.63      0.63
                                                                                                                                                                                                              VH       0.86   0.86   0.92   0.86       0.92   0.86      0.92    0.86      0.86      0.86
                                                                            Figures: Examples of Fuzzy profiles
                                                        Ajeet Kumar, Cognizant                      Track 2      Session 11    Slide Number: 20                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution           Track 2                  Session 11          Slide Number: 21
Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d)                                                                                                                                   Results and Discussion
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ROMOSE repository (http://promisedata.org/repository/data/qqdefects) [12] dataset
                                              Step 5: Fault Prediction                                                                                                                                             are used for validation.
                                                  Fault density indictor value is refined using DC, before sending to the next                                                                                                            RC        RS    RIW      DTE        PM       CTE      DPF      TTE       SI     SIZE      Faults

                                                   phase.                                                                                                                                                              #        Project    F1         S7    S3      D1         P9        D2      D3       T2        P5       K           TD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       1          1        M          L     VH      L           H         H      H        H          H      6.02         148
                                                  On the basis of fault density indicator of testing phase, total number of                                                                                           2          2        L          H     VH      L          H          H      H        H         H       0.9          31
                                                   faults is computed as:                                                                                                                                              3          3        H          H     VH      H          VH        VH      H        H         VH     53.86         209
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       4           5        H        M       H       L         H         M       H        M         M        14        373
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       5           7        L        M      VH      M          H         VH      H        M         VH       21       204
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       6           8       M         H      H       H          M         H       M        M         H       5.79       53
                                                  Fault detection process is not exactly linear with size. As size of a software                                                                                      7          10       M         H      H       H          H         H       H        M         H       4.84        29
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        8         11        H        H       H       H         H          H      H        H         H       4.37        71
                                                   increases, portion of faults detected decreases due to saturation, time and                                                                                          9         12        H         L     H       VH         H         M       M        H          H       19        90
                                                   experience.
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                                   Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       10         13        H         L     M        H         H         H       H        M          H      49.1       129
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       11         14       VH        H      H        H         H          H      H        H         H       58.3       672
                                                  Therefore, the FTP value is modified as provided in the equation below.                                                                                             12         15        H        VL     H        H         H          H      H        H         VH      154       1768

                                                   The C2 value scales the effect of LOC value. Thus, residual faults can be                                                                                           13         16       L          M      H      H          H         H       H        H         VH     26.67         109
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       14         17        L        M      M       M          H         M       H         L        M       33           688
                                                   predicted as,                                                                                                                                                       15         19        H        M       H       H         H          H      H        M          H      87           476
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       16         20       VH        VL     M       VL         H         VL      L        VL         H      50           928
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       17         21        L        M       H       H         H          H      H         H         H      22           196
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       18         22       M          L     M        H         H         M       L        M          H      44           184
                                                  C1 and C2 are constants obtained through recursive learning. The value of                                                                                           19         23        H        M      VH       L         H          H      H         H         H      61           680
                                                   C1 and C2 for current projects are found to be 0.04 and 107 respectively.                                                                                           20         27        H        M      VH      M          H          L      M        M         M       52           412
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       21         29       M         VH     VH      VH         H         VH      H        VH        VH      11           91
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       22         30        L        VH     VH       H         H          H      H         H        VH       1            5

                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution      Track 2             Session 11           Slide Number: 22                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution                Track 2               Session 11               Slide Number: 23




                                                                                                                                                                                                               Results and Discussion (cont’d)
                                            Results and Discussion (cont’d)
                                                                         Table: Project Data Set After Conversion                                                                                                           Table : Fault Density Indicators, Actual Faults and Faults Predicted
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           #       FDR          FDD        FDC           FDT        Size (LOC)   Actual       Proposed   Fenton et al.
                                                       #    Project   RC       RS      RIW     DTE    PM     CTE    DPF      TTE         SI    SIZE   Faults
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Faults        Model       (2008)
                                                       1       1      0.34     0.15    0.92    0.15   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.63   0.15     148
                                                       2       2      0.15     0.63    0.92    0.15   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.63   0.15     31                                                                  1     0.0925        0.1937     0.1387    0.3042             900        31            5.48         52
                                                       3       3      0.63     0.63    0.92    0.63   0.92   0.86   0.75     0.63       0.86   0.86     209                                                                 2     0.0815        0.0834     0.0739    0.3008            1000         5            6.02         46
                                                       4       5      0.63     0.34    0.75    0.15   0.75   0.34   0.75     0.34       0.34   0.34     373                                                                 3      0.457        0.3002     0.1802    0.4645            4370        71            40.61        51
                                                       5       7      0.15     0.34    0.92    0.34   0.75   0.86   0.75     0.34       0.86   0.63     204                                                                 4     0.1827        0.1378     0.1332    0.2703            4840        29            26.17       203
                                                       6       8      0.34     0.63    0.75    0.63    0.5   0.63    0.5     0.34       0.63   0.15     53                                                                  5     0.1827        0.3002     0.1802    0.4645            5790        53            53.81        48
                                                       7      10      0.34     0.63    0.75    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.34       0.63   0.15     29                                                                  6     0.3171        0.4571      0.392    0.4645            6020       148            55.94        75
                                                       8      11      0.63     0.63    0.75    0.63   0.75   0.63    0.5     0.63       0.63   0.15     71                                                                  7     0.2087        0.1898      0.142       0.5           11000        91           110.06        116
                                                       9      12      0.63     0.15    0.75    0.86   0.75   0.34    0.5     0.63       0.63   0.34     90                                                                  8     0.6306        0.6523     0.6802    0.8297          14000        373          232.48        349
                                                      10      13      0.63     0.15     0.5    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.34       0.63   0.63     129                                                                 9     0.2892        0.2543      0.185    0.4634          19000         90          176.25        347
                                                      11      14      0.86     0.63    0.75    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.63   0.86     672                                                                10     0.186         0.2806     0.1723    0.2698          21000        204           113.43       262
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                                   Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                      12      15      0.63     0.05    0.75    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.86   0.86    1768                                                                11     0.1825        0.1372      0.133    0.2395          22000        196          105.51        259
                                                      13      16      0.05     0.34    0.75    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.86   0.63     109                                                                12     0.1825        0.1372      0.133    0.2395          26670        109          127.94        145
                                                      14      17      0.05     0.34     0.5    0.34   0.75   0.34   0.75     0.15       0.34   0.63     688                                                                13     0.1825        0.2807     0.1725    0.2053          33000        688          135.74        444
                                                      15      19      0.63     0.34    0.75    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.34       0.63   0.86     476                                                                14     0.5653        0.3024     0.3001      0.33          44000        184          291.02        501
                                                      16      20      0.86     0.05     0.5    0.05   0.75   0.05   0.25     0.05       0.63   0.86     928                                                                15     0.457         0.3002     0.2322    0.3419          49100        129          336.59        516
                                                      17      21      0.05     0.34    0.75    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.63   0.63     196                                                                16     0.7184        0.7334     0.8448    0.8671          50000        928          869.23        986
                                                      18      22      0.34     0.15     0.5    0.63   0.75   0.34   0.25     0.34       0.63   0.63     184                                                                17     0.4211        0.4331     0.1801    0.3838          52000        412          400.17        430
                                                      19      23      0.63     0.34    0.92    0.15   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.63   0.86     680                                                                18     0.2908        0.2554     0.1552     0.195          53860        209          210.61        210
                                                      20      27      0.34     0.34    0.92    0.34   0.75   0.15    0.5     0.34       0.34   0.86     412                                                                19     0.458         0.3002     0.2322    0.5964          58300        672          697.48        674
                                                      21      29      0.34     0.86    0.92    0.86   0.75   0.86   0.75     0.86       0.86   0.34     91                                                                 20     0.4778        0.4944     0.3929     0.564          61000        680          690.17        722
                                                      22      30      0.05     0.86    0.92    0.63   0.75   0.63   0.75     0.63       0.86   0.15      5                                                                 21     0.6306         0.305     0.2499    0.3281          87000        476          573.44        581
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           22     0.4572        0.3002     0.2322    0.5319          154000       1768         1650.89       1526



                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution      Track 2             Session 11           Slide Number: 24                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution                Track 2               Session 11               Slide Number: 25
Results and Discussion (cont’d)                                                                                                                    Summary
                                                     Proposed model prediction result is compared with a model using                                                                               Software faults are the root causes of failures; thus, degrading the
                                                      Bayesian Nets (Fenton et al., 2008), as listed in the following table.                                                                         reliability. This work aims to improve the reliability successively
                                                                                                                                                                                                     through fault prediction modeling.
                                                     From the table it is clear that the proposed approach, which is
                                                      based on fuzzy inference system, provides more accurate results                                                                               The model has discussed a comprehensive framework to gather the
                                                      than the model based on Bayesian Nets provided by Fenton et al.                                                                                relevant metrics and defect checklist from each phases of SDLC,
                                                      (2008).                                                                                                                                        processing it, and integrating it with the fuzzy logic system to predict
                                                                                                                                                                                                     residual faults.
                                                                  Evaluation             Proposed        Fenton et al. (2008)
                                                                                                                                                                                                    This model will be useful to software professionals by providing an
                                                                  Measures               Approach          Approach [16]
                                                                                                                                                                                                     insight to software metrics and its impact on software fault during the
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                   Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                                       SSE              440943.00             500895.00                                                                              development process.
                                                                       MSE               20042.86             22767.95                                                                              Another benefits of this kind of fault prediction is to help developers
                                                                                                                                                                                                     produce software with a minimum number of residual faults.
                                                                      RMSE                 141.57              150.89
                                                                      MAPE                  37.49              116.81



                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2        Session 11   Slide Number: 26                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11     Slide Number: 27




                                            Where to Get More Information                                                                                                                      Where to Get More Information
                                            1.       Yamada, S., Ohba, M., and Osaki, S. (1983), S-shaped Reliability Growth Modelling                                                         9.    Li, M. and Smidts, C. (2003), A Ranking of Software Engineering Measures Based
                                                     for Software Error Detection, IEEE Transaction on Reliability, Vol. R-32, pp. 475–478.                                                          on Expert Opinion, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 9, pp.
                                            2.       Goel, A.L. (1985), Software Reliability Models: Assumptions, Limitations, and                                                                   811–24.
                                                     Applicability, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, Vol. SE–11, No. 12, pp.                                                          10.   Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S. and Slaughter, S.A. (2000), Effects of Process Maturity
                                                     1411–1423.                                                                                                                                      on Quality, Cycle Time and Effort in Software Product Development, Management
                                            3.       Kapur, P. K. and Younes, S. (1995), Software Reliability Growth Model with Error                                                                Science, Vol. 46, pp. 451–466.
                                                     Dependency, Microelectronics and Reliability, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 273-278.                                                                11.   Krishnan, M. S. and Kellner, M. I. (1999), Measuring Process Consistency:
                                            4.       Rome Laboratory (1992), Methodology for Software Reliability Prediction and                                                                     Implications Reducing Software Defects, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering,
                                                     Assessment, Technical Report RL-TR-92-52, vol. 1 & 2.                                                                                           Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 800–815.
                                            5.       Gaffney, G. E. and Pietrolewiez, J., (1990), An Automated Model for Software Early                                                        12.   PROMISE repository (2007), http://promisedata.org/repository/data/qqdefects.
                                                     Error Prediction (SWEEP), Proceeding of 13th Minnow Brook Workshop on Software                                                            13.   Pham, H. (2006), System Software Reliability, Reliability Engineering Series,
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                                   Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                     Reliability.                                                                                                                                    Springer.
                                            6.       Pandey, A. K. and Goyal, N. K. (2009), A Fuzzy Model for Early Software Fault                                                             14.   Ross, T. J. (2005), Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, Willy–India 2nd
                                                     Prediction using Process Maturity and Software Metrics, International Journal of                                                                Edition.
                                                     Electronics Engineering, Vol.1, No. 2, pp. 239–245.                                                                                       15.   Zadeh, L. A. (1965), Fuzzy Sets — Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 338–
                                            7.       IEEE (1988), IEEE Guide for the Use of IEEE Standard Dictionary of Measures to                                                                  353.
                                                     Produce Reliable Software, IEEE Std. 982.2.                                                                                               16.   Fenton, N., Neil, N., Marsh, W., Hearty, P., Radlinski, L. and Krause, P. (2008), On
                                            8.       Zhang, X. and Pham, H. (2000), An Analysis of Factors Affecting Software                                                                        the effectiveness of early life cycle defect prediction with Bayesian Nets, Empirical of
                                                     Reliability, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 43–56.                                                                    Software Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 499–537.


                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2        Session 11   Slide Number: 28                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11     Slide Number: 29
Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey                                                                                                                        Questions
                                                Qualifications: Ph.D. (Software Reliability) from IIT Kharagpur,
                                                 Kharagpur, W.B. India.
                                                Working as Sr. RAMS Engineer at Cognizant Technology
                                                 Solution, Hyderabad, India.
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Thank you for your attention.
                                                Work Area: Reliability and Safety (Assessment and Prediction),
                                                 Regulatory and Compliance of Safety Critical System (Rail/
                                                 Automotive/ Avionics and Medical).
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Do you have any questions?
Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012




                                                                                                                                              Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012
                                                Email: ajeet.kumar3@cognizant.com, ajeet.mnnit@gmail.com
                                                Voice: (+91) 40 44518085, 888 6411889




                                            Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 30                                               Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution   Track 2   Session 11   Slide Number: 31

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Software reliability
Software reliabilitySoftware reliability
Software reliabilityAnand Kumar
 
Software reliability growth model
Software reliability growth modelSoftware reliability growth model
Software reliability growth modelHimanshu
 
Software Reliability
Software ReliabilitySoftware Reliability
Software Reliabilityranapoonam1
 
Software Reliability Engineering
Software Reliability EngineeringSoftware Reliability Engineering
Software Reliability Engineeringguest90cec6
 
What is Software Quality and how to measure it?
What is Software Quality and how to measure it?What is Software Quality and how to measure it?
What is Software Quality and how to measure it?Denys Zaiats
 
Software Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex Training
Software Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex TrainingSoftware Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex Training
Software Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex TrainingBryan Len
 
Information hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted Images
Information hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted ImagesInformation hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted Images
Information hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted ImagesIRJET Journal
 
Software reliability tools and common software errors
Software reliability tools and common software errorsSoftware reliability tools and common software errors
Software reliability tools and common software errorsHimanshu
 
Comparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And Activities
Comparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And ActivitiesComparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And Activities
Comparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And ActivitiesLemia Algmri
 
10. Software testing overview
10. Software testing overview10. Software testing overview
10. Software testing overviewghayour abbas
 
Software engineering
Software engineeringSoftware engineering
Software engineeringGuruAbirami2
 
A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...
A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...
A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...IOSR Journals
 

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Software reliability
Software reliabilitySoftware reliability
Software reliability
 
Software reliability
Software reliabilitySoftware reliability
Software reliability
 
Software reliability growth model
Software reliability growth modelSoftware reliability growth model
Software reliability growth model
 
Software Reliability
Software ReliabilitySoftware Reliability
Software Reliability
 
Quality & Reliability in Software Engineering
Quality & Reliability in Software EngineeringQuality & Reliability in Software Engineering
Quality & Reliability in Software Engineering
 
Software Testing
Software TestingSoftware Testing
Software Testing
 
Software Reliability Engineering
Software Reliability EngineeringSoftware Reliability Engineering
Software Reliability Engineering
 
What is Software Quality and how to measure it?
What is Software Quality and how to measure it?What is Software Quality and how to measure it?
What is Software Quality and how to measure it?
 
Software quality
Software qualitySoftware quality
Software quality
 
Software Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex Training
Software Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex TrainingSoftware Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex Training
Software Reliability Testing Training Crash Course - Tonex Training
 
Information hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted Images
Information hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted ImagesInformation hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted Images
Information hiding based on optimization technique for Encrypted Images
 
Software reliability tools and common software errors
Software reliability tools and common software errorsSoftware reliability tools and common software errors
Software reliability tools and common software errors
 
Comparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And Activities
Comparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And ActivitiesComparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And Activities
Comparing Software Quality Assurance Techniques And Activities
 
Software maintenance
Software maintenanceSoftware maintenance
Software maintenance
 
10. Software testing overview
10. Software testing overview10. Software testing overview
10. Software testing overview
 
Software engineering
Software engineeringSoftware engineering
Software engineering
 
Swe notes
Swe notesSwe notes
Swe notes
 
The importance of quality software
The importance of quality softwareThe importance of quality software
The importance of quality software
 
A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...
A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...
A Combined Approach of Software Metrics and Software Fault Analysis to Estima...
 
Software testing strategies
Software testing strategiesSoftware testing strategies
Software testing strategies
 

Andere mochten auch

Information20121017
Information20121017Information20121017
Information20121017b-slash
 
TESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern Applications
TESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern ApplicationsTESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern Applications
TESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern ApplicationsHironori Washizaki
 
ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト (Learning by Contest) ~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~
ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト(Learning by Contest)~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト(Learning by Contest)~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~
ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト (Learning by Contest) ~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~Hironori Washizaki
 
Reliability growth models for quality management
Reliability growth models for quality managementReliability growth models for quality management
Reliability growth models for quality managementRoy Antony Arnold G
 
ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...
ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...
ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...Agile Testing Alliance
 
ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...
ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...
ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...Agile Testing Alliance
 
ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...
ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...
ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...Agile Testing Alliance
 
Testing Frameworks And Methodologies
Testing Frameworks And MethodologiesTesting Frameworks And Methodologies
Testing Frameworks And MethodologiesSteven Cahill
 
ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...
ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...
ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...Agile Testing Alliance
 
Introduction to Test Automation - Technology and Tools
Introduction to Test Automation - Technology and ToolsIntroduction to Test Automation - Technology and Tools
Introduction to Test Automation - Technology and ToolsKMS Technology
 
ATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD Approach
ATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD ApproachATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD Approach
ATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD ApproachAgile Testing Alliance
 
Introduction to Test Automation
Introduction to Test AutomationIntroduction to Test Automation
Introduction to Test AutomationPekka Klärck
 

Andere mochten auch (15)

Information20121017
Information20121017Information20121017
Information20121017
 
TESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern Applications
TESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern ApplicationsTESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern Applications
TESEM: A Tool for Verifying Security Design Pattern Applications
 
ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト (Learning by Contest) ~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~
ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト(Learning by Contest)~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト(Learning by Contest)~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~
ラーニング・バイ・コンテスト (Learning by Contest) ~ プログラミング学習のシフト ~
 
Reliability growth models for quality management
Reliability growth models for quality managementReliability growth models for quality management
Reliability growth models for quality management
 
Reliability growth models
Reliability growth modelsReliability growth models
Reliability growth models
 
ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...
ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...
ATAGTR2017 Differentiation using Testing Tools and Automation in the BFS COTS...
 
ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...
ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...
ATAGTR2017 Cost-effective Security Testing Approaches for Web, Mobile & Enter...
 
ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...
ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...
ATAGTR2017 Keeping pace with Product Evolution: UI Automation Framework Guide...
 
Testing Frameworks And Methodologies
Testing Frameworks And MethodologiesTesting Frameworks And Methodologies
Testing Frameworks And Methodologies
 
ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...
ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...
ATAGTR2017 Unified APM: The new age performance monitoring for production sys...
 
ATAGTR2017 Blockchain Based Testing
ATAGTR2017 Blockchain Based TestingATAGTR2017 Blockchain Based Testing
ATAGTR2017 Blockchain Based Testing
 
ATAGTR2017 Testing in DevOps Culture
ATAGTR2017 Testing in DevOps CultureATAGTR2017 Testing in DevOps Culture
ATAGTR2017 Testing in DevOps Culture
 
Introduction to Test Automation - Technology and Tools
Introduction to Test Automation - Technology and ToolsIntroduction to Test Automation - Technology and Tools
Introduction to Test Automation - Technology and Tools
 
ATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD Approach
ATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD ApproachATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD Approach
ATAGTR2017 Protractor Cucumber BDD Approach
 
Introduction to Test Automation
Introduction to Test AutomationIntroduction to Test Automation
Introduction to Test Automation
 

Ähnlich wie Successive Software Reliability Growth Model: A Modular Approach

Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610
Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610
Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610Tommy Tracx Xaypanya
 
ST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill Set
ST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill SetST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill Set
ST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill SetAmit Bhardwaj
 
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986Editor IJARCET
 
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986Editor IJARCET
 
Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...
Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...
Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...Mahindra Satyam
 
Software reliability engineering
Software reliability engineeringSoftware reliability engineering
Software reliability engineeringMark Turner CRP
 
Parameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE Method
Parameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE MethodParameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE Method
Parameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE MethodIRJET Journal
 
Software project management Software economics
Software project management Software economicsSoftware project management Software economics
Software project management Software economicsREHMAT ULLAH
 
Practical Enterprise Security Architecture
Practical Enterprise Security Architecture  Practical Enterprise Security Architecture
Practical Enterprise Security Architecture Priyanka Aash
 
Designing your applications with a security twist 2007
Designing your applications with a security twist 2007Designing your applications with a security twist 2007
Designing your applications with a security twist 2007Blue Slate Solutions
 
A Survey of Software Reliability factor
A Survey of Software Reliability factorA Survey of Software Reliability factor
A Survey of Software Reliability factorIOSR Journals
 
Software Risk Management for IT Execs CAST
Software Risk Management for IT Execs CASTSoftware Risk Management for IT Execs CAST
Software Risk Management for IT Execs CASTCAST
 
Reliability doe the proper analysis approach for life data
Reliability doe the proper analysis approach for life dataReliability doe the proper analysis approach for life data
Reliability doe the proper analysis approach for life dataASQ Reliability Division
 
Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...
Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...
Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...CSCJournals
 

Ähnlich wie Successive Software Reliability Growth Model: A Modular Approach (20)

Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610
Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610
Safe Code Software Integrity Controls0610
 
Cm24585587
Cm24585587Cm24585587
Cm24585587
 
ST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill Set
ST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill SetST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill Set
ST-Magnitude of three Dimensional Skill Set
 
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
 
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
Volume 2-issue-6-1983-1986
 
Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...
Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...
Software FMEA and Software FTA – An Effective Tool for Embedded Software Qual...
 
Software reliability engineering
Software reliability engineeringSoftware reliability engineering
Software reliability engineering
 
Parameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE Method
Parameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE MethodParameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE Method
Parameter Estimation of GOEL-OKUMOTO Model by Comparing ACO with MLE Method
 
Software project management Software economics
Software project management Software economicsSoftware project management Software economics
Software project management Software economics
 
Software Reliability and Safety.pdf
Software Reliability and Safety.pdfSoftware Reliability and Safety.pdf
Software Reliability and Safety.pdf
 
Practical Enterprise Security Architecture
Practical Enterprise Security Architecture  Practical Enterprise Security Architecture
Practical Enterprise Security Architecture
 
Iv2515741577
Iv2515741577Iv2515741577
Iv2515741577
 
Iv2515741577
Iv2515741577Iv2515741577
Iv2515741577
 
5 Quality
5 Quality5 Quality
5 Quality
 
Designing your applications with a security twist 2007
Designing your applications with a security twist 2007Designing your applications with a security twist 2007
Designing your applications with a security twist 2007
 
Analyzing Software Architectures: A Semantic Model
Analyzing Software Architectures: A Semantic ModelAnalyzing Software Architectures: A Semantic Model
Analyzing Software Architectures: A Semantic Model
 
A Survey of Software Reliability factor
A Survey of Software Reliability factorA Survey of Software Reliability factor
A Survey of Software Reliability factor
 
Software Risk Management for IT Execs CAST
Software Risk Management for IT Execs CASTSoftware Risk Management for IT Execs CAST
Software Risk Management for IT Execs CAST
 
Reliability doe the proper analysis approach for life data
Reliability doe the proper analysis approach for life dataReliability doe the proper analysis approach for life data
Reliability doe the proper analysis approach for life data
 
Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...
Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...
Software Reliability and Quality Assurance Challenges in Cyber Physical Syste...
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPathCommunity
 
How to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyes
How to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyesHow to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyes
How to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyesThousandEyes
 
20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf
20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf
20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdfJamie (Taka) Wang
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UbiTrack UK
 
Babel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptx
Babel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptxBabel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptx
Babel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptxYounusS2
 
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesDavid Newbury
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7DianaGray10
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.YounusS2
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopBachir Benyammi
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding TeamAdam Moalla
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfinfogdgmi
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfDaniel Santiago Silva Capera
 
Things you didn't know you can use in your Salesforce
Things you didn't know you can use in your SalesforceThings you didn't know you can use in your Salesforce
Things you didn't know you can use in your SalesforceMartin Humpolec
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsSeth Reyes
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Adtran
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8DianaGray10
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioChristian Posta
 
GenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation Inc
GenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation IncGenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation Inc
GenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation IncObject Automation
 
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLDesigning A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLRuncy Oommen
 
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1DianaGray10
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
 
How to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyes
How to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyesHow to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyes
How to Effectively Monitor SD-WAN and SASE Environments with ThousandEyes
 
20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf
20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf
20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf20200723_insight_release_plan_v6.pdf
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
 
Babel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptx
Babel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptxBabel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptx
Babel Compiler - Transforming JavaScript for All Browsers.pptx
 
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
 
Things you didn't know you can use in your Salesforce
Things you didn't know you can use in your SalesforceThings you didn't know you can use in your Salesforce
Things you didn't know you can use in your Salesforce
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
 
GenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation Inc
GenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation IncGenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation Inc
GenAI and AI GCC State of AI_Object Automation Inc
 
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URLDesigning A Time bound resource download URL
Designing A Time bound resource download URL
 
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
 

Successive Software Reliability Growth Model: A Modular Approach

  • 1. 2012 ARS, India: Chennai Track 2, Session 11 Begins at 2:40 PM, Thursday, October 11 Successive Software Reliability Growth Model: A Modular Approach Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey Cognizant Technology Solution, Hyderabad, India
  • 2. PRESENTATION SLIDES The following presentation was delivered at the: International Applied Reliability Symposium, India October 10 - 12, 2012: Chennai, India http://www.ARSymposium.org/india/2012/ The International Applied Reliability Symposium (ARS) is intended to be a forum for reliability and maintainability practitioners within industry and government to discuss their success stories and lessons learned regarding the application of reliability techniques to meet real world challenges. Each year, the ARS issues an open "Call for Presentations" at http://www.ARSymposium.org/india/presenters/index.htm and the presentations delivered at the Symposium are selected on the basis of the presentation proposals received. Although the ARS may edit the presentation materials as needed to make them ready to print, the content of the presentation is solely the responsibility of the author. Publication of these presentation materials in the ARS Proceedings does not imply that the information and methods described in the presentation have been verified or endorsed by the ARS and/or its organizers. The publication of these materials in the ARS presentation format is Copyright © 2012 by the ARS, All Rights Reserved.
  • 3. Brief: Myself and Proposal Vocabulary  Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Ph.D. (Software Reliability) from IIT Kharagpur,  COMP Error: Commission/Omission/Misinterpretation/Performance Error working as Sr. RAMS Engineer at Cognizant Technology Solution, Hyderabad, India.  DC: Defect Checklist  Division: CoE (Centre of Excellence).  FDR : Fault Density Indicator at Requirement Phase  Area: Reliability and Safety (Assessment and Prediction), Regulatory and  FDD: Fault Density Indicator at Design Phase Compliance of Safety Critical System (Rail/ Automotive/ Avionics and Medical).  FDC: Fault Density Indicator at Coding Phase  Proposal: To improve the reliability of software successively by predicting  FDT: Fault Density Indicator at Testing Phase and fixing the faults before they propagate. Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012  RRSM: Reliability Relevant Software Metrics  Key Points: Realistic (Birth to Death) approach for software, early reliability assurance before testing, reliability relevant software metrics and review  SDLC: Software Development Life Cycle defect checklist.  SRGM: Software Reliability Growth Model  SSRGM: Successive Software Reliability Growth Model Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 2 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 3 Agenda Introduction: Software Reliability  Introduction 5 min  Applicability of software keeps on increasing, from basic home appliances to safety critical business applications.  Earlier Works 8 min  Observation and Motivation 7 min  Size, complexity and dependency on software based systems are growing.  Proposed SSRGM Model 20 min  Results and Discussion 5 min  Software reliability becomes a challenging objective for both developer as well as user.  Summary 5 min  Relevant References • Developer: How to develop fault free software (system)? Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012  Questions 10 min • User: How to choose a reliable (failure free) system?  System failures due to a software failure are very common and can result in undesirables situations. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 4 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 5
  • 4. Introduction: H/W Reliability vs. S/W Reliability Introduction: Software Reliability Reliability is the probability that a Software reliability: probability that a system or component performs its software system or component required functions under stated performs its intended function under conditions for a specified period of the specified operating conditions time. over the specified period of time. A software failure is defined as “the Software faults are the deviation of the program behavior root cause of failures, from requirements,” whereas a fault making the software is defined as “the defect in the Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 unreliable. program that causes failures when executed. One measure of software reliability is the number of residual faults, and it has been The proposal is to develop a new model observed that the more to predict and fix the number of faults at residual faults a software has, each phase of SDLC before they the less reliable it is. propagate, thus growing the reliability successively. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 6 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 7 Earlier Works: Software Reliability Models Earlier Works: Software Reliability Models  A software reliability model usually refers to the mathematical form  SRGM assumes that the reliability of S/W will continue to grow if of the equation that is used in estimating/predicting the number of the observed error (during testing) are removed (i.e., number of faults/failures in a software. residual faults decreases with progression of testing).  Software reliability models can be broadly categorized into two  SRGM Limitations: types (Pham, 2006): Deterministic and Probabilistic.  Can be applied once coding is done, and is useful only if  Some probabilistic models are: failure rate models (times between failure data ID is available. failure models), failure or fault count models (NHPP models),  Can’t do much with requirements and design phase in term of error or fault seeding models, Markov structure models, reliability reliability. Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 growth models, etc.  Costly and unrealistic reliability improvement approach.  Reliability growth: Fix the defect, grow the reliability.  Reliability is a Birth to Death process, so it will be good enough if  A SRGM is a mathematical equation by which version (i) reliability the reliability growth process is applied since the beginning. is improved by using data of version (i-1) or any earlier version.  Key References: [1], [2], and [3]. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 8 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 9
  • 5. Earlier Works: Early Software Reliability Models Earlier Works: Affecting Factors  Predicting the reliability of a software system before the testing phase is  Around 40 reliability relevant software measures are given IEEE STD-982.2 known as early software reliability prediction. to produce reliable software.  Early prediction attracts both software professionals and managers  A study was conducted by Zhang and Pham (2000) to find the factors because it provides insight towards optimal development strategies. affecting software reliability.  Failure data are not available in the early phase of the software  Li, et al. (2003) have shown that there are 30 software metrics associated development life cycle, and reliability can be predicted on the basis of the with different phases of the software life cycle, and among these metrics, software metrics, developer’s process maturity level and expert opinions. some are relevant to reliability and can be identified at the early stage of the life cycle.  Early reliability prediction seems to be useful, but the problem with early  The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) has become a popular methodology to software reliability predictions are : Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 develop high-quality software within budget and time. Harter et al. (2000)  First, how to find the software failure intensity function without found that a 1% improvement in process maturity resulted in 1.6% increase executing the software, which is required to calculated the software in product quality. reliability?  Krishnan and Kellner (1999) found process maturity and personnel capability  Second, how the time parameter of reliability evaluation can be to be significant predictors (both at the 10% level) of the number of defects. found during the early stage of software development?  Ref: [7], [8], [9],[10] and [11].  Key References: [4], [5], and [6]. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 10 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 11 Observation & Motivation Proposed SSRGM Model  Around hundreds of software reliability growth models (SRGMs) have  The proposed model assumes that the software is being developed been developed to date. Limitation with SRGM are: late applicability, through a waterfall process model. cost of fixing, failure data availability, not suitable for requirement/design  A software engineer collects, measures and develops metrics so that phase, etc. indicators will be obtained. An indicator is a metric or combination of  SRGM approaches for reliability prediction are not very useful in a metrics that provides insight into a software process, a software project, practical scenario because version (i) reliability depends on the data of or the product itself. version (i-1) or any earlier version.  The proposed model utilizes software metrics and finds fault density  Due to the several practical limitations with earlier software reliability indicators for each development phase using a fuzzy inference system models, this work focuses on fault prediction model. A software system (FIS). Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 fails only if the residual faults are executed, causing failure and making it  Also, the proposal is to use a defect checklist (DC) to fix the common unreliable. defects quickly and update the fault density indicator value, before  The reliability of a software system depends on the number of residual passing it unto the next phase. faults sitting dormant inside. Therefore, this work aims to predict and fix  Finally, using the fault density indicator of the testing phase, the number residual faults across the SDLS, growing reliability successively. of residual faults is predicted. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 12 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 13
  • 6. Proposed Model Architecture Proposed Model Architecture # Phase Metrics 1 Requirement RC, RS, RIW # Phase Input Variables Output RRSM 2 Design FDR, DTE, PM Variables Extracts 1 Requirement RC, RS, RIW FDR 3 Coding FDD, CTE, DPF 4 Testing FDT, TTE, SI, 2 Design FDR, DTE, PM FDD SIZE 3 Coding FDD, CTE, DPF FDC 4 Testing FDT, TTE, SI, FDT SIZE Defect Checklists (Req. Phase) 5 Fault FDT Faults Prediction Derive COMP Error # Description [Prob.] Severity Reason Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 phase wise defects 1. Missing 0.8 M Change and make a defect Var. Request checklist. 2. … ….. …. ….. 3. 4. Sources: [7], [8], [9], and [12] Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 14 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 15 Proposed SSRGM Approach Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d)  Model assumption: Waterfall development process model. Step 1: Identification of independent and dependent variables  The model is based on fuzzy logic and implemented in MATLAB. The model consists of the following steps: Table: Independent Variables Table: Dependent Variables No. Independent Variables No Dependent Variables  Identification of independent/dependent variables 1 Requirements Complexity (RC) 1 Fault density indicator at  Development of fuzzy profile (on the basis of nature variables) 2 Requirements Stability (RS) requirements phase (FDR)  Developing fuzzy rules (expert opinions) 3 Review, Inspection and 2 Fault density indicator at Walkthrough (RIW) design phase (FDD)  Information Processing (Mamdani FIS) 4 Design Team Experience (DTE) 3 Fault density indicator at  Residual fault prediction Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 5 Process Maturity (PM) coding phase (FDC)  Software metrics (independent variables) are considered as input variables 6 Coding Team Experience (CTE) 4 Fault density indicator at to the model to get dependent variables (output). Independent variables are 7 Defined Process Followed (DPF) testing phase (FDT) taken from PROMISE repository [14]. 8 Testing Team Experience (TTE) 5 Total number of residual faults  Fault density indictors and residual faults are the dependent variables in this 9 Stake holder Involvement (SI) predicted (Faults) study. There are four fault density indicators (FDR, FDD, FDC and FDT) 10 Size of program in LOC (SIZE) associated with requirements, design, coding and testing phase, respectively. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 16 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 17
  • 7. Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d) Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d) Step 2: Development of fuzzy profile  For logarithmic nature software metrics,  Software metrics may follow either linear scale or logarithmic scale.  Out of ten input variables, only three variables (RIW, PM and DPF) The profiles may take the values as VL (0; 0; 0.14), L (0; 0.14; 0.32), M variation follow a linear nature. The remaining variables follow a (0.14; 0.32; 0.57), H (0.32; 0.57; 1.00), and VH (0.57; 1.00; 1.00). logarithmic nature.  For linear nature software metrics,  All output variables are assumed to follow a logarithmic nature.  On the basis of their nature, fuzzy profiles of software metrics are developed and triangular fuzzy profiles are considered. The profiles may take the values as VL (0; 0; 0.25), L (0; 0.25; 0.50), M Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 (0.25; 0.50; 0.75), H (0.50; 0.75; 1.00), and VH (0.75; 1.00; 1.00).  For all input variables, we have considered five levels, i.e., very low (VL) to very high (VH).  For outputs,  For all output variables, we have considered seven levels, i.e., very very low (VVL) to very very high (VVH). The profiles may take the values as VVL (0; 0; 0.08), VL (0; 0.08; 0.17), L (0.08; 0.17; 0.29), M (0.14; 0.32; 0.57), H (0.17; 0.29; 0.44), VH (0.44; 0.64; 1.00), and VVH (0.64; 1.00; 1.00). Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 18 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 19 Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d) Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d) Step 3: Development of fuzzy rules Rules are developed Table : Rules at Req. Phase using two or more Rule RC RS RIW FDR domain expert engineers. 1 L L L VL 2 L L M L 3 L L H M . . . . . Step 4: Information Processing: The Mamdani fuzzy inference system is used. For defuzzification process, “Centroid Method” is considered. Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 RC RS RIW DTE PM CTE DPF TTE SI Size VL 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 L 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 M 0.34 0.34 0.50 0.34 0.50 0.34 0.50 0.34 0.34 0.34 H 0.63 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.63 VH 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.86 Figures: Examples of Fuzzy profiles Ajeet Kumar, Cognizant Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 20 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 21
  • 8. Proposed SSRGM Approach (cont’d) Results and Discussion ROMOSE repository (http://promisedata.org/repository/data/qqdefects) [12] dataset Step 5: Fault Prediction are used for validation.  Fault density indictor value is refined using DC, before sending to the next RC RS RIW DTE PM CTE DPF TTE SI SIZE Faults phase. # Project F1 S7 S3 D1 P9 D2 D3 T2 P5 K TD 1 1 M L VH L H H H H H 6.02 148  On the basis of fault density indicator of testing phase, total number of 2 2 L H VH L H H H H H 0.9 31 faults is computed as: 3 3 H H VH H VH VH H H VH 53.86 209 4 5 H M H L H M H M M 14 373 5 7 L M VH M H VH H M VH 21 204 6 8 M H H H M H M M H 5.79 53  Fault detection process is not exactly linear with size. As size of a software 7 10 M H H H H H H M H 4.84 29 8 11 H H H H H H H H H 4.37 71 increases, portion of faults detected decreases due to saturation, time and 9 12 H L H VH H M M H H 19 90 experience. Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 10 13 H L M H H H H M H 49.1 129 11 14 VH H H H H H H H H 58.3 672  Therefore, the FTP value is modified as provided in the equation below. 12 15 H VL H H H H H H VH 154 1768 The C2 value scales the effect of LOC value. Thus, residual faults can be 13 16 L M H H H H H H VH 26.67 109 14 17 L M M M H M H L M 33 688 predicted as, 15 19 H M H H H H H M H 87 476 16 20 VH VL M VL H VL L VL H 50 928 17 21 L M H H H H H H H 22 196 18 22 M L M H H M L M H 44 184  C1 and C2 are constants obtained through recursive learning. The value of 19 23 H M VH L H H H H H 61 680 C1 and C2 for current projects are found to be 0.04 and 107 respectively. 20 27 H M VH M H L M M M 52 412 21 29 M VH VH VH H VH H VH VH 11 91 22 30 L VH VH H H H H H VH 1 5 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 22 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 23 Results and Discussion (cont’d) Results and Discussion (cont’d) Table: Project Data Set After Conversion Table : Fault Density Indicators, Actual Faults and Faults Predicted # FDR FDD FDC FDT Size (LOC) Actual Proposed Fenton et al. # Project RC RS RIW DTE PM CTE DPF TTE SI SIZE Faults Faults Model (2008) 1 1 0.34 0.15 0.92 0.15 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.15 148 2 2 0.15 0.63 0.92 0.15 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.15 31 1 0.0925 0.1937 0.1387 0.3042 900 31 5.48 52 3 3 0.63 0.63 0.92 0.63 0.92 0.86 0.75 0.63 0.86 0.86 209 2 0.0815 0.0834 0.0739 0.3008 1000 5 6.02 46 4 5 0.63 0.34 0.75 0.15 0.75 0.34 0.75 0.34 0.34 0.34 373 3 0.457 0.3002 0.1802 0.4645 4370 71 40.61 51 5 7 0.15 0.34 0.92 0.34 0.75 0.86 0.75 0.34 0.86 0.63 204 4 0.1827 0.1378 0.1332 0.2703 4840 29 26.17 203 6 8 0.34 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.5 0.63 0.5 0.34 0.63 0.15 53 5 0.1827 0.3002 0.1802 0.4645 5790 53 53.81 48 7 10 0.34 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.34 0.63 0.15 29 6 0.3171 0.4571 0.392 0.4645 6020 148 55.94 75 8 11 0.63 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.5 0.63 0.63 0.15 71 7 0.2087 0.1898 0.142 0.5 11000 91 110.06 116 9 12 0.63 0.15 0.75 0.86 0.75 0.34 0.5 0.63 0.63 0.34 90 8 0.6306 0.6523 0.6802 0.8297 14000 373 232.48 349 10 13 0.63 0.15 0.5 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.34 0.63 0.63 129 9 0.2892 0.2543 0.185 0.4634 19000 90 176.25 347 11 14 0.86 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.86 672 10 0.186 0.2806 0.1723 0.2698 21000 204 113.43 262 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 12 15 0.63 0.05 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.86 0.86 1768 11 0.1825 0.1372 0.133 0.2395 22000 196 105.51 259 13 16 0.05 0.34 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.86 0.63 109 12 0.1825 0.1372 0.133 0.2395 26670 109 127.94 145 14 17 0.05 0.34 0.5 0.34 0.75 0.34 0.75 0.15 0.34 0.63 688 13 0.1825 0.2807 0.1725 0.2053 33000 688 135.74 444 15 19 0.63 0.34 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.34 0.63 0.86 476 14 0.5653 0.3024 0.3001 0.33 44000 184 291.02 501 16 20 0.86 0.05 0.5 0.05 0.75 0.05 0.25 0.05 0.63 0.86 928 15 0.457 0.3002 0.2322 0.3419 49100 129 336.59 516 17 21 0.05 0.34 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.63 196 16 0.7184 0.7334 0.8448 0.8671 50000 928 869.23 986 18 22 0.34 0.15 0.5 0.63 0.75 0.34 0.25 0.34 0.63 0.63 184 17 0.4211 0.4331 0.1801 0.3838 52000 412 400.17 430 19 23 0.63 0.34 0.92 0.15 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.86 680 18 0.2908 0.2554 0.1552 0.195 53860 209 210.61 210 20 27 0.34 0.34 0.92 0.34 0.75 0.15 0.5 0.34 0.34 0.86 412 19 0.458 0.3002 0.2322 0.5964 58300 672 697.48 674 21 29 0.34 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.75 0.86 0.75 0.86 0.86 0.34 91 20 0.4778 0.4944 0.3929 0.564 61000 680 690.17 722 22 30 0.05 0.86 0.92 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.86 0.15 5 21 0.6306 0.305 0.2499 0.3281 87000 476 573.44 581 22 0.4572 0.3002 0.2322 0.5319 154000 1768 1650.89 1526 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 24 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 25
  • 9. Results and Discussion (cont’d) Summary  Proposed model prediction result is compared with a model using  Software faults are the root causes of failures; thus, degrading the Bayesian Nets (Fenton et al., 2008), as listed in the following table. reliability. This work aims to improve the reliability successively through fault prediction modeling.  From the table it is clear that the proposed approach, which is based on fuzzy inference system, provides more accurate results  The model has discussed a comprehensive framework to gather the than the model based on Bayesian Nets provided by Fenton et al. relevant metrics and defect checklist from each phases of SDLC, (2008). processing it, and integrating it with the fuzzy logic system to predict residual faults. Evaluation Proposed Fenton et al. (2008)  This model will be useful to software professionals by providing an Measures Approach Approach [16] insight to software metrics and its impact on software fault during the Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 SSE 440943.00 500895.00 development process. MSE 20042.86 22767.95  Another benefits of this kind of fault prediction is to help developers produce software with a minimum number of residual faults. RMSE 141.57 150.89 MAPE 37.49 116.81 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 26 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 27 Where to Get More Information Where to Get More Information 1. Yamada, S., Ohba, M., and Osaki, S. (1983), S-shaped Reliability Growth Modelling 9. Li, M. and Smidts, C. (2003), A Ranking of Software Engineering Measures Based for Software Error Detection, IEEE Transaction on Reliability, Vol. R-32, pp. 475–478. on Expert Opinion, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 9, pp. 2. Goel, A.L. (1985), Software Reliability Models: Assumptions, Limitations, and 811–24. Applicability, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, Vol. SE–11, No. 12, pp. 10. Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S. and Slaughter, S.A. (2000), Effects of Process Maturity 1411–1423. on Quality, Cycle Time and Effort in Software Product Development, Management 3. Kapur, P. K. and Younes, S. (1995), Software Reliability Growth Model with Error Science, Vol. 46, pp. 451–466. Dependency, Microelectronics and Reliability, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 273-278. 11. Krishnan, M. S. and Kellner, M. I. (1999), Measuring Process Consistency: 4. Rome Laboratory (1992), Methodology for Software Reliability Prediction and Implications Reducing Software Defects, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, Assessment, Technical Report RL-TR-92-52, vol. 1 & 2. Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 800–815. 5. Gaffney, G. E. and Pietrolewiez, J., (1990), An Automated Model for Software Early 12. PROMISE repository (2007), http://promisedata.org/repository/data/qqdefects. Error Prediction (SWEEP), Proceeding of 13th Minnow Brook Workshop on Software 13. Pham, H. (2006), System Software Reliability, Reliability Engineering Series, Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Reliability. Springer. 6. Pandey, A. K. and Goyal, N. K. (2009), A Fuzzy Model for Early Software Fault 14. Ross, T. J. (2005), Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, Willy–India 2nd Prediction using Process Maturity and Software Metrics, International Journal of Edition. Electronics Engineering, Vol.1, No. 2, pp. 239–245. 15. Zadeh, L. A. (1965), Fuzzy Sets — Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 338– 7. IEEE (1988), IEEE Guide for the Use of IEEE Standard Dictionary of Measures to 353. Produce Reliable Software, IEEE Std. 982.2. 16. Fenton, N., Neil, N., Marsh, W., Hearty, P., Radlinski, L. and Krause, P. (2008), On 8. Zhang, X. and Pham, H. (2000), An Analysis of Factors Affecting Software the effectiveness of early life cycle defect prediction with Bayesian Nets, Empirical of Reliability, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 43–56. Software Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 499–537. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 28 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 29
  • 10. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey Questions  Qualifications: Ph.D. (Software Reliability) from IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, W.B. India.  Working as Sr. RAMS Engineer at Cognizant Technology Solution, Hyderabad, India. Thank you for your attention.  Work Area: Reliability and Safety (Assessment and Prediction), Regulatory and Compliance of Safety Critical System (Rail/ Automotive/ Avionics and Medical). Do you have any questions? Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012 Applied Reliability Symposium, India 2012  Email: ajeet.kumar3@cognizant.com, ajeet.mnnit@gmail.com  Voice: (+91) 40 44518085, 888 6411889 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 30 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Pandey, Cognizant Technology Solution Track 2 Session 11 Slide Number: 31