A Method to Improve the Classification of Requirements Defects - Isabel Lopes Margarido (Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto)

1. Portugal
A Method to Improve the Classification
of Requirements Defects
Isabel Margarido (isabel.margarido@gmail.com)
Ph.D. Student Researcher
Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto
João Pascoal Faria
FEUP/INESC
06-07-2012, Coimbra

2. agenda
introduction
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
literature review
proposal
assessment
conclusion
2
2/27

3. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
Explained Understood Designed Coded Sold
Documented Installed Billed Supported Needed
3
3/27

4. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
v
4
4/27

5. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
v
5
5/27

6. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
v
6
6/27

7. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
7
7/27

8. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices


Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra







8
8/27

9. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)


Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra







9
9/27

10. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)

Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra







10
10/27

11. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra







11
11/27

12. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient






12
12/27

13. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient
Verification (VER)





13
13/27

14. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient
Verification (VER)
 SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”




14
14/27

15. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient
Verification (VER)
 SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”
 SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”



15
15/27

16. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient
Verification (VER)
 SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”
 SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”
 SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”


16
16/27

17. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient
Verification (VER)
 SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”
 SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”
 SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”
 SP 2.3 “Analyse Peer Review Data”

17
17/27

18. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient
Verification (VER)
 SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”
 SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”
 SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”
 SP 2.3 “Analyse Peer Review Data”
maturity level 5

18
18/27

19. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
related CMMI practices
maturity level 3 (engineering process areas)
Requirements Development (RD)
 Specific Practice (SP) 3.3 “Analyse Requirements”
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
ensure that they are necessary and sufficient
Verification (VER)
 SP 1.3 “Establish Verification Procedures and Criteria”
 SP 2.1 “Prepare for Peer Reviews”
 SP 2.2 “Conduct Peer Reviews”
 SP 2.3 “Analyse Peer Review Data”
maturity level 5
Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR)
19
19/27

20. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
motivation
Higher-severity Problem Factors
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
(Chen and Huang, 2009)
20
20/27

21. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
motivation
Higher-severity Problem Factors
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
(Chen and Huang, 2009)
(Hamill and Goseva-Popstojanova, 2009)
21
21/27

22. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
motivation
“classifying or grouping problems helps to indentify clusters in which
systematic errors are likely to be found” (Card, 1998)
 our goal is to define classification scheme for requirements defects
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
that facilitates
 identification of more frequent defects with higher impact
 analysis of root causes
 preparation of reviews checklists
 reduction of risks (bad communication, incomplete requirements,
final acceptance difficulties)

22
22/27

23. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
motivation
“classifying or grouping problems helps to indentify clusters in which
systematic errors are likely to be found” (Card, 1998)
 our goal is to define classification scheme for requirements defects
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
that facilitates
 identification of more frequent defects with higher impact
 analysis of root causes
 preparation of reviews checklists
 reduction of risks (bad communication, incomplete requirements,
final acceptance difficulties)
ODC
(Chillarege et al., 1992)

HP
(Grady, 1976)
23
23/27

24. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
motivation
“classifying or grouping problems helps to indentify clusters in which
systematic errors are likely to be found” (Card, 1998)
 our goal is to define classification scheme for requirements defects
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
that facilitates
 identification of more frequent defects with higher impact
 analysis of root causes
 preparation of reviews checklists
 reduction of risks (bad communication, incomplete requirements,
final acceptance difficulties)
ODC
(Chillarege et al., 1992)
 more adequate for other phases than the
requirements phase
HP
(Grady, 1976)
24
24/27

25. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
requirements review
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
25
25/27

26. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
quality requirements for classification schemes
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
26
26/27

27. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
quality requirements for classification schemes
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
clearly and meaningfully define attributes
27
27/27

28. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
quality requirements for classification schemes
complete: every defect is classifiable using the scheme
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
28
28/27

29. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
quality requirements for classification schemes
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
attributes values:
• clear and meaningful definition
• small number (5-9)
• aggregate to reduce ambiguity
(Freimut et al., 2005)
• unambiguous
29
29/27

30. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
phase 1 – assemble classifiers list
 review literature to compile list of existent classifiers and
remove
 the ones that do not apply to the phase or document
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
 vague and generic classifiers
 overdetailed
 duplicates (classifiers with same meaning)
 define each classifier and give examples, eliminate ambiguity
through definition
30
30/27

31. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
31
31/27

32. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline
•Out of scope
•Missing/Omission
•Incomplete
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent
•Incompatible
•New (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear
32
32/27

33. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline
•Out of scope
•Missing/Omission
•Incomplete
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent
•Incompatible
•New (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear
•Ambiguity
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Other
33
33/27

34. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline
•Out of scope
•Missing/Omission
•Incomplete
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent
•Incompatible
•New (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear (Walia and Craver, 2007)
•Ambiguity
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Other
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
•General 34
34/27

35. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Missing Interface
•Out of scope •Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission
•Incomplete
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent
•Incompatible
•New (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear (Walia and Craver, 2007)
•Ambiguity (Ackerman et al., 1989)
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Other
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
•General 35
35/27

36. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Missing Interface
•Out of scope •Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization
•New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007)
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989)
•Wrong Section/Misplaced (Chillarege et al., 1992)
•Other
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
•General 36
36/27

37. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Missing Interface
•Out of scope •Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization
•New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007)
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989)
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992)
•Other •Missing Software Interface
(Grady, 1992)
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
•General Requirement/Specification 37
37/27

38. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization
•New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007)
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989)
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992)
•Other •Missing Software Interface
(Grady, 1992)
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface (Porter et al., 1992)
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
•General Requirement/Specification 38
38/27

39. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
•Not Traceable
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization
•New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007)
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989)
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992)
•Other •Missing Software Interface
(Grady, 1992)
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface (Porter et al., 1992)
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing (Hayes et al., 2003/6)
•General Requirement/Specification 39
39/27

40. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
•Not Traceable
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•New •Missing/Incorrect (Bell and Thayer, 1976)
•Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge
(Basilli and Weiss, 1981)
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation (Walia and Craver, 2007)
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm (Ackerman et al., 1989)
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature (Chillarege et al., 1992)
•Other •Missing Software Interface
(Grady, 1992)
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface (Porter et al., 1992)
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing (Hayes et al., 2003/6)
•General Requirement/Specification 40
(Kalinowski et al., 2010)
40/27

41. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Not Traceable
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•New •Missing/Incorrect
•Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Other •Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
•General Requirement/Specification 41
41/27

42. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Not in current baseline •Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect •Not Traceable
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•New •Missing/Incorrect
•Changed Requirement Build/Package/Merge change management
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Other •Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
•General Requirement/Specification 42
42/27

43. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge change management
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Other •Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
•General Requirement/Specification 43
43/27

44. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Inadequate •Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
vague
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Other •Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
•General Requirement/Specification 44
44/27

45. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
vague
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
Requirement/Specification 45
45/27

46. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
•Incompatible Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
subsumed
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
Requirement/Specification 46
46/27

47. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
subsumed
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
Requirement/Specification 47
47/27

48. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Incorrect or Extra
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope Functionality
•Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
generic
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
Requirement/Specification 48
48/27

49. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope •Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
generic
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Missing Software Interface
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
Requirement/Specification 49
49/27

50. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Missing Interface
•Out of scope •Missing Function/Description
•Missing/Omission •Data Type Consistency
•Incomplete •Missing/Incorrect Checking •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Missing/Incorrect
•Incorrect Assignment •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Missing/Incorrect •Intentional Deviation
Timing/Serialization •Extraneous Information
•Missing/Incorrect
Build/Package/Merge
•Typos/Clerical •Missing/Incorrect
•Unclear Documentation
•Ambiguity •Missing/Incorrect Algorithm
•Wrong Section/Misplaced •Missing Functionality/Feature
•Missing Software Interface over detailed
•Infeasible •Missing Hardware Interface
•Untestable/Non-verifiable •Missing User Interface
•Redundant/Duplicate •Missing
Requirement/Specification 50
50/27

51. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
type of defect
•Out of scope
•Missing/Omission
•Incomplete •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Incorrect •Unachievable
•Inconsistent •Intentional Deviation
•Extraneous Information
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear
•Ambiguity
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
over detailed
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
51
51/27

52. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Out of scope •Over-specification
•Missing/Omission
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Unachievable
•Incomplete •Intentional Deviation
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent •Extraneous Information
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear
•Ambiguity
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
52
52/27

53. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Out of scope
•Missing/Omissio •Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
n •Unachievable
•Intentional Deviation
•Incomplete
•Incorrect •Extraneous Information
•Inconsistent
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear
•Ambiguity
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
53
53/27

54. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Out of scope
•Over-specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Unachievable
•Intentional Deviation
•Incorrect •Extraneous Information
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical
•Unclear
•Ambiguity
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
54
54/27

55. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Out of scope •Over-
specification
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Unachievable
•Intentional
•Extraneous
•Incorrect Deviation
Information
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical
•Ambiguity
•Unclear
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
55
55/27

56. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Unachievable
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous
•Unclear
•Ambiguity
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
56
56/27

57. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Unachievable
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous
•Ambiguity
•Unclear
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
57
57/27

58. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Unachievable
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous
•Ambiguous or Unclear
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
58
58/27

59. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Unachievable
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous
•Ambiguous or Unclear
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Infeasible
•Untestable/Non-verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
59
59/27

60. Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Unachievable
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous
•Ambiguous or Unclear
•Infeasible
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Untestable/Non-
verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
60
60/27

61. introduction review proposal assessment conclusion
•Unachievable
Isabel Lopes Margarido, 6th of June 2012, Coimbra
•Incorrect
•Inconsistent •Missing or Incomplete
•Typos/Clerical •Not Relevant or Extraneous
•Ambiguous or Unclear
•Infeasible
•Wrong Section/Misplaced
•Untestable/Non-
verifiable
•Redundant/Duplicate
61
61/27