Dismiss
Surety is performing system maintenance this weekend. Electronic date stamps on new Prior Art Database disclosures may be delayed.
Browse Prior Art Database

# Formula for Quality Assurance efficiency metric

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000243620D
Publication Date: 2015-Oct-06
Document File: 1 page(s) / 47K

## Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

## Abstract

How to measure efficiency of QA teams/ cycles across the company?. How to measure if our QA (test) cycle is efficient ? How to measure improvement of efficiency (comparing to previous cycle)? There is a need for very flexible, reliable metric. The article presents QA efficiency metric defined as weighted linear combination of selected factors: QA cycle length, QA cycle velocity, and number of field defects.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 96% of the total text.

Page 01 of 1

Formula for Quality Assurance efficiency metric

In that article formula for QA efficiency metric defined as weighted linear combination of selected factors is presented.

Definitions:
QA - Quality Assurance
QA cycle length - the calendar length of cycle - for example 10 days
QA cycle velocity - number of human resources involved in testing - measured in person days APAR - field defect - defect found in the field by customer
FP - fixpack / minor release

Formula for QA efficiency metric is defined as follows :

QA efficiency = (QA cycle length + QA cycle velocity + Number of APARs * A - Weighted defects value ) * (-1)

where A is a weight - in lab tests showed that A = 3 gives good results. However it can be modified depending on needs.

Weighted defects value = HIGH_SEV_defects * 3 + MED_SEV_defects * 2 + LOW_SEV_defects * 1

please also note that weights used for defects HIGH, MED, LOW can be also modified. The default values proposed in above equation were found during in lab tests and showed good results.

Table 1. Simulated data with calculated QA efficiency metric (the higher value - the better)

QA cycle length

[days]

QA cycle velocity

[pd]

Number of defects

(HIGH sev)

Number of defects

(MED)

Number of defects

(LOW)

Weighted defects value

Number of

APARs

QA effi- ciency

FP5 5 5 3

4

0

17 0 7

FP4 5 10 3

4

0

17 0 2

FP3 10 20 0

7

1

15 0 -15

FP2 15 45 0

15

20

50 0 -10

FP1 15 60 3

4

15

32 0 -43

As we can see on Table 1. the best QA efficiency metric value is achieved in FP...