Based on previous work from the first data set listed below, the cheapest way to

Question

Based on previous work from the first data set listed below, the cheapest way to find a minimum of 70% of the requirements defects while doing formal peer reviews using a mix of between 1-4 people looking at peer reviews from 1-3 times came out to be a combination of 4 reviewers to 1 review.

Use the average defect detection percentages for a single review listed above with the following information to find an optimal combination of defect finding activities between peer reviews and execution testing. The benefit is the rework cost in dollars saved by finding defects early.

Assume the chosen technique for formal peer reviews is a single review meeting consisting of 1-4 people. The other technique is execution testing on target hardware to find timing errors and other real-time problems to supplement the peer reviews. Each component may have between 1 to 10 hours of focused execution testing time performed by individuals. Assume the peer reviews and testing activities are non-overlapping and do not find the same defects.

The table below shows the average efficiencies for execution testing derived from previous projects.
Hrs of Testing per Component       Defect Finding %


1 5%
2 10%
3 15%
4 19%
5 22%
6 24%
7 26%
8 28%
9 29%
10 30%


There are 100 components in the system, each with an estimated 100 defects, and 300 peer review meetings scheduled overall for the project.
Labor costs for all activities (defect finding and defect rework) are the same at $200 per person-hour. The average rework effort saved per defect is 10 person-hours. How many people should be used for the peer reviews and how many hours of execution testing per component for a given budget of $360,000?

I know I am off but I need some guidance to get started in right direction

 What I came up with so far
Execution testing         Given: Hours testing per component Defect finding TC MB MC MB/MC   1 5 200 5 200 0.025   2 10 400 5 200 0.025   3 15 600 5 200 0.025   4 19 800 4 200 0.02   5 22 1000 3 200 0.015   6 24 1200 2 200 0.01   7 26 1400 2 200 0.01   8 28 1600 2 200 0.01   9 29 1800 1 200 0.005   10 30 2000 1 200 0.005

Explanation / Answer

I believe the answer is in the SE3302 Syllabus: NPS HONOR CODE Academic integrity at the Naval Postgraduate School is based on a respect for individual achievement that lies at the heart of academic culture. Every faculty member and student belongs to a community of scholars where academic integrity is a fundamental commitment. Academic dishonesty is not tolerated. Unless otherwise stated by the instructor: all in-class work submitted for a grade will be the student’s own work, performed without reference to materials or other individuals. Graded work assigned for completion outside the classroom allows the use of reference material, but shall be performed without the assistance of other individuals. To be more specific, take home tests or exams for resident students or assignments and exams for distance learning courses shall be the student’s own original work. There shall be absolutely no assistance from any other person by any means including, but not limited to: conversation; copying written work; phone conversations; or any electronic communication. All books, notes, and on-line sources that do not involve interaction with a person may be used. All written work should appropriately identify referenced material. This default policy for take home tests or exams is in force unless other specific instructions are provided by the faculty member in charge of the course. While no single list can hope to identify and define all types of academic honor code standards, the following are cited as examples of unacceptable behavior: ****************Cheating. Using unauthorized notes, study aids, or information on an examination; *****************************looking at another student’s paper during an examination: altering a graded work after it has been returned, then resubmitting it for regarding; allowing another person to do one’s work and submitting it under one’s own name. Plagiarism. Submitting material that in part or whole is not entirely one’s own work without attributing those same portions to their correct source. Fabrication. Falsifying or inventing any information, data, or citation. Obtaining an Unfair Advantage. Gaining access to examination materials prior to the time authorized by the instructor, unauthorized collaboration on an academic assignment: possessing, using, or circulating previously given examination materials where those materials clearly indicate that they are to be returned to the instructor at the conclusion of the examination. Aiding and Abetting Academic Dishonesty. Providing material, information, or other assistance to another with knowledge that such aid could be used in any of the unacceptable behaviors described above: failure to address observed violations of this code. Falsification of Records and Official Documents. Altering documents affecting academic records.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse B
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.