Improvement analysis
One of the most popular analyses. Use your survey assessment to determine the quantitative impact of changing specific development practices, toward one of three goals.
Three reasons to run this analysis
Changes needed for a specific defect reduction
Worked example: changing three negative responses to affirmative yields a 33.64% improvement in fielded defect density.
Minimum practices to maintain the current prediction
Gaps & strengths in a well-rounded project
The projects in the Softrel database with the lowest defect density were also the most “well rounded.” Every survey question maps to one of the categories below, each weighted by a coefficient — e.g. each “Avoiding Big Blobs” question is worth 13 points, each “Domain expertise” question is worth 6.
Worked example: the prediction sits in the P75 group (below-average defect density). Checking every practice affirmative in the “what if” column shows how many total practices fall in each category. In the table below, Execution, Coding, Change Management, and Defect Reduction have the lowest percentage of affirmative responses — and of those, Defect Reduction and Execution carry the biggest coefficients, making them the best candidates to investigate for feasibility on this project.
Explore the other sensitivity analyses.
Staffing, test staffing, and defect pileup analyses are also available.