kurtz182

 Profile Answers by kurtz182 Questions by kurtz182

• Nov 12th, 2009

 

The answer is c) 100.

This reflects what is called the 1-10-100 Rule based on a study commissioned by AT&T in the 1970s.  It explains how a failure to prevent a defect at its source escalates the cost in terms of real dollars. There are many costs once a defect is released to the public: 1) customer disatisfaction and corresponding negative word of mouth, 2) loss of customer loyalty, and 3) the cost to correct the defect in the field.  The principle is not unlike the traditional medical axiom: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Again, in terms of a software development cycle, the relationship between these costs is reflected in the 1-10-100 Rule.  If a defect is corrected during development, the cost is a factor of 1 ( X * 1, whatever X may be ).  If the defect is discovered and corrected through QA and/or Testing, then the cost becomes a factor of 10 ( X * 10 ).  However, if the defect slips by QA and is released to production, then the costs becomes much greater, a factor of 100 ( X * 100).

srinivasulub1981

 Profile Answers by srinivasulub1981 Questions by srinivasulub1981

• Nov 27th, 2009

 

HI

I feel it's depends on the strength  of the bug and strength of application, if application is big and flound so many issues, then we cant expect the time, some times they need to do the dev from scratch...  so it's all depends.

CNU

omanjunath

 Profile Answers by omanjunath 

• Nov 30th, 2009

 

It depends on the bug type.
Like Sev1 means most of the business is loss because of this bug.
Fixing time may be less but damage is huge. So we cannot estimate the cost per bug in Production. It depends on time to time.