1

I found it quite interesting as in my field, IT, I can find both: Defect removal efficiency and Defect removal effectiveness, which basically describe how many problems were detected during a certain activity. Now I realize I do not know which one is actually correct?

In addition, there is a metric called "Test case effectiveness" which describes how many problems were found by a particular set of tests. Shouldn't it be efficiency in this case?

Improve this question
1
  • Efficiency should mean how many defects are found by each test, since if you can find the same number of defects with fewer tests that is more efficient. No idea if that's what the people who use the term mean by it, thought.
    – Rupert Morrish
    Commented Feb 6, 2018 at 20:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

Effectiveness refers to how well the job was done. Was your defect removal process effective? Well that is judged by how many defects were removed and how many were left.

Efficiency refers to how well your resources were used. Was your defect removal process efficient? How much time/effort/money did it cost to perform it?

So, for example, if you removed all the defects and it took you two years, that would be effective but not efficient. But if you removed 10% of the defects in 30 seconds, that would be efficient but not effective.

(Of course what actual numbers apply here depends on the particular application, but I hope this conveys the general idea.)

In regards to test case effectiveness, if they find most of the bugs submitted then it is effective. However, if the process takes 2 hours to complete each time you check in some new software and your programmers are waiting around for that time, then, even if it found all the bugs, it would not be particularly efficient. (Perhaps it would be better to find the bugs manually rather than have your programmers sitting around waiting for the build to complete.)

Improve this answer
2
  • The thing is this does contradict the common definition of effective - Effective (adj.) – Adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result. Effectiveness is defined as the capability of producing a desired result. It does not mention anything related to how well it was done. So that is why I am so confused.
    – John V
    Commented Feb 6, 2018 at 21:45
  • @user970696 Fraser's use of effective is consistent with the definition cited in your comment. If you change effective (adj) to effectiveness (noun), we can adjust the definition to change adequate (adj) to adequacy. The adjective tends to portray an binary state (it is or it isn't effective), whereas the noun tends to convey a sense of degree - it can be fulfilled to a varying extent. Consider: "How effective was it?", where answers might range from "not at all", through "quite effective" to "extremely" - all statements of "how well it was done".
    – Lawrence
    Commented Feb 6, 2018 at 22:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .