Software Quality Assurance Practice Exam

Which human error detection process is considered relatively unproductive?

1. Code walkthroughs

2. Code inspections

3. Peer ratings

4. Desk checking

The correct answer is: Desk checking

The process identified as relatively unproductive in detecting human errors is desk checking. Desk checking involves a software developer reviewing their own code by mentally or manually going through it to check for errors, bugs, or logical flaws. This self-review method is inherently limited in its effectiveness for several reasons. First, the developer who is checking the code is often too close to their work, which can create a blind spot for potential errors, as familiarity can lead to overlooked flaws or assumptions that may not hold true. This lack of fresh perspective can hinder the identification of issues. Additionally, desk checking lacks the structured format and thoroughness that other techniques, like code inspections and code walkthroughs, bring to the process. Inspections and walkthroughs involve multiple participants who can provide diverse viewpoints and critique, thereby increasing the chance of catching errors that an individual might miss. Finally, since desk checking is often informal and unstructured, it may not adhere to standardized quality assurance practices. This can lead to inconsistency in error detection results, making it less reliable compared to more formal methods used in software quality assurance.