NVP Software Solutions

Month: October 2014

  • Quality Drives Productivity

    The Economist recently ran an article entitled “Unproductive production” indicating the difficulty of measuring whether Productivity in an economy had really increased. One of the points which was interesting was that as long there are more people in employment and they are building more items the economy will continue to grow. However, the main concern is whether these people are being put to good use. This is where (in the Software Industry) we look to have Quality Drive Productivity.

    There have been a lot of Productivity gains in the last few years in Software and in the Quality Control and Quality Assurance areas in particular. We have moved away from manual testing to automated testing and gained a huge jump in Productivity. We have refined our testing methods to improve the way we write and execute test cases and, in return, gained a positive ROI. We partnered with development and the user to make more effective use of the testing time we have and cut back on waste and inefficiencies. We have embraced completely new Software Development Methodologies stretching from one end of the process to the other and integrated Quality Control throughout. In the recent past we have outsourced testing to specialists who are experts in the field. And lastly, we have off-shored lots of testing to cheaper resources.

    Two questions remain after all this:

    1. Are there further Productivity gains possible under the current processes?
    2. Is the current methodology really increasing Productivity?

    By extension, there are probably some further minor Productivity gains under the current processes but to gain a real productivity increase will require a complete rethink of the process. So the answer to the first question is a qualified yes. For the second question, the answer is a little more difficult. If we take as given the first four items as no longer increasing productivity, then we are left with outsourcing and off-shoring as our current methodology for increasing productivity. This is where the referenced article raises the point as to whether these methods are really increasing productivity. The answer is probably no!

  • We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us

    One of my favourite quotes is “We have met the enemy and he is us‘. It originated from the Pogo comic strip and has lasted throughout the years. It seems to ring so true for many Quality Control initiatives. It is not as if we start out to be our own enemies but frequently we seem to end up in that position.

    A short story might illustrate one of the most common problems. We had a client to whom we supplied some training. As a prelude to the training, we tried to get some idea of what was currently viewed as the major problem or problems in the organisation. The common concern was “Too much testing”. The obvious rejoinder to that was Why and the answer we received was that there was Zero tolerance for defects in production. Knowing that zero defects is pretty difficult to achieve although someone did claim recently in a LinkedIn group that it could be done, the question was how they felt that testing endlessly was going to help achieve the desired result of no defects in production. A little more digging and a few more questions and we had an answer. People felt that if they tested all the hours they could, whether or not it was effective use of their time, then they could not be faulted if (when), the inevitable problem showed up in production. In other words, we have exhausted ourselves testing everything in sight so anything left could not possibly have been found in the time before promotion or launch.
    This is where Quality Assurance differs from Quality Control. Quality Assurance would be asking the following:

    • What benefit is being gained from the testing?
    • Is this an effective use of the time?
    • Is there a better way of doing this?
    • Does this effort actually have a positive ROI?

    Testing faster or longer does not always provide what you want. Give us a call to see what is the most effective process to use.

  • Those Who do Not Learn from History are Doomed to Repeat it

    ‘Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’. According to Wikipedia this quote can be attributed to George Santayana. These quotes (we will have another one in the next blog) are always apt and apply to many different occasions. The one quoted here could be used so often in Software and Quality Assurance in particular that it seems to be redundant to say it.
    If you have said (or heard) or wished to say any of the following you have paraphrased the blog title:

    • We did this right last time
    • Someone has the information somewhere
    • I have forgotten what we did
    • The person who just quit/retired/left knew it but no one thought to ask
    • I remember solving this earlier
    • An ‘unknown’ known.

    The list could go on and you are invited to add your own as a comment.
    We do not spend our time knowing our own history with the following excuses:

    • We don’t have time
    • We don’t have budget
    • It is faster if we redo it over (and over and over and over…)

    Meanwhile the solutions recede further into the background. We have had clients who (deliberately) lost every defect they ever created. They threw them out every year! It was more ‘fun’ to recreate the same solution each year than simply look up the older solution, resolve the issue, and move onto to new and more challenging issues. It was certainly easier – there was a half-remembered solution that could be used as if it was a new solution and then there was no time to provide a really innovative idea to move the organisation forward. This is okay of you have a monopoly and a captive market. Not so great if you are in a competitive market where your customers have choices.

    Quality Assurance puts in processes to ensure that the existing items are remembered and reused and the creative efforts are expended on truly new items thus creating new business.

  • Quality Assurance – Why?

    It might be better to say “Why Quality Assurance” rather than the title as listed but we had a reason for putting it in this order. Most people can usually answer the question of Why Quality Assurance even if there is some difficulty in articulating the actual reasons. However, Quality Assurance – Why? turns the question upside down and leaves it open for the answer to the philosophy exam question of “Why” which after a few hours of thought is answered with “Why Not”. So we could rephrase this as Quality Assurance – Why Not? and see if we get any farther.

    There are four major reasons for embracing Quality Assurance and innumerable lower level reasons. In talking with a number of clients, they often advance the reasons we are going to discuss here as the reason for avoiding Quality Assurance

    A crisis that costs money and could have been avoided

    Few people see the need for Quality Assurance before the crisis occurs: “We have never had any problems and do not see the need for Quality Assurance.” Of course once the crisis occurs it is far too late to recover everything (including reputation) and the organisation is left scrambling for damage control. Any perusal of the latest news will tell you the companies that avoided adopting Quality Assurance until too late.

    Government or Industry Regulations that require independent Quality Assurance

    This is the “the unknowing driving the unwilling”. If one waits until the industry is forced to regulate or subject to government fiat then one is on the receiving end of whatever is decided. It is much better to adopt the leadership position and be the one setting the regulations in accordance with what we are already doing rather than accepting what others decree.

    A demand from a critical customer for proof of Quality Assurance Activities

    If a client or customer is demanding proof of Quality Assurance activities in your organisation, then it is already too late. Obviously there is dissatisfaction and there may already be a contemplated move to the competitor. Better to be ahead of the customer and telling them we have Quality Assurance in place already and are well ahead of the competition.

    A realisation that Quality Assurance pays for itself in less rework and churn

    This is the positive reason that appeals to the bottom line. Quality Assurance is a money saving exercise.