NVP Software Solutions

Category: Process Improvement

  • Quality Assurance Process Improvement – Part 3

    Quality Assurance Process Improvement – Part 3

    Quality Assurance Process Improvement is the current topic in our Blog Series. A lot of organizations won’t act on the Assessment results if they don’t have a plan for moving forward. This is particularly true if the Assessment has not been tailored to the particular company in question. A standardized Assessment process generates standard recommendations which may not be applicable. Make sure you detail your expectations at the beginning of the Assessment so you get value from the process and your expenditure of time.

    Last time we looked at Why Carry Out Process Improvement and now want to address the question of “How to do it”. First we need to identify the processes that we want to improve. We will assume that this step has been completed already. Then we need to measure the existing process for what we want to improve. If we want it to be faster then we need to measure the time it takes. If we want it to be more consistent, then we need the measure the output against some standard. Once we have a baseline of measurements (you will probably be measuring more than one item since we do not want to improve one at the expense of another), then we can decide how we want to improve it. If we want the process to be faster, we might try to get the inputs to it at the right time or before they are needed. We might try cutting out any extra steps. While doing this we do not want to reduce the quality of the output so we will want to measure that as well. if you want it to be more consistent you might look for places where the product deviates from standard and try to improve those while making sure that does not make any other pieces of the product worse.

    The post improvement measurements should always be carried out after the process has had a chance to settle down and achieve some stability. Measuring too soon may lead to erroneous conclusions.

    The objective is to save the overall organization funds; not just the current project. As such the results of an Assessment and the activities done as part of Process Improvement must be assessed at the corporate level and not at the project level.

    #QA,#QualityAssurrance,#SoftwareTesting,#SoftwareTestingStrategy,#TASSQ,#NVP

    https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7399187902221443072
  • Process Improvement

    Process Improvement

    Ongoing Process Improvement is the second critical aspect of process implementation. Last week we identified the components of a process. Once they are identified and it has been determined if they are applicable then the next step is Process Improvement.

    Many organizations identify the need for Process Improvement but they seem to say it as statement sliding the two words together as if it is something that will occur without effort and frequently without results. Philip Crosby’s book “Quality is Free” talks about this. Getting it just right is not a one step process. At a minimum it is a 4 step process and those steps contain a lot of subsidiary detail.

    We have to identify the processes that are in existence. Part of an assessment process is to identify the existing processes. This can be done internally although that can be more difficult since people tend to live through the process and cannot see it ‘from the outside’.

    Once the processes are identified, then we need to see how they can be improved. This requires thinking ‘outside the box’ and coming with fresh insight to existing processes. A critical piece of this is to determine how the suggested processes can be measured. Without measurement it is impossible to know whether improvement has taken place. Peter Drucker – “you can’t manage what you can’t measure,” and extended to say “if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”

    The next step then falls into place. We take the recommended improved process and try it out while taking measurements. Once the process has had some time to be tested, the measurements are collated and it is determined if the process has improved.
    There are two possible outcomes:

    • Process Improvement has occurred. In which case then we look for further process improvement.
    • Process Improvement has not occurred. In which case we discard the suggested process and look for some other way to obtain process improvement.

    #QA,#QualityAssurrance,#SoftwareTesting,#SoftwareTestingStrategy,#TASSQ,#NVP

    https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7399187902221443072

  • Testing for System Integrators – Part 2

    Testing for System Integrators – Part 2

    Two days ago we asked two $10,000 dollar questions and this week we promised the possible answers. Unlike the questions, which are specific to the final client and the suppliers, the answers are more general and apply to both.

    1. The contracts state the following specifically about Quality Assurance and everyone is in agreement
    2. The contracts says nothing about it so far but we have Quality Assurance as a topic and the contract will not be finalised without this discussion
    3. The contracts says nothing about Quality Assurance so far but now that you have brought it up we will add it.
    4. There is something in the contracts about Quality Assurance and we can look it up for you (contracts are signed).
    5. There is nothing in the contracts (contracts are signed) and there is no intention of putting anything in the contracts about Quality Assurance
    6. We don’t know (but that is a good question)
    7. We don’t know (and we don’t care)

    Suffice to say the items in the above list have an obvious gradation from good to terrible in the order they are presented. If you get the first answer, you’re well on your way. If you get some of the middle answers you have some work to do, but you may be in time to effect some change. If you get the last few answers, you are in trouble!

    Next: What to do with the answers.

    #QA,#QualityAssurrance,#SoftwareTesting,#SoftwareTestingStrategy,#TASSQ,#NVP

    https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7399187902221443072
  • QA as an Afterthought

    QA as an Afterthought

    Why QA is so often an afterthought?

    1. Is it because QA is ‘traditionally at the end of the project”?
    2. Is it because people have too much else going on at the beginning of a project and cannot think about QA?
    3. Is it because QA does ‘not fit anywhere’ at the corporate level so ends up nowhere?
    4. Is it because QA is regarded as a necessary evil which no one wants to acknowledge?
    5. Is it because we do not know when QA is needed and by the time we find out it is too late to make a difference?
    6. Is it because QA does not do a good job of selling ourselves?
    7. Is it because …

    We could certainly go on with all the reasons that QA seems to be frequently ignored. 

    Not surprisingly, when people do take the time to consider the Return on Investment for QA, they are often shocked by how much it benefits them.

    #QA,#QualityAssurrance,#SoftwareTesting,#SoftwareTestingStrategy,#TASSQ,#NVP

    https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7399187902221443072
  • Focused decision-and-action engagement

    Focused decision-and-action engagement

    Stop release chaos: clearer priorities, faster decisions, and quality you can trust.

    Focused decision-and-action engagement with department managers and key stakeholders – 2 weeks – This engagement is designed to identify the most important measurable impediments affecting confidence, flow, responsiveness, adoption, and maintainability, align leadership around the issues that matter most, and produce a practical 90-day action plan that can be used immediately.

  • Importance of Counting             

    Importance of Counting             

    In a previous post we discussed the perception that QA may be counting too much.  Before we go deeper into that consideration, one of the other concerns is the reliability of the measurement.  We define Reliability as getting the same result if the measurement is taken under the same conditions twice.  Whether that result is correct is a different question but if the measurement is different when taken under the same conditions, it is not only invalid; it is also unreliable.  This can cause real problems, as it has in some projects.  Measurements taken by the vendor differed from the ones taken by the customer.  Not surprisingly the vendor measurement showed less outstanding defects than the customer’s ‘equivalent’ measurement.  It was eventually traced to one label used on only a few defects that was being excluded by an earlier filter on the vendor side.   Once that condition was removed, the counts agreed. 

  • Count the ‘Bouncebacks’

    Count the ‘Bouncebacks’

    “Bouncebacks’ is not a technical term in common use. In our usage here we are counting the number of times a defect (or issue) bounces back and forth between tester and developer (or other personnel). It is common for a defect to have a count of at least 2 and maybe 4 if some clarification is required. Here we are looking for defects or issues that are bouncing back and forth between development and testers too many times. One of our clients recently did this and then concentrated on the items that had high counts. Not surprisingly they discovered that the majority of the issues with high bounceback counts revolved around poorly written requirements. Instead of getting the requirement correct in the first place, the concept was being clarified by continuous back and forth communication late in the project with a high overhead and testing cost.

  • Out of Ideas

    Out of Ideas

    What happens if you are out of ideas of what or how to improve?

    Not surprisingly this has been considered by some of the pioneers of Quality Assurance. They understood that there was a limit to the number of ideas a person could generate.  The recommendation was to change the composition of the group coming up with the solutions while retaining continuity. One recommendation was to change everyone except the group note-taker.  There is nothing to prevent people coming back in a few years with new solutions to new problems (or suggesting them to the new group once they have had a chance to recharge).  Giving a break can work wonders for creativity.