NVP Software Solutions

Tag: Process Improvement

  • A Better Way – Case Study 3 – Test Plan in a Hurry!

    A Better Way – Case Study 3 – Test Plan in a Hurry!

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The third case study might be called “Test Plan in a Hurry!”.

    This issue came up from an organisation that was part way through (as usual!) an engagement and suddenly required a test plan to satisfy the client. The request came from the Project Manager on Friday with a deadline of Monday afternoon. There was no prior exposure to the project; no knowledge that the request was coming; and very little in the way of Project Documentation (with certainly no time to review it). There was a temptation to ignore the request and had they not been an existing client, we might have been tempted to point out that this was not really an effective use of time. However, given the nature of the request and the people from whom it came, we went ahead with the attempt.

    Clearly, we were not going to get detailed testcases or test objectives based on what we had been given. So we opted for a process based Master Test Plan. In other words, we put together a statement of how the project would be tackled from a Quality Assurance point of view when the information became available. We put in processes for all the Quality Assurance items and highlighted the risks inherent in testing under these conditions (including the lack of any understanding of the project) and went forward with that. We put a strong emphasis on what was required now in order to make this work.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

  • A Better Way – Case Study 2 – Thinking Like the Client

    A Better Way – Case Study 2 – Thinking Like the Client

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The second case study might be called “Thinking Like the Client”.

    Even though many in IT have embraced Agile in some form or another and with some level of success, not all clients are so willing. We find this particularly the case with larger, older and more safety or image conscious clients. They are not willing to take the risk of everything not coming together at the correct time. They are not willing to live with constant change. In addition, they often have milestones that need to be fulfilled and quite frequently they have stated contract deliverables that need to be fulfilled so that payments can be made.

    We received a call from the President of a development company with a large contract with probably the oldest, largest and most image conscious client you could get – the federal government. Even though the company had delivered projects successfully before and had a good record of coming through with what was required, the client still wanted a formal Test Plan completed.

    In our experience, the client is normally okay with a High Level Master Test Plan provided it contains the following (this is not an exhaustive list by any means):

    1. High Level Objectives
    2. A listing of the types of testing needed and the risk around each type
    3. Processes for Test Creation and signoff
    4. Processes for Defect tracking and resolution
    5. Methodologies for executing the testcases

    This reassures them that the developers have an understanding of what needs to be done.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to you. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.

  • A Better Way – Case Study 1 – Thinking Outside the Box

    A Better Way – Case Study 1 – Thinking Outside the Box

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The first one revolves around a junior QA, a very successful (small) company and a need to test effectively and quickly for a large final client. The issue that came up was the ability to “Think outside the box”.

    We received a call from the President of the company indicating that the new junior QA was having trouble considering things “Outside the box”. They were good with what was presented in the Use Cases or User Stories. Most people can generate testcases based on what is provided and the happy path from the Use Cases and User Stories. Experienced testers will apply other techniques and may specifically try Exploratory testing. However, you cannot explore or test what you don’t know or don’t think of at the time.

    Rather than dictating “Outside the box” which is a contradiction in itself, we decided to go with more of a checklist approach listing some of the areas that would be considered to be non-Happy Path and see if it could lead to further extensions. We did not dictate everything but started with more of a charter and guidance list to see what would come of it. The process had two advantages:

    1. We would have some coverage of everything “inside” and “outside” the box.
    2. We could use the results to evaluate the suitability of the junior QA for further roles and projects.

    The President came up with the basic list and ran it from there.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to you. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.

  • A better way to test – 6

    A better way to Test – 6

    In our last blog we discussed, as the last point in our list, testing to risk.

    If you have the risks listed, explained, classified, calculated, ordered and entered into a database, it may be easy to attach testcases to them and determine when you have addressed the risk with testing. Not all risks can be efficiently addressed by testing, it is simply one of the possible techniques to be used.

    However, people rarely agree on the risks and, as mentioned above, not all risks can be addressed by testing. So this needs to be flexible.

    If you don’t have your risk recorded then the testcases may still be built to address perceived risks but they may be difficult to justify. Having both sides of the need (the risk and the testcase) can make each justify the other.

    Once we have this for one release of the software, the only question is whether we can continue using the same testcases from release to release. Risks will change, some will disappear or be downgraded, new ones will appear or the ones we missed last time will be included for future releases. Like all project requirements, nothing is ever perfect and we progress (sometimes unevenly) to an end result of coverage that is sufficient for the project. Of course something will always surprise us.

    The key consideration is not to become inured to the other methods of addressing risk – testing is not the end solution for everything.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to your situation. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.

  • A better way to Test – 5

    A better way to Test – 5

    In our last blog we discussed how more testing or a higher percentage of test case coverage does not necessarily lead to better testing. We did not, however, provide a solution to the problem.

    One of the first items is to classify the testcases. In a project of any size, with numerous testcases, it is difficult to determine what each testcase is doing without classifying them. The Test Management tools allow for a lot of this and it is usually simply a matter of selecting the fields you want to use for classification; providing a limited list of choices for most of the fields (some can be freeform text entry but some need to have a limited number of choices so as to allow classification) and deciding where each testcase belongs. It will not be perfect the first time but can be refined over time. Some items that can be used for classification are as follows:

    1. Requirements (this comes out of Traceability).
    2. Function tested (may be a subset of the Requirements or it may be a separate mapping).
    3. Date of testcase creation (just so you know how old it is).
    4. Priority of the testcase.
    5. Some statistics generated from the testcase execution.
    6. The risk it tests – we have rarely seen this explicitly listed.

    The last item is the most important if you are testing against risk. It presupposes that you have the Risks listed, classified and numbered. Then it is a reasonably easy process to link the testcases.

    When your project is over, you can determine if the testcases addressed the risks (where appropriate) and whether they are useful for next time.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to your situation. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.

  • A better way to Test – 4

    A better way to Test – 4

    In our last blog we discussed addressing Risk via Testing and one of the problems. Today we want to continue with another of the problems. “More is NOT necessarily Better“. Traceability has come a long way in the last few years. Many of the better test management tools automatically include Traceability modules and generate metrics as a result. The fact that they can measure coverage and provide instant statistics has taken a lot of boring work out of managing a testing effort. Where they can lead astray is in assuming that everything has been checked and that the percentages mean something. We recently visited an Assessment site where the raw figure of 83% of the testcases had been completed successfully in the last cycle. The site was planning on raising that percentage to about 93. Considering where they had started a few years ago; it was a laudable aim and a vast improvement. However, there were several pieces missing from the statistics they were using:

    1. Whether any of the testcases were redundant and simply repetitions of each other.
    2. Whether any of the testcases were simply ‘variations on the same thing’. i.e. they were just doing the same thing with slight variations in data
    3. How long since the last review of the testcases.
    4. Whether the testcases actually addressed any of the current risks.

    Testing Faster or doing More testing may not translate into a reduction in risk. It may actually increase the risk by making people assume that they have done a lot of work and a lot of coverage while completely missing major risks.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to your situation. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.

  • A better way to test – 3

    A better way to Test – 3

    In our last blog we discussed the determination of risk. The question is what to do with it when we have completed that work. While there is a temptation to write a testcase for every risk; that is not always possible. A testcase or testcases will not (directly) address any of the following issues:

    1. Schedule issues
    2. Budget issues
    3. Poor design
    4. Poor coding practices
    5. Incomplete requirements
    6. etc.

    Testing can easily identify, highlight, and quantify some of the above issues. It may bring other issues and risks to light but it will not necessarily resolve or reduce them. The activities to reduce risk need to long precede testing. It is far too late in the project to address risk by traditional testing. Early involvement of Quality Assurance with the emphasis on Process Improvement will go much further to addressing Risk than a few hundred testcases.

    All of the above 5 risks which are possible in every project with at least 1,2 and 5 being quite common are all amenable to Process Improvement. Schedule and Budget issues need process work to address the possibilities and see what can be done early. Incomplete Requirements are easily addressed by using a variety of techniques in Requirement Elicitation. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of assuming a standard method of elicitation (same trap as using standard testing techniques) but we can use a process adapted to the project. The upper levels of Process Maturity are aimed at Innovation not set processes.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to your situation. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.

  • A better way to Test – 2

    A better way to Test – 2

    The second item to determine is the Risk. We always guess that, if you gather three people from the project together and ask them what the risk is, you will end up with 4 answers: Three from the people at the meeting and the right one that no-one mentions. Levity aside, we do need to figure out the real Risk and it is not always obvious.
    Some questions you can ask (and elicit the three answers as a result):

    1. What is the worst thing that could happen?
    2. Who can be hurt the most if something goes wrong?
    3. What is going to cost the most if it goes wrong?

    Regardless of the answer or answers to the above questions, Quality Control is aimed at Risk Reduction. Everything we do needs to be aimed at reducing the risk in the project. Doing that can mean a lot of things that are far beyond traditional testing. We might want to ask what could be done now (before the end of the project) to reduce the risk. We might want to go outside the standard boundaries of the SDLC to consider solutions. This comes back to the need for early involvement. When the project is too far along, it is difficult to suggest radical solutions that might be beneficial. People are too set in their ways and the project is careening to an end that no one likes.

    This is why people who advocate a standard methodology or approach to testing for every project are locked into something that may not work. The same solution does not always work twice!

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to your situation. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.