NVP Software Solutions

Tag: Quality Assurance

  • Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence – Part 5

    Our current blog series focuses on the Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence. Last week we covered the root cause analysis aspect of a QA CofE. This week we want to focus on the process

    Focused on Process – This also applies to all of our previous points and they can all be applied at any level. The Quality Assurance CoE could look at very general processes for the entire organization or very specific processes to resolve a specific problem.

    There are two challenges that a Quality Assurance Specialist usually faces with respect to Process:

    1. Analyzing a process can be more difficult than analyzing a product
    2. The payback may be longer term

    If a process is not followed correctly then any measurements taken of the process may be suspect. In addition, if no measurements have been defined before the process was implemented, then it is difficult to retroactively add them to the process.

    There are a couple of solutions to the above issues:

    • Build in compliance via automated enforcement. In other words, the compliance to the process is forced by checks built in to the process and enforced automatically. Many computer systems do a lot of automated enforcement already. For a process, we just need to abstract that to the process level and see how it can be made self-enforcing
    • The measurements need to be correctly defined (not a trivial problem) and then added to the process so they are automatically generated as a result of doing the process.
    • Finally as a sequel to the automated generation of the measurements, the measurement of the expected benefit needs to be well defined and implemented before the process is used. We probably want to ignore the first few measurements as trials and not used for actual decisions. Once the process has settled down, we can start measuring and collating the statistics.

    Next week QA CoE Summary

  • Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence – Part 4

    Our current blog series focuses on the Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence. Last week we covered the analytics aspect of a QA CofE. This week we want to focus on the root cause analysis.

    Focused on Root Causes – This can be applied to both of the previous blogs. When it comes to being proactive, the Quality Assurance CoE could look at Root Causes of potential issues and plan around them or else they could look at Root Causes from their analysis and work to understand and solve them. Regardless of which way this is dealt with, the problem could be solved at different levels. We could be looking at Root Causes for software development and deployment or we could be looking at root causes that impact the entire organization (structure, culture, management).

    There are two challenges that a Quality Assurance Specialist usually faces with respect to Root Cause Analysis:

    1. The Root Cause may be difficult to find.
    2. Once found, there may be resistance to fixing the Root Cause

    An example of the first occurs when someone is supplying information to another group and in the process of supplying it the information is manipulated or reformatted in some way. The manipulation adds in an error which is not obvious. The next group uses the erroneous data to make decisions. The error is not large enough to cause major problems but it has an impact further along. No one notices the problem until much later. This makes the Root Cause difficult to find and difficult to correct since no one is recognizing the initial error.

    The second is a much worse problem. The Root Cause has been identified and the solution created. Then there is resistance to making the required changes:

    • The problem may be outside your department.
    • Someone may have to admit they are wrong and have been wrong for years.
    • There may be costs attached to making the change and they will fall on someone else.

    All of the above can lead to resistance to the change. Next week’s blog will address these.
    Next week Process Focus

  • Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence – Part 3

    This blog series will on the Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence. Last week we covered the proactive aspect of a QA CofE. This week we want to focus on the analytic component.

    Analytics – The analytical aspect of quality assurance looks at data and analyzes what went right and what went wrong. Information comes from statistics and Post Implementation Reviews. The Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence gathers the data, collates it, and then provides information based on that data. They may act on the data, or they may simply pass the information along assuming that someone else will act on it within a specific project.

    Gathering analytics is probably the most traditional role for a Quality Assurance Specialist. They gather statistics from current processes and analyze them to determine what is working well, what can be used elsewhere, and what needs to be fixed.

    There are two challenges that the Quality Assurance Specialist usually faces:

    1. Data is gathered because it always has been and information continues being gathered whether or not there is any current use or anyone even viewing it.
    2. The Quality Assurance analyst carries out all sorts of detailed analysis and then nothing is done with the results. This can be very discouraging and isn’t a great use of time and work efforts.

    There are ways of addressing the above two above challenge:

    First, there should be a yearly review of all the statistics gathered with insight given as to if, how and where they are being used. This is not a review of the value of the information, it is simply a statement of whether they are being used somewhere in the organization. More extensive reviews might ask the deeper question of the value of any use of the results.

    The second challenge above is a little harder to deal with. Part of it can be addressed by ensuring that any new requests for results do have value (being Proactive) and then look at why the existing items are not being used. If they do not demonstrate some value to the organization, then they are not going to be used. Again, we want to ensure the initial request for the analysis has value attached; ongoing value is being demonstrated, and the yearly review incorporates this component to make sure it is still of value.

    Now that we have all the information, we can start using it proactively to help make our current work and initiatives more efficient.

    Next week Root Cause Focus

  • Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence – Part 2

    This blog series will be focusing on the Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence. Last week we covered the different concentrations of the QA CofE. This week we want to specifically focus on the proactive component.

    Be Proactive – In this scenario the Quality Assurance CoE would be looking ahead and seeing what can be anticipated. They could be looking at coming projects; coming changes in organization direction; new technologies that might impact the organization; and the entire environment in which the organization operates in an effort to anticipate the impact on technology. Big data and security come immediately to mind for many organizations. There is almost no end to what could be considered.

    So where do we start? The answer is we start with what we are currently doing in terms of projects, technology, and reacting to the environment. This is sometimes called Setting a Baseline although we may need something more general than that. We may also need to go into the past a little to get understand overall trends. While some things can change  overnight, a lot of the major trends are obvious many years in advance; just not recognized at the time. We can use the quote from George Santayana here. Once we know where we have been and where we are now, then it is time to look at the competition to see where they may be ahead of us or where they appear to be going.

    Now that we have all the information, we can start anticipating what might impact our organization.

    1. Is the environment going to change? If it is a government driven change, it is rarely a surprise and can be anticipated. We start to position ourselves to be ready for the change so it is a non-event for us when it occurs.
    2. Is technology going to change? YES – that’s inevitable. But, what impact will it have on my particular business and how fast will it happen are the more important, harder-to-answer questions. We need to look at our customers (How quickly do they start using new technology?); our own organization (What is the history of technology adoption?) and our competitors (Are they using technology to get ahead of us). We start to position our development and Quality Assurance groups to be ready for this new technology.
    3. What are the coming projects? This means that we need to be involved in the planning processes at the highest level. Only in that way can we anticipate what might be coming. We schedule incremental changes to ensure that the departments can tackle the new projects with a minimum of disruption

    As was said: “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”

    It is recommended that you put this on your daily reminder list: What is the potential impact of today’s discussions?

    Next week Being Analytic

  • Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence – Part 1

    You may recall from some of our earlier discussions that Quality Assurance was defined as one or more of the following:

    1. Proactive
    2. Analytical
    3. Focused on Root Causes
    4. Focused on Process

    So, given the above list, what can a Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence concentrate on in order to provide value to the organization:

    Proactive –  In this scenario the Quality Assurance CoE would be looking ahead and seeing what can be anticipated. They could be looking at coming projects; coming changes in organization direction; new technologies that might impact the organization; and the entire environment in which the organization operates in an effort to anticipate the impact on technology. Big data and security come immediately to mind for many organizations. There is almost no end to what could be considered here.

    Analytical – As opposed to the previous section, this is looking at data and analyzing what went right and what went wrong. Information comes from statistics and Post Implementation Reviews. The Quality Assurance CoE is gathers the data, collates it, and then provides information based on that data. They may act on the data or they may simply provide the data with the assumption that someone else will act on it within the specific project.

    Focused on Root Causes – This can be applied to both of the above sections. In the Proactive section, the Quality Assurance CoE could look at Root Causes of potential issues and plan around them or else they could look at Root Causes from their analysis and work to understand and solve them. Regardless of which way this is dealt with, the problem could be dealt with at different levels. We could be looking at Root Causes for software development and deployment or we could be looking at root causes that impact the entire organisation (structure, culture, management).

    Focused on Process – This also applies to all of the above and again can be applied at any level. The Quality Assurance CoE could be looking at very general processes for the entire organisation or very specific processes to resolve a specific problem.

    Next week Being Proactive

  • Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence

    Last week we discussed a misconception about Quality Assurance. Judging from some of the feedback we received, the post struck a nerve. Many people talked about the how they had encountered a similar misconception and what could be done about it. Although education seems to be the answer, it is ongoing and can be frustrating from time-to-time. Does one just leave it alone when people make these comments (even if the one I heard was probably not entirely serious)? Does one attempt to correct the misconception? That usually means starting a long dialogue (monologue?) with sometimes frustrating results. Either people start to glaze over, have something pressing to do somewhere else, or else simply misunderstand what was said (wilfully at times).

    So with all that in mind, we are going to start into a series on what is a Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence. This is more ambitious than a Testing Centre of Excellence which we discussed late last year. One of the criteria that came out of talk I attended last year, was that a Testing Centre of Excellence had to have a delivery component. A delivery component for a Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence is going to be a little harder. This means that this is going to be slightly more of a challenge. We will work through the same hierarchy insofar as it applies to this situation but obviously the emphasis will be different.

    So, having started the plan for the plan which always reminds me of The Siphonaptera next week we will start into the real classifications.

  • Quality Assurance

    Toward the end of last year we encountered a situation where our presence in a project was there to “Assure Quality” or that “Quality was Assured” simply by us being there. Although the comment was made somewhat in jest, it showed a misunderstanding of Quality Assurance that can lead to dire consequences. Quality Assurance is not a standard although it includes standards. It is a process and a journey (and not a destination).

    Quality Assurance looks at the processes that are being used and tries to find places for improvement so that everything can be smoother. It looks for root causes of existing problems and eliminates or reduces their impact so that they no longer impact the process further along. Sometimes this is referred to as “Removing the Rocks in the Stream” so that the flow of the project is smoother. Quality Assurance also tries to anticipate other items that might impede smooth project completion and eliminate those as well. This is why it is never complete. There is likely to be improvements that will still occur and we can continue to identify those opportunitiess. Even if we can’t identify opportunities for improvement it is likely that someone in the organization can see something that can be changed. Every project is slightly different and the opportunities for improvement or to change processes are also different. If the projects are not different, then they can be turned into a standard process and there is no need for any individual improvements. That will still leave process improvement as a possibility.

    It is suspected that the initial comment at the beginning of this blog was really related to Software Testing and not Quality Assurance at all. However the misconception exists.

    Next Week: Quality Assurance Centre of Excellence

  • Testing for System Integrators – Part 5

    Last week our blog discussed the remaining answers to the questions and promised that we would look in detail at two of the answers (which are somewhat similar so we will concentrate on one only).

    There is nothing in the contract (contract is signed) and there is no intention of putting anything in the contract about Quality Assurance.
    Now you have a challenge. Clearly the process is mostly done and there is absolutely no buy-in to Quality Assurance. The next question that needs to be asked is “Why have you brought Quality Assurance in if there is no interest?”

    The key steps here are to determine your position and map out your strategy. There is any number of answers to the question of “Why have you brought Quality Assurance in if there is no interest”.

    1. The final client has belatedly required it. I.e. they have realised it is an omission from the contract and now feel it is incumbent on the System Integrator to provide this as part of the deliverables. You need to determine the final clients needs and work towards those.
    2. The solution is more complex than the System Integrator thought and now they feel a need for Quality Assurance. I.e. like the client above they have realised the value provided by Quality Assurance and now want to implement it even though they were trying to avoid it earlier. There is probably still little buy-in from most of the group. You need to look at each of the Stakeholders and determine their status vis-a-vis Quality Assurance and plan to convert them all to supporters. This is a crucial piece of your strategy in order to be successful.
    3. The System Integrator’s management is becoming nervous and wants Quality Assurance there as a check. While you have management support the team may feel they have an extra burden and possibly someone who is watching them. As in the above, you will need to look at the Stakeholders and see how to convert them to supporters. Otherwise you will get no information at all.
    4. The last possibility is they want someone to blame. This is a tricky one. No matter what you do (either proactively or reactively) they may blame you. You need to plan carefully in order to make sure that your work is recognised as contributing to the success of the project. You need to be very proactive in stating what needs to be done; why it needs to be done and the benefits accruing from having it done. And make sure that everything is documented!

      Happy New year