NVP Software Solutions

Tag: Quality Control

  • Quality Assurance Supports Verification

    Quality Assurance supports verification for a number of reasons not least of which is the potential for cost savings for you! The key is to know where to apply the appropriate level of verification. It is quite possible to verify too many items and lose the benefits of reduced rework since it is all used up in the actual verification process. It is equally possible to verify too few times and lose the momentum and the benefit of corporate knowledge.

    Some projects have problems identifying the correct place to implement verification techniques and either wait until it is too late in the project or start too intensely too early. The last mistake that some organizations make is matching the correct verification technique to their level of process maturity. There are prerequisites that are needed to make the verification process effective and without those in place, the positive impact is limited. It is also necessary to have the correct stakeholders involved so that they get their input at the correct point and with sufficient weight.
    For all of the above reasons, it is critical that an assessment be carried out on the existing processes to determine the following:

    • The appropriate place to use verification techniques in your projects.
    • The payback realised from the implementation of verification techniques.
    • The level of Verification carried out for each project artifact.
    • The relevant stakeholders who gain from the process and can see the benefits.
    • The use of the correct techniques based on SDLC maturity.

    Once all of the above are known; then the prerequisites can be put in place and an effective verification process implemented for your benefit. NVP Software Solutions completes that assessment and provides Recommendations and a Roadmap to get you there. You realise instant benefits in reduced rework and reduced cost.

  • Verification Applicability in Software Testing

    Last week we introduced the concept of verification and defined it. This week we want to discuss verification applicability. Many people agree that verification should be done but come to a halt when deciding where they can apply it and the degree of formality that should be used. Verification really covers everything that can be done in the project in terms of testing excluding the actual Quality Control or active testing. In other words we can verify almost everything.

    • Business Objectives – can be verified for feasibility, correctness, completeness and how accurately they reflect what the business needs
    • Requirements – can be verified for correctness, completeness, feasibility, testability, and how well they reflect the underlying business objectives
    • Design – can be verified fir correctness, completeness, feasibility, testability, and how well they represent the defining requirements
    • Code – can be verified for adherence to standards, readability , level of comments, structure, whether it reflects the design, maintainability, portability, testability
    • Test Plans – can be verified for readability, correctness, applicability to the testing at hand, ability to execute what is required, scope
    • Test Cases – can be verified for coverage, maintainability, readability, ability to execute, maintainability, portability
    • Test Data – can be verified for coverage, security (anonymity), maintainability, portability, retention
    • Test Reports – can be verified for usefullness, readability, completeness

    The above are only a partial list of the major items that can be verified. The list can include any artifact that may be produced during the project like Minutes of Meetings, Online Conversations, transcribed verbal conversations, and emails. If it can be read it can be verified!

    The issue is to find the most cost-effective places in your development process to implement verification techniques. There is no point in completing Verification processes without some end in view and a positive ROI. Give us a call at 416-927-0960 or visit our website at NVP.ca to find out where you would benefit from the implementation of Verification techniques in your organisation.

  • Examples of Verification in Software Testing

    In our last blog post, we included a list of Examples of Verification without going into too much detail. In this blog we will take a couple of those verification list items and expand on them. The examples of verification that most tend to impact software testers with the best return are Test Plans, Test Cases, Test Data and Test Results.

    Test Plans

    Applying verification techniques to a Test Plan can save hours of effort. The three methods we can use to review a test plan are:

      • Walkthrough – in this method, the author of the Test Plan ‘walks’ one or more of their peers through the test plan, explaining the sections and what is meant by the content. The role of the peers is to find problems, omissions, extra content, incomplete items, inconsistent items and to add things that they might feel were missed. The intent is to have a better document more accurately reflecting the needs of the project stakeholders. A new version is issued after all the errors are corrected and it is used going forward.
      • Document Review – In this method, a review committee (preferably selected from the interested stakeholders) reviews the documents and records the same items as listed above for the walkthrough. Once they are finished their individual reviews, they come together to create a final list of problems which need to be corrected. A new version is issued after all the errors are corrected and it is used going forward.
      • Inspections – In this method, formalized roles are defined and assigned and a procedure is followed to ensure proper inspection of the document. The intent and result is the same as the previous two methods. The only difference is the degree of formality.

    What’s the point in all of this? The payback from reviewing the plan (using any of the methods above, more than pays for itself in terms of less errors going forwrd, less work to be undone, redone and redone (again).

    If you know your test plan is poor, or you’re not even sure where to start give us a call at 416-927-0960 or visit our website at NVP.ca to find out where you would benefit from the implementation of Verification techniques in your organisation.

  • Verification

    Quality Assurance has a number of subdivisions; one of those being Quality Control (sometimes referred to as Software Testing). One of the, largely underrated, aspects of Quality Control is Verification.
    We define Verification as being the static part of testing while Validation is the active part of testing where completed, compiled, and promoted code is being run using data and generating results. Verification refers to aspects of testing that do not involve actually executing the code and includes: Inspections, Walk-throughs and Reviews.

    Since we do not need code, it is possible to launch into Verification much earlier in the process without waiting for code to be completed. As someone once pointed out, the first time you pick up some artifact from the project whether it be a document, minutes of meetings, a communication or even a conversation and start to look at it, you are performing your very first test of that system.

    The three major subdivisions mentioned above differ in their degree of formality and where they may be applied. In general Inspections are the most formal of the processes and have a well developed methodology. Reviews can be formal or informal and can be done at various points depending on how necessary they are and what is the intent. Walkthroughs can be very informal and used with minimal effort and training.

    The major impact of this type of testing is to discover issues, misconceptions, lack of clarity, incompleteness and misinterpretations as soon as possible.
    While the concept is simple, the identification of the most cost-effective place to use Verification techniques is not always easy. There is no point in completing Verification processes without some end in view and a positive ROI. Give us a call at 416-927-0960 or visit our website at NVP.ca to find out where you would benefit from the implementation of Verification techniques in your organisation.

  • 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!