NVP Software Solutions

Tag: Quality Control

  • Quality Assurance Metrics

    In our last post we listed the need for some way of measuring Process Improvement without going into too much detail about how. What we were referencing was Quality Assurance Metrics.

    We define a metric similar to the way Wikipedia does in that it is the degree to which software possesses some desired characteristic. This feeds directly into the comments from our last post about needing to have something to measure in order to know if Process Improvement has occurred.

    More specifically, we can define a Measurement as something that has a single dimension: Height; Weight; Count of defects; Count of Requirements and many others.

    A Metric is derived from two or more Measurements and is often expressed as a ratio or a percentage. For example, we might count the number of defects but we might also count the number at each Severity level and then express that as a percentage of the total. This gives us a lot more information as the following example shows:

    If we have 100 defects and 20 of them are of the highest severity then we can state that 20% or one fifth are of the highest severity. We can watch that percentage over the duration of the project and track its movement up and down. We can also compare our percentage of highest severity defects to other projects directly using the percentage and see if our percentage is out of line with other projects. Note that this removes the bias that might occur with different project sizes. If someone has a much smaller project, they would expect commensurately fewer defects in total but might experience a similar percentage of high severity ones.

    In general metrics normalize the results to allow comparisons.

    As Peter Drucker said “you can’t manage what you can’t measure,”

    Give us a call to see what Metrics you need!

  • Examples of Process Improvement

    Examples of Process Improvement are sometimes a little harder to find and measure than Product Improvement. As long as you have a standard to compare a product, any change can be determined and it is usually easier to determine if the quality of the product has improved or not. Also, we may not have to actually determine the measurement methodology prior to the product being produced. We can take an existing product, determine a standard and decide if it has met that standard. Future products can then be compared against that standard. A process, on the other hand, does not necessarily have an end product. It is part of what produces the end product and may not ‘exist in the literal sense’ after it is finished.

    There are two ways we can measure Process Improvement and then determine if the Process has improved.

    • Measure the created product. This becomes product measurement and that can be used as feedback to improve the process.
    • Measure the actual process.

    The first has already been covered so we will discuss the second.
    If we make a change to the process, the fundamental question is has the process improved.
    Examples:

    • The process continues to generate product after a change with no reduction in quality. Process Improvement.
    • The process generates the same product while using less materials. Process Improvement.
    • The process generates the same product with less waste. Process Improvement.
    • The process is halted or interrupted less often than before. Process Improvement.
    • Less resources are required for the same quality product. Process Improvement.
    • The process has reduced variation. Process Improvement.

    All of the above require a proper measurement process (another process) to be in place before the process is launched. It is very difficult to measure some of the above process improvements without having an existing measurement process in place. This may eventually remind you of The Siphonaptera!

    However, if you want to find out about your own processes, take a look at our Assessment process which identifies them.

  • Quality Assurance Supports Validation

    Quality Assurance supports validation 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 validation. It is quite possible to validate too many items and also to validate the wrong ones. There are some organizations who believe that if a little testing is good, then a medium amount of testing is better and a huge amount of testing is the best of all. The testers (and anyone else who can be brought into the process) test as much as they can or for as long as they can before the release date. The end result is a product that has been tested for some items but no one knows what was done or missed. As usual, these problems show up in production with depressing regularity and sometimes horrific consequences.

    Some projects have problems identifying the correct place to implement validation techniques and wait until it is too late in the project. The other mistake that some organizations make is matching the correct validation technique to their level of process maturity.

    Many people can test but not all can test effectively or efficiently.

    Both are necessary for a positive ROI.

    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 places to use validation techniques in your projects.
    • The appropriate types of validation to complete and when to do them.
    • The level of Validation to be carried out at each phase.
    • 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 an effective validation process can 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.

  • Examples of Validation

    Examples of Validation are one of the easier items to find as long as the definition referred to in the some of the earlier posts is used. Validation covers all active testing where code has been generated and we are able to run it actively.

    So it includes at least the following list of Test Phases:

    • Unit Testing
    • Integration Testing
    • System Testing
    • Acceptance Testing

    And the following list of Test Types:

    • Initial Testing
      1. Configuration Testing
      2. Compatibility/Conversion Testing
      3. Installability Testing
    • On-Going Testing
      1. Functionality Testing
      2. Facility Testing
      3. Security Testing
    • Performance Testing
      1. Volume Testing
      2. Stress Testing
      3. Load Testing
      4. Speed of Response Testing
      5. Storage Testing
    • Post Functional Testing
      1. Usability Testing
      2. Reliability Testing
      3. Recovery Testing
    • Post Installation Testing
      1. Serviceability Testing

    Despite the length of the two lists above, they are not that hard to deal with since they break the testing into several disparate groups and make it easier to ensure that everything is addressed and not omitted from consideration.

    The two key points are to determining into which phase the Types of Testing fall and whether they are worth doing. The second question is much harder to answer than the first.

    If you ask the stakeholders for most projects, they will simply answer that all Types of Testing should be full completed with all possible depth and speed. If you ask them to budget for it, you usually end up with a minimization statement asking for the cheapest testing. The best answer we have found to deal with this type of conundrum is to provide the following:

    1. Provide the above list of Validation testing types.
    2. Define each one briefly.
    3. List the recommended phase.
    4. Provide the recommendation for inclusion or exclusion.
    5. Provide the risk of failure to include them.

    This provides the stakeholders with all the information they need to make the correct decision and weigh the various merits of completing the various types of testing. In the event that they still cannot come to a decision, then add a recommendation based on the project.

  • Validation Applicability in Software Testing

    Many people believe that Validation is Software Testing and that is all there is to the profession. As was stated in our earlier blogs Validation is only half of it. It is the more expensive ‘half’ but has had far more effort put into it by many people.

    Validation is applicable in Software Testing as soon as you have any code at all to test. So it cannot launch until some development has been completed and some code generated. However, once that is completed, it is possible to launch Validation techniques and start to apply them.

    Validation can be applied at the Unit or Module level. This is the most cost effective place in which to use the technique since any error discovered at this stage is reasonably easy and cheap to fix and retest. A single module can be tested by the use of Drivers and Stubs and executed while the tester watches the progress of individual variables and conditions.

    Validation can also be applied at the Integration level where individual modules are strung together. There will still be a need for Drivers and Stubs to drive the calling and called modules but the effort will center on testing the interfaces between the modules.

    Validation can next be applied at the System and Acceptance Testing Levels although there will be more emphasis placed on some of the non-code aspects of the system.

    Lastly Validation can be applied to the Non-Functional testing aspects of the system. This requires some consideration as to what is important and what is cost-effective to test at this stage. A lot of funds can be expended with little results if due consideration is not given to the payback. If you have questions about this type of Validation Testing and would like to determine what to do, give us a call or email us at neil@nvp.ca.

  • Validation

    Quality Assurance has a number of subdivisions; one of those being Quality Control (sometimes referred to as Software Testing). We have been discussing Verification for the last four weeks. See our blog. Today we start into Validation

    We define Validation as being the active part of testing where completed, compiled, and promoted code is being run using data and generating results while Verification is the static part of testing. Note that promoted includes Unit testing on the developer’s workstation. So the promotion may not be a very formal one nor may the compile amount to a lot.

    Validation includes All aspects of active testing including the major divisions of White Box and Black Box (along with all the various Grey boxes in between). The fact that the code has to be completed means that it is difficult to launch into Validation before a lot of work has already been done. This is what adds to the cost of completing this type of testing and ensures that any defects that are found tend to be expensive to correct and retest. Hence our emphasis on Verification as being more generally cost effective.

    A lot of work has been completed to enable Validation to proceed smoothly and effectively. Many testers start their careers in this area and then move into various aspects of the process as they become more specialized. Some go towards Automation, others move into specialised areas like Performance or Security testing.

    While the concept is simple, the identification of the most cost-effective place to use Validation techniques is not always easy. There is no point in completing Validation 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 Validation techniques in your organisation.

  • 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.