Project_Experience

Ricardo David A. del Rosario
Middleware Technical Specialist for Philippines and Vietnam
1. IT Project Management
In order to demonstrate to <<Bank_1>> that our software would work in their
environment, we conducted a workshop, following the Team Solution Design
Methodology. Our first step was to identify their pain points, which we outlined via email,
before the initial meeting. The next step involved eliciting more detailed requirements in
our face-to-face meeting with the stakeholders. We presented a long-term solution of a
fully integrated development lifecycle, including integrations to their existing systems.
Once we had the client’s support of the scope, we conducted a series of business value
assessments to catalog their existing processes, forms, approvals, and user roles. With
this new information, we presented our findings and business case/ROI for the project.
Next, we installed our tools and customized them according to our client’s workflow.
Then we demonstrated several use cases to address all functional requirements the client
specified, and answered all follow-up questions promptly and accurately. Throughout this
exercise, we identified and addressed several risks. One risk was the lack of skills in the
software by the business partner who would implement the solution. We mitigated this
risk by leading the technical workshops and demonstrations with the partners taking notes
for implementation. We also provided initial documentation for the scope of work and
use cases for the tools. Another risk was the expansion of the demonstration environment
in a virtual machine, to their production environment. Foreseeing this, we already
ensured proper procedures in deploying the test environment to meet production
standards, with planned expansion for real-world capacity. Lastly, <<Bank_1>> has a
relatively traditional/manual development lifecycle which would require adoption of
proper processes prior to optimal tool utilization. To address this, we planned, and
conducted numerous workshops on improved methodologies and usage models.
2. Business Aspects
<<Teleco_1>>’s CIO/Chief Architect needs real-time access to the architectures
of different projects. To get this information, he requests each of his 20 project leaders to
spend time to create architecture diagrams, using non-standard tools which are then
combined, and updated in weekly meetings. The expectation was to be able to drill-down
in real-time to get an overall architectural view down to the individual web services, tools,
and other assets. Our unique value was to be able to present a dashboard view of the
architecture of the overall organization, and how it connected to the architecture and
design of their individual projects. This would involve the seamless integration of
multiple tools, allowing the real-time flow of information from the projects to the
business levels of the organization. Our proposed platform leverages the Portfolio
Management Solution including Enterprise Architecture and Workforce Management.
Best practices are also provided via Quickstart Services for tools and integration.

3. Problem Resolution and Analysis
During a Workshop for <<Retailer_1>>, we were required to demonstrate the
usability and functionality of our functional and performance testing tools across five of
their retail and supporting applications. We successfully installed and ran the tools on
their terminal and web-based applications, noting some lag and sensitivity in the test
recording and playback. To address this, I hosted a remote-conference with our India
Labs, where they guided us to modify certain configurations that fixed the time delays.
Other challenges were faced while testing their Oracle application. To address this, I
emailed and discussed the requirements with a business partner who had previously
created add-ons for our testing tools. After several discussions, we downloaded the files
and licenses that enabled us to successfully test <<Retailer_1>>’s Oracle application. The
last and most difficult challenge was installing and running our testing tool on their PoS
System/cash register. The embedded Windows OS allowed us to install our Java-based
application after modifying several environment variables. However, we could not
proceed with recording the test script due to the non-standard input/output devices
(barcode scanner, card reader, PoS keyboard, etc), since the testing tools could only
interpret standard mouse and keyboard events. After discussing with my ASEAN
counterparts without a solution, I developed a temporary workaround where would use
the screen-capture comparison capability of our tool to trigger the required events.
4. Asset Re-Use and Harvesting
At the start of the <<Bank_2>> project, we were required to present our point-
product solution, which I downloaded from our worldwide database. With several
presentations available, I picked and customized the most applicable one for our banking
PMO head, with minimal technical information. From there, we presented a bigger
picture of a fully integrated development solution. Although there were several solutions
available, we selected the one that was created during a workshop conducted with our AP
Team because of its relevance to the client and their existing business user roles across
their architect, PMO, development, and infrastructure teams. Then, we filled up the
required RFP based on similar solutions in the Philippines, but extending our references
globally, based on notes from the Innovate event held in the US. When it came to product
demonstrations, we reviewed the available resources on the TEC website, but decided to
go with the virtual machines configured by our ASEAN Technical Team, based on their
recommendations. The final business proposal re-used a template from a similar use case
in Singapore. Lastly, the Solution Designs were modeled after similar banking clients in
Indonesia and Malaysia because of the similar size and environment of the target
deployment.

5. Integrated Value Proposition
Discussed with ASEAN leaders our solution proposition and how to present our
Integrated Product Delivery Framework to <<Telco_2>>. With my specialization in the
Collaborative Lifecycle Management, we integrated this with our ASEAN resource’s
expertise on Project and Portfolio Management, and remote assistance from Malaysia for
Deployment Automation. Finally, our Business Partner provided overall deployment and
support for installation and configuration in the client’s Linux environment, and will
provide the implementation services. During the workshop, we referenced several online
materials on special instructions and configuration needed for the Linux installation of
our software designed for Windows OS. Although we had offered services initially, the
client preferred this particular business partner based on previous project
implementations and their technical support.
6. Solution Portfolio
I drove the participation for the multi-brand Event in the Philippines: “Developing
Customer-Centric Mobile Applications Workshop”. Pushed marketing from ASEAN and
business partners to send the relevant information to our local marketing team, to prevent
cancellation of the event. I coordinated with our technical presenters, of different
specializations, regarding the timeline and logistics of the event. One of the attendees of
the event, <<Retailer_1>>, decided to pursue this solution and requested for future
consultations, led by our Industry Architects. I also assisted our architects by providing
numerous slides and reference materials for a complete and integrated MobileFirst
Proposition. The first of three tracks in our engagement would focus on Application
Development and Maintenance, led by mobile development across different platforms,
and tested with our Test Workbench for Mobile Quality Assurance. Our complete
offering provides a true end-to-end mobile solution from collaborative development and
maintenance to security and analytics based on each client’s usage. Whether to transform
<<Retailer_1>>’s customer acquisition strategies, streamline <<Retailer_1>>’s business
processes, or boost product and service innovations, our focus is to help <<Retailer_1>>
accomplish more by laying a comprehensive foundation of tools from which to build all
their future mobile applications.

7. Industry Expertise
After reviewing best industry practices on our intranet, and discussing with our
ASEAN strategic team, we shared the current trends in the banking industry to
<<Bank_3>>. As they were conducting a core system transformation, we lent our best
practices and accompanying tools needed for an optimal design, delivery, and
management of their systems. We also discussed their application development lifecycle
in detail, highlighting how to improve speed and quality while reducing costs via
enforced workflows with approval gates and standardized forms through a collaborative
process. We showed how project quality begins with understood requirements across the
development team, and more importantly, prioritizing the right projects to begin with,
that bring value to <<Bank_3>>, based on their core values and strategic objectives. By
showing how their company’s objectives map down to projects, linked to requirements,
development source code, and automated tests, they get a better appreciation of their
technical team as a source of innovation, and not as a cost center. We also discussed how
banks are becoming more and more complex through acquisitions and integrations of
overlapping systems, and how to navigate this growing complexity through an integrated
enterprise architecture of IT assets. Finally, we discussed the trend towards mobile
solutions, and the need to get deeper insights from clients’ data, and provide a user-
friendly experience through mobile applications continuously updated, based on user
feedback.
8.1. Competitive Analysis and Business Justification 1
After doing an initial presentation and demo to <<GovtInst_1>> for our Portfolio
Management Solution integrated with Collaborative Lifecycle Development, they
nominated us as one of their three final candidates for a 1-week PoC. Based on this time
constraint, we decided to reuse our existing Proof of Technology, and retrofit it for a PoC.
The client was initially interested in project management only, but we convinced them to
expand their priorities to include lifecycle management integrations, which was to our
advantage. Compared to our competitors who required 3rd
party integrations or a
patchwork of tools, we provided a single UI from which to monitor and develop
applications. We also focused on integrations with the client’s existing toolset and
deployment across different environments which our competitors couldn’t match. In the
end, our business justification indicated an ROI of 23% in 24 weeks. This would be
achieved with earlier deliveries (estimate is 1 week), the ability to trace requirements
down to source code and test scripts (0.5 to 3 weeks saved by reducing rework and
wasted effort), real-time metrics and dashboards (1hr per person per day) to reduce
meetings during critical project releases, and plan-based tasks (saving 4hrs per cycle) by
reducing manual logging and tracking of activities for utilization metrics.

8.2. Competitive Analysis and Business Justification 2
After our first presentation to <<Bank_4>> on creating a Quality Center of
Excellence, our next presentation included a sample business justification they could use
for submission to their upper management for funding of the project. We showed the
benefits of how automated testing would increase the speed, coverage, and repeatability.
Defect tracking would also be automated across teams, and tests could be run unattended
when necessary. Understanding the cost constraints of <<Bank_4>>, we were able to
trim the bill of materials to the minimum requirements, in order to meet their financial
limitations. We also focused on their priorities of determining the root cause of their
performance problems, and used our resources across other brand’s products to determine
their bottlenecks in their hardware, databases, and networks. Compared to the other
vendors, including open source technologies, we were able to give the most accurate
results to their real-world scenarios and prescribe the next steps to resolve their issues.
While the other vendors estimated server failure at 500 and 1000 virtual users
respectively, we correctly estimated that failure would occur at 250 users using our tools
and workload scheduling. Based on similar clients, we estimated a 74% reduction in
downtime due to maintenance, and 30-50% time saved in reusing tests for future
application versions.
9. Solution Viability
Initially, <<GovInst_2>> was only looking for a development tool to assist with
their Java development. Given their existing middleware software, they were looking to
standardize on that platform, using our solution to migrate from Netbeans. To explore
this further, we conducted a Proof of Technology workshop at IBM and discussed their
complete software development lifecycle. We conducted a gap assessment to determine
their points for improvement in their development methodology. We concluded that aside
from development tools, they needed version control, automated workflow approvals,
and project monitoring as well. They also realized the benefits of using automated testing
tools for regression and load testing. We then conducted a risk analysis, with results
showing that deployment wouldn’t be too challenging since our own Services would
conduct the training and deployment, as part of a larger Software Group Enterprise
License Agreement. In terms of organizational infrastructure, <<GovInst_2>> used a
traditional methodology with almost no tooling. Given their low maturity level, we
needed to factor in awareness building sessions, and usage model workshops into the
services proposal. We also conducted several basic Java usage workshops, using our tools
for their appreciation and improvement. This was all part of a future expansion plan into
collaborative management, towards integrated portfolio management to deliver the
client’s expectations of higher quality, and faster time to market.

10.1. Technical Evaluations 1
At <<Bank_5>>, we were requested to conduct a proof of concept for our testing
tools. The purpose was to automate testing of their Finacle systems. We installed the
demo software on their test workstations but ran into some issues with recording the test
scripts. Initial analysis revealed incompatibilities with their Java modules. After
redirecting the application to use the correct modules, we ran into errors in their login
screen. We needed to disable their encrypted VeriSign verification system to interpret the
protocols properly. Because they were using a special applet on logon, we needed to
contact India Labs to help solve the problem remotely. The Labs were able to get past
login by disabling the Simplified Scripting, switching to Java. Past login however, we
encountered more issues. After discussions with our ASEAN and AP teams, we learned
that we needed to disable some browser settings, specifically, the Next Generation Plug-
in (NGP) in the Java Control Panel. In the end, we were able to demonstrate the
capability of our tools to perform automated regression testing and convince the client of
its utility in their environment.
10.2. Technical Evaluations 2
In <<ISV_1>>, we conducted a workshop for their evaluation of our version control and
build automation solutions. Our objective was to bring them up-to-date to our latest
offerings and help them understand the capabilities of some previously purchased tools.
Initial challenges involved installing the virtual machines at the client site due to security
restrictions. I resolved this issue by utilizing the demo cloud version of our solution
hosted on a public URL. This sandbox enabled us to understand the collaborative
capabilities of the tools for software development. But I also used my own local
VMWare to showcase the client-side tool for version control and conflict management.
Finally, we discussed and demonstrated BuildForge for automatic execution of
configurations across distributed systems. Having learned the use cases for the tools they
had previously purchased, we had set up the stage for the procurement of additional
licenses.

11. IBM Strategy
<<Bank_6>> needs an integrated, collaborative development solution that can be
used across their organization to replace their old Portfolio Management application that
has reached end-of-life and is no longer supported. This gap is highlighted annually in
audit findings. Since the SVP who was in charge of this project is moving to a new role
in the organization, he wants to resolve this issue instead of passing it on to the new PMO
Head. The organization is targeting a process improvement rating of CMMI 3 and
compliance with BASEL III by 2014.
The Integrated Product Delivery Framework focuses on integrating several software
solutions from project ideation and prioritization, through to collaborative lifecycle
deployment involving requirements and project management. Overall, this strategy will
enable <<Bank_6>> to effectively align their business needs with their technical
capabilities. Other benefits include minimizing transformation initiative risks, improving
team productivity, reducing cost due to misunderstanding of requirements, improving
product quality with reusable test cases, and improving time to market by standardizing a
tool.
Our deep involvement in <<Bank_6>>’s strategic IT initiatives and strong understanding
of <<Bank_6>> businesses and IT environments will enable us to recommend the best
solution alternatives. Our strong transformation management methodology, product
features and experiences, will enable <<Bank_6>> to “quick-start” and power-up the
transformation governance platform. Our strong position in the transformation
management marketplace, global reach with local and global experience in the provision
of transformation management services, and adoption of open standards in our product
platform design makes our solution greatly extensible and scalable.

12. Client Relationships
With <<GovtInst_3>>, we developed several relationships with their key stakeholders.
From their Development Heads and QA Administrators to their Technical Specialists and
Developers, we established lasting relationships to cement our roles as trusted advisors
on testing tools. As a cross-brand opportunity, and led by our business partner, we
coordinated internally to develop effective presentations and integrated demonstrations to
showcase the benefits of our solutions. We set several client calls to help understand and
detail their requirements. We showed how we could deliver value by assisting them from
a chaotic catch and patch or ad-hoc testing towards a more proactive collaborative-based
solution through repeatable test planning and test automation. The client raised issues on
reusing their test scripts from functional testing for load testing. We highlighted how we
separated the test scripts to enable more lightweight usage and the difference in recording
for both tools. While functional testing focused on UI interactions, performance testing
focused on the request and response protocols. We also provided examples where this
separation of capabilities led to more accurate results in performance testing when
compared to other vendors and open-source tools. In the end, we developed a specific list
based on our discussions, which became the basis of their Terms of Reference. To
prepare for negotiation, we corroborated on the Bill of Materials, using concurrent user
licenses when available and minimal virtual users to bring the overall costs down. We
also added some plug-ins to be able to test specific client-server applications they
required. We also discussed other similar solutions and deployment taken from
discussions within our internal IBM social networks.
13. Tool Integration
At <<Telco_2>>, they had previously purchased HP’s solution for regression testing.
However, they also had our version control and project management solutions, along with
service testing their Middleware programs. They also used Axis Compass for Portfolio
Management. We proposed three different paths towards the integration of these point-
product solutions. The first option was to purchase our requirements management tool to
provide the missing requirements component, and integrate this using our Lifecycle
Integration Adapters to HP’s testing tools and our own project management tools. We
were able to configure our adapters and showcase how we would deliver this solution.
While there was no need to migrate their existing HP test assets to other tools, there was a
large cost for implementing these integrations and limited capabilities for GUI-based
regression testing. The second option included our Test Workbench to include integration
testing for mobile, virtual testing for GUI-less applications based on APIs, and load
testing for performance. The final option was a two-phase approach starting with the
acquisition of both requirements and quality management to provide full lifecycle
traceability. Then phase two would include a buyback proposal for Test Workbench, to
migrate them out of HP and into a complete Integrated Development Framework with our
own portfolio management solution. Our final demonstration was a complete end-to-end
solution using our tools with complete integrations.

14. Configiuration
At <<Bank_7>>, we were invited to participate in their regression testing
workshop. The default configuration would not run on their systems due to a lack of
network connectivity among their test workstations. We were able to workaround this
setup by installing separate license key servers into each workstation. One of the
workstations still had issues, but was fixed when we diagnosed that its computer name
was changed during the workshop. The next step in setup was to configure the individual
license keys which couldn’t be shared among the testers. Their particular test
environment also required additional customizations during test recording. Our testing
tools could not locate some of their drop-down menus, which needed manual overrides in
the Java scripting. We also upgraded their Java version to be compatible with our testing
tools, including the modules used in their web browsers to ensure proper recording. They
also indicated test requirements for their SAP and Oracle Flexcube environments, so we
engaged their project teams and stakeholders to validate and test these requirements,
using special plug-ins developed for our tool. We expanded these discussions to the idea
of a Test Center of Excellence, focusing on the bigger picture of quality management,
defect tracking, and requirements traceability. This would be used later on as the basis for
a future project, headed by their CIO.
15. Development Tool Selection
At <<Retailer_2>>, we were providing the HW for their Loyalty Card Application, while
a third party was providing the actual SW. Problems were encountered during
deployment wherein the performance of the application was much below expectations
with constant downtimes around 8-10am and noon. While we blamed the SW
configurations, the 3rd
party pointed fingers at insufficient HW resources. With the
holidays coming in, <<Retailer_2>> was pressured to immediately determine the
bottleneck of their system. Our HW team contacted us in SW to assist the client. After
initial discussions, we found out that the 3rd
party did not use any performance testing
tool during their development. So we recommended our tools to be deployed across their
network resources, servers, and databases to assist in the root cause analysis. We
simulated the 1500 transactions/month that they recorded. We then isolated the problem
to the specific part of the environment, then identified numerous problem areas in the
initial runs, including response times of specific pages, and the sizes of certain images
and scripts that needed to be loaded. Without using our tools, it would have been
impossible to measure the exact configuration parameters to determine which
configuration files needed to be fixed. It would also be necessary to rerun the tools
whenever there would be changes to the configuration settings in the future.

16. Methods and Tools
<<ISV_2>>, a local software development company with clients in Japan,
contacted us to assist them in developing an “Application Development Workbench”
from requirements to implementation. We discussed the lifecycle methodology they were
using, whether agile or waterfall, and then conducted a customized demo from creating
requirements, down to testing. We noted how they used agile internally, based on the
sticky notes that were pasted on whiteboards, but also waterfall methodology, when
dealing with their Japanese counterparts, adhering to strict deadlines and deliverables.
We then scheduled a Proof of Technology to detail their requirements further, focusing
on project management, change management, version control, and collaborative
development. We highlighted the different user artifacts that were created in the default
installation, that were compatible with both of their methodologies. Our complete
solution provided the flexibility they needed for their different processes, within the same
user interface, across their geographically-distributed teams.

Project_Experience

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Project_Experience

Project_Experience