This document discusses moving American Express' Pega testing towards a Testing Center of Excellence (TCoE) model. It outlines Cognizant's existing Pega testing footprint for Amex projects, the benefits of a TCoE for centralized testing, and key elements of a TCoE including standardized processes, tools, and a "core-flex" resourcing model. Establishing a Pega TCoE would optimize resource utilization, reduce costs, and institutionalize testing knowledge through a shared services approach.

1. | ©2011, Cognizant
©2011, Cognizant
Image
Area6th Sept. 2011
AMEX Pega Testing –
Moving towards TCoE

2. | ©2011, Cognizant
©2011, Cognizant
2
 Cognizant’s Pega Testing footprint in AMEX
 Why move to a TCoE?
 Core-Flex model of Resourcing
 Appendix
 Case studies
Agenda

3. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant3
Cognizant’s Pega Testing
Footprint in Amex

4. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Cognizant’s footprint of PEGA engagements with AMEX
Delivered Engagements
• ECM EMEA Release 1 & Release 2
• ECM EMEA R1 & R2 Reporting
• B2B RCubed
• Global Merchant Services
• Online Merchant Services
• iCruse
• ECM Disputes – CRs
• GCM Acquirer - CRs
Ongoing Engagements
• GCM GDN
• System Assurance - UAT
• iCruse – BAU
• OMS Support
• ECM Disputes – CRs
• GCM Acquirer – CRs
Services provided
• Functional Testing
• Integration Testing
• Report Testing
• Test Data identification
• Regression Testing
• Automation Testing
• Performance Testing
• User Acceptance Testing
• Business Acceptance Testing
• E2E Test Management
What we noticed?
 Different SDLC models followed : Iterative model
followed in ECM, while B2B adopted SmartBPM then
Iterative.
 Differences in testing approach: Risk based testing
followed in ECM
 Automation testing : Adopted in ECM release 1,
Benefits accrued in Release 2.
 Comprehensive status reporting followed in ECM
R1
 Common Challenges:
 Requirements Management
 Change Management
 Test Data identification & preparation

5. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant5
TCoE Evolution: Where are we today?
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
People People People
Process
Tools
Process Process
Tools Tools
Development / BA led Testing
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
People People People
Project led Independent Testing
Process
Tools
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
People People People
Automation
Shared Services Model
Performance
Tools
Process
QA/ Testing is part of
Development
Independent QA for
each project separately
QA/ Testing as a
service
QAcosts
not
tracked
Cost
Tracked&
Managed
Costof
Qualitydriven
TCoE
No separate
function for QA
QA is a separate function,
but each project is treated
separately
QA is a separate function
providing shared services

6. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant6
Why move to a TCoE Model?
 Where do we want to be?
 Key Elements of a TCoE?
 What is different for Pega Testing?
 Benefits of moving to a TCoE

7. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Why move to a TCoE model?
7
Software Quality Organization
• Varied methodologies, processes, tools, infrastructure
and metrics across groups
• Little or no sharing of resources and knowledgebase;
Resource management (on-boarding, ramp-up and
release) processes have to be managed by each project
• Number of software licenses that can be used is
typically lesser that what is needed, due to cost
considerations; extensive use of Microsoft Excel
• Consistent methodologies, processes, tools, infrastructure
and metrics across groups
• Centralised work management & resource planning in
Core-Flex model
• Shared Infrastructure and tools. Maintenance and upgrade
costs shared across projects
Decentralized Testing Organization
App 1
Development
Team
Testers Testers Testers
Development
Team
Development
Team
Testing Tools Testing Tools Testing Tools
App 2 App N
Resources
Knowledge
Repository
Common Tools &
Infrastructure
Standard
Processes
Structured
Software Testing
Testing Center of Excellence
Centralized Testing Organization
The need for QA Centralization

8. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant8
TCoE Evolution: Where do we want to be?
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
People People People
Process
Tools
Process Process
Tools Tools
Development / BA led Testing
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
People People People
Project led Independent Testing
Process
Tools
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
Business
Unit
People People People
Automation
Shared Services Model
Performance
Tools
Process
QA/ Testing is part of
Development
Independent QA for
each project separately
QA/ Testing as a
service
QAcosts
not
tracked
Cost
Tracked&
Managed
Costof
Qualitydriven
TCoE
No separate
function for QA
QA is a separate function,
but each project is treated
separately
QA is a separate function
providing shared services

9. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Key Elements of a TCoE
9
CentralizedQA
 Single test organization with defined governance model
 Benchmarks for productivity and SLAs based on metrics gathered over time
 Centralized resource management (Core-Flex team) for efficient demand management
 Common processes for On-boarding, training & competency development
 Standardized templates, guidelines and checklists across STLC
 Framework based test automation that is used across projects
 Centralized license management for testing tools
 Test environment management
 Centralized test data management
 In-house product and technology specialists who serve as “go-to” gurus for all projects

10. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
TCoE Ecosystem (Future State)
10
Test
Planning &
Estimation
Test Design
&
Build
Test
Execution &
Management
Test
Reporting
SLA / Metrics
Management
Test Program
Management
Testing
Centre of
Excellence
TCoE
Business
Development
Infrastructure Services
Business process definition
Provide/validate/signoff
requirements
Recommendations to Change
Control board
Environment Management
Test Data Management
Release & Configuration
Management
Project Management Office
Strategic Planning & Governance
Budget Allocation
Overseeing TCoE SLA adherence
Inter group relationship of TCOE with
external groups
Process Team*
Process Definition/
Maintenance
Metrics Institution
Test Process Training
Continuous Process
Improvement
Best Practice Implementation
Tools standardization
Tools administration
Tools support
Automation/NFT*
Proof of concept
Standards & Guidelines
Feasibility Analysis
Technical Consultancy
Reusable Frameworks
Core-Flex
resourcing
Standard process
& Frameworks
Common Tools,
Infrastructure &
Automation
Solution
Accelerations/
Best practices
Governance
structure
Application Development
Maintenance/
Enhancements
Defect Fixes
Cognizant
Test Tools COE*
Functional Testing Regression Testing
Performance /Load
Testing
Automation
Testing
UAT Support
Service Spectrum
AMEX
* Refer to Appendix for details about each team

11. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Pega TCoE – what is different for Pega, that makes it
necessary to have a dedicated TCoE?
11
CentralizedTCoEforPega
 Available models include Waterfall, Iterative, Agile and Pega’s own Smart
BPM approach. By standardizing the model, it is possible to optimize
processes, tools and templates and derive benchmarks for reference
SDLC Model
Team composition  In addition to Business Analysts, the team needs to include Pega
specialists who understand Pega PRPC product and have prior experience
in Pega Testing
Test Strategy  Pega Testing is much more than UI based functionall testing. It is important
to know how to test Rules and Workflows, how to test web-services, how to
focus on specific flow paths for test execution during different stages of
application development, how to rules that are data intensive, and how to
use tools / utilities with Pega ie AUT, TMF, PAL etc
Tools & Automation  For some needs, Pega’s own tools i.e AUT, TMF, PAL, PLA are
recommended, whereas other tools like QTP and Cognizant’s proprietary
tools like ADPART for Pega , CRAFT, TCGEN work better in other cases.
Knowledge how each of these tools work is therefore critical
Change
Management
 It is common to find requirements evolving frequently in Pega projects. With
changing requirements, it is necessary to identify changes in test scenarios
immediately, and continuously maintain regression test scripts. Tools like
ADPART for Pega can be used to deal with this challenge very effectively

12. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Benefits of moving to a TCoE model?
12
 Testing is delivered as a Shared Service, i.e, Functional Testing, Automation Testing, Performance Testing
across projects, thus reducing the cost of testing to each project
 Common pool of experts is leveraged by all projects
 Enables enterprise wide adoption of frameworks for Automation Testing – thus reducing cost of script
maintenance due to product upgrades (ie Pega 5.5 to 6.2)
 Having a common knowledge repository ensures each project team does not go through the same learning
curve separately.
Optimised
Resourcing
Central
Repository
Common Tools
& Infrastructure
Standard
Processes
• Higher system
quality
• Better planning &
estimation
• Rigorous metrics
collection
• Continuous process
improvement
• Lower labor costs
through optimised
utilisation of resources
• Dedicated team builds
expertise over time
• Reduced effort through
reuse of common
frameworks, templates,
and data repositories
• Maximised test
automation
• Optimized tool licensing
requirements
• Institutionalise
knowledge
• Better test coverage
• Efficient knowledge
transfer

13. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant13
The Core-flex model of
Resourcing
 Core-flex model
 Governance Structure

14. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant14
Core Flex Resourcing Model
1. Staffing is done based on demand projections and average productivity observed on
a quarterly basis
2. In case of ramp-up in Core team, flexi team resources at offshore would be moved to
core, and new associates inducted in flexi team

15. | ©2011, Cognizant
Capacity Planning in the Core-Flex model
The capacity model is built on
 Fixed Requirements – i.e. core team of fixed number of resources having identified
skills
 Flex team to support short term requirements for scaling up at short notice
(typically up to 10% of core team size, provided core team size > 25)
 Timely Demand Forecasting
 Factoring a minimum lead time for ramp-ups (Ramp-up of Core team is done by
moving resources from flex team, and replenishing the flex team within 6 to 8
weeks typically)
 Floor and Ceiling Limits
15
Fixed Capacity
1,680 hours per month
Forecasted demand
based on 3 month
rolling forecast
Ceiling Limit
(Forecasted demand +
10% of fixed capacity)
Floor Limit
(90% of forecasted
demand)

16. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Core Flex Resourcing Model
16
Tiers
Capacity
Slab (Person
hrs/ Month)
Equival
ent FTE
slab
Resource Mix (Person
hrs / Month)
Onsite/Offshore
Ratio
Flex
Team at
offshore
ON OFF ON OFF OFF
1 2496 15 480 2016 19% 81% -
2 4168 25 640 3528 15% 85% 2
3 6680 40 800 5880 12% 88% 4
4 10032 60 960 9072 10% 90% 6

17. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Steady State TCoE Governance Structure
17

18. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
TCoE – Cognizant/AMEX Roles & Responsibilities
18
 Cognizant will assume delivery ownership
and strategy/ planning/
execution/reporting for all testing
activities done as part of the TCoE
 AMEX will have ownership of SME support
activities and Supplier Coordination
 * Cognizant to partner with AMEX for
formalizing strategies and help implement
Vision, Policies and procedures and
Budget allocation, as well as Release
Planning, and Business Prioritization
 ** Cognizant to help AMEX with
Environment Management and
Configuration Management, by leveraging
existing/proposed Cognizant presence in
those areas
 Program management, Risk management
and Communication Management will be
shared responsibilities
* Vision, Goals &
Objectives
* Policies &
Procedures
** Environment
Management
* Release Planning
* Budget
Management
Supplier
Coordination
Business Analysis &
SME
** Configuration
Management
* Business
Prioritization
Program
Management
Risk Management
Communication
Management
Manage & Deploy
Resources
Estimation
PMO Reporting KPI Tracking Performance
Management
Test
Strategy/Planning
Test
Design/Execution
Defect Management
AMEXCognizantShared
Tool Administration

19. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Thank you
19

20. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant20
Transition Approach:
 from current state to TCoE
 from incumbent team

21. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Typical TCoE Implementation Timeline*
21
Metric s
benchm
arked
Pega
Testing as
a service
offered to
BUs
Decentr
alized
state
Define Basic Processes
Identify initial set of applications
to be brought under Pega TCoE
Knowledge Transition
Environment Set-up & access creation
Configuration of reusable assets
Execution and base-lining
Quarterly Demand forecasting
M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M36
* Indicative sample only. Actual timeline will be formalized after more details are gathered
Consolidation at Enterprise Level
Transition
from
incumbent
team
Define guidelines and frameworks

22. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Vendor Transition - Overview
22
Cognizant
Incumbent
Entry criteria • SoW signed
• High level KT Plan shared
• KT team identified
• Draft KT document
reviewed
• Tester logins created
• Separate instance for
Cognizant testers
• All existing test cases
executed at least once
• Test Management
processes defined
Scope • Business Processes
• Application & Interfaces
• QA Environment
• Test Mgnt processes
• Identified set of test
scenarios (business
critical)
• Testing of batch processes
• Full scope of application &
Interfaces that are
available in QA
environment
Exit criteria • Draft KT document
prepared by Cognizant
• Gaps (between application
and test scripts) identified
• Metrics for test cases
executed by Cognizant
team
• Updated gap analysis
document
• Ongoing assessment
through agreed metrics
and delivery review
How is it
measured?
• No of topics covered,
hours of KT
• Productivity
• Defect Leakage
• Any other metric
specifically agreed
Cognizant understands existing
processes and application under the
supervision of existing team
Cognizant will undertake execution
of majority of test cases in
steady-state
Test Execution by Cognizant
team on trial to validate
knowledge gained
Shadow Share Lead

23. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Appendix
 Case-studies
23

24. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Experience in setting TCoE for leading Industry
Players
24
Healthcare
Customer Profile
Peak Team
Size
One of the largest U.S. health plan 450+
3rd
largest health plan in the U.S. 350+
One of the largest Blues 180+
One of the largest clearing houses 100+
TCoEs
Life Sciences
Customer Profile
Peak Team
Size
One of the largest Pharma co. 250+
One of the oldest EU Pharma co. 50+
Insurance
Customer Profile
Peak Team
Size
A Fortune 100 insurance company 150+
The largest U.S insurance company 250+
U.S based Intl. fin. Servicers firm 100+
Leading fin. services product co. 150+
Top 3 fin services co. of U.S 200+
Banking & Financial Services
Customer Profile
Peak Team
Size
Leading UK based financial group 800+
One of the oldest fin. services firms
in the world
350+
One of the largest banking and
insurance group in UK
350+
Switzerland based fin. services Org 250+
Large U.S saving bank holding co. 100+
Communication, Media and Entertainment
Customer Profile
Peak Team
Size
Leading Telecom Equipment
vendor
70+
Leading Broadband Service
provider
30+
Large legal solutions and risk
analytics company
250+
One of the world’s largest
information co.
150+
Rich experience
establishing large
scale TCoEs across
more than 30+ clients
globally
Technology
Customer Profile
Peak
Team Size
Online stock brokerage fin.
service co.
120+
Largest Software Products co. 100+
Largest Engg Design
Software Co.
70+
Retail, Travel & Manufacturing
Customer Profile
Peak Team
Size
U.S based Internet travel
company
150+
World's largest office supply
retail store chain
100+
One of the largest
Manufacturing conglomerates
100+
?
?

25. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
Project Summary
• Business Objective:
Implementation of a Credit
Cards Dispute Management
Application at the Acquirer
end
Eliminate existing manual
processes like case creation,
case processing etc.
Automate processes by
implementation of the Pega
PRPC Enterprise Case
Management system
• Testing carried out in various
business centers and Markets.
• 2 cycles of Testing in 6 months
to perform confirmation and
regression testing to ensure
that the product meets
requirements
• Used Quality Center 9.0 for Test
management tool, QTP 9.2 for
Automation and Load Runner
9.5 for Performance Testing
• Technology Stack:
• PEGA Rules based Testing
• Functional Testing
• Integration Testing
• Regression testing
• E2E Testing
• UAT Support
• Performance Testing
Key Modules
PRPC
• SSO Agent Login
• Get Work & Search Case
• Retrieval Requests
• Charge backs
• Financial adjustments
Scope
I wanted to share with you all the very positive feedback we have received from the UAT testers. Big wins
on two fronts: Testing Training – really engaging, useful, enjoyable; ECM System: really useable, easy to
navigate, professional, barely need training its so easy. We had a bunch of seasoned users who are not
easily impressed by things - to get this kind of feedback is a resounding success! WOW!!!!!!
Manager, Strategic Project Implementation
Just wanted to say thank you to all the Team for their tremendous effort and getting this back on track
Director, World Services Technologies
Automation Coverage
• ~40% of System Test Cases were automated - More
than 50% reduction in Test Execution time
• Reusable automation framework resulting in ~30%
reduction in script creation effort
Client Benefits
Multi Market Testing
• Airlines
• British Airways
• Lufthansa
• Pay pal
• Highways
Team Composition
• 1 Onsite & 6 Offshore Test Analysts
• Specialized PEGA Testing team
comprising of Manual, Automation and
Performance Test Analysts
• Automation of 90% of the manual Credit Card dispute
processes using PRPC
• Significant reduction in case processing time
• 76% of defects were identified before UAT, ensuring
stability of the application
• 0% production defects
• 18% defects were raised in the Rules Testing phase
 PRPC V5.5 SP1
 IBM Web-sphere Portal
 V6.x.x, JDK 1.4.2,
 IBM DB2 database
Applause
Integration with
• GC&S (Case creation)
• OpsNet & Towerscan
(Image storage)
• Unitech
(Case validation)
PRPC Testing – Global Financial Services Company
25

26. | ©2011, Cognizant| ©2011, Cognizant
NoofTestCases
6.797
1.984 2.094
11.5
0
5
10
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
High Medium Low Info
23
53
42
12
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
PRPC functional
GC&S
OpsNet / Towerscan
Unitech
Financial Adj.
1382
107
59
3
3
Performance
Testing
Automation coverage
0
500
1000
1500
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Automation
Manual
Manual versus
Automation Coverage
Optimized
Delivery
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time in secs
Test Execution Productivity
Defects by Severity
Defects by Priority
23
57
50
High Medium Low
1554 test cases designed and executed across
various modules
76% defects identified before UAT
26
PRPC Testing – Global Financial Services Co. …contd.

27. | ©2011, Cognizant
Testing Centre of Excellence - Large Financial Services Provider
27
Cognizant Solution
Cognizant performed a
strategic assessment of the
client’s testing organization
and established a dedicated
Testing Center of Excellence
(TCoE) which encompasses
resources from both the
client and Cognizant jointly
addressing the testing
needs of the client.
The client identified the need for a dedicated Testing Center of Excellence
(TCoE) for catering to the testing needs of all its IT systems and
applications as well as to centralize its testing processes and inculcate
best quality practices across the organization.
Background
Scope of the TCoE
Project Highlights
Effort Details
• 2 Years elapsed time
& Ongoing
• Peak team size: 147
 Onsite – 31
 Offshore – 116
Key LoB
• Customer Ops
• Employee Benefits
Applications Tested
• Microsoft CRM
• Policy Admin System
• Mainframe and Web
Applications

28. | ©2011, Cognizant
Testing Centre of Excellence - Large Financial Services Provider
28
Productivity: Automation resulted in over 90% of effort
and over 80% of cost savings
Resourcing: Established core + Flex staffing model which
enabled staff ramp up to 63% in 2 weeks
Quality: High test case coverage and continuous process
improvements ensured a very high quality of deliverables
Balance Scorecard: Establishment of a Balance
Scorecard with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
covering Budget, timely delivery, Quality and CSAT.
Risk Based Testing (RBT) : Cognizant has also
developed a Risk based testing model for the client to
reduce the overall testing cost by optimizing the number of
test cases and reducing the testing cycle time.
Client Benefits Cost Savings through Automation
Risk Based Testing Approach

29. | ©2011, Cognizant
Independent Branch
New feature on independent branch
Release Versions
Targeted Release
Unit Test -> QA approval for
merge
Enhancement to existing
feature cut from branch
Uprev’s , synch up’s
btw branches
Final Merge,
ownership transfer
to Main
Merge with Main Trunk, transfer of ownership
to client
Merge
• A Branch is cut from main trunk
(code which is in prod)
• New feature is developed on
independent branch
• QA signoff/ release before an
enhancement/ feature can be
merged with the Branch
• After promotion to trunk,
regression test done on trunk
• Minimum Acceptance Tests after
regression test
Branch & Merge Strategy
Test Planning in Agile model for an e-trading leader
29