590769 Software Testing To Be Or Not To Be

1,064 views

Published on

Whitepaper Presented at CAST09, “Software Testing To Be or Not To Be”

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,064
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 590769 Software Testing To Be Or Not To Be

    1. 1. “Software Testing To Be or Not To Be” Conference of the Association for Software Testing July 15, 2009“To be or not to be, that is the question”– William Shakespeare’s Hamlet<br />Neha Thakur<br />
    2. 2. Objective<br />To identify the various stakeholders, their involvement and to strategies the communication and the engagement needs of stakeholders<br />To discuss various advantages, challenges and appropriate strategies<br />
    3. 3. Coverage<br />Introduction<br />Advantages of identifying and involving stakeholders<br />Stakeholder analysis<br />Stakeholder engagement and communication<br />Challenges<br />The appropriate strategy<br />
    4. 4. Need for testing:<br />Only testing can demonstrate that quality has been achieved.<br />Software Testing is an empirical investigation conducted to provide stakeholders with information about the quality of the product or service under test, with respect to the context in which it is intended to operate.(Source: Wikipedia)<br />In spite of performing testing, Why major software fails?<br />Introduction<br />
    5. 5. Fact sheet<br />
    6. 6. Software failures<br />Software bugs are costing the U.S. economy an estimated $59.5 billion each year.(Source: WASHINGTON (COMPUTERWORLD))<br />A May 2005 newspaper article reported that a major hybrid car manufacturer had to install a software fix on 20,000 vehicles due to problems with invalid engine warning lights and occasional stalling. <br />On June 4 1996, the first flight of the European Space Agency&apos;s new Ariane 5 rocket failed shortly after launching, resulting in an estimated uninsured loss of $0.5 billion dollars.<br />In early 1999, a major computer game company recalled all copies of a popular new product due to software problems. <br />
    7. 7. So, what went wrong?<br />Major software fails due to shortfalls in skills to deal with stakeholder value propositions<br />Out of six reasons cited for failures, five arerelated to communications between teams and stakeholders<br />Poor planning and bad communication<br />Scope — stakeholders — goals, we rarely see testers involved to drive out any ambiguities or inconsistencies in these crucial deliverables<br />
    8. 8. All about stakeholders<br />
    9. 9. Who is a stakeholder?<br />Are entities who areaffected by:<br />The success or failure of a project <br />The actions or inactions of a product<br />The effects of a service<br />Stakeholder<br />
    10. 10. Advantages of identifying and involving<br />Build organizational buy-in, mutual trust, commitment and capability.<br />Reduced litigation/opposition to project implementation that results from the plan.<br />The introduction of new perspectives and diverse interests into the planning process.<br />Respect among adversarial advocacy groups and varied stakeholders across organizations of varied interest with varied POV (point of view)<br />Incorporation of an open-minded and broad search for creative alternatives.<br />Maximize the potential for a successful project from current to future state.<br />Ensure the right people receive the right information, at the right time, in the right way.<br />Ensure the right people participate at the right time, in the right way.<br />In order to proactively increase stakeholder commitment to change over time stakeholder engagement is required.<br />
    11. 11. Stakeholder analysis<br />SDLCmanagement<br />Deliverymanagement<br />Qualitymanagement<br /><ul><li>Requirements engineering
    12. 12. Application architecture and design
    13. 13. Data modeling
    14. 14. Coding and unit testing
    15. 15. Test definition
    16. 16. Test execution
    17. 17. Go live!
    18. 18. Transition
    19. 19. Project initiation
    20. 20. Project planning
    21. 21. Estimation
    22. 22. Project monitoring and control
    23. 23. Risk action assumption issues management
    24. 24. Supplier agreement management
    25. 25. Change control
    26. 26. Decision analysis and resolution
    27. 27. Project closure
    28. 28. Quality assurance
    29. 29. Metrics collection and reporting
    30. 30. Deliverable review
    31. 31. Defect prevention
    32. 32. Defect management</li></ul>Figure 1: Structured process area and process list of different management cycles <br />
    33. 33. Analyze your stakeholders<br />Understand your stakeholders:<br />What is their motivation? <br />What are their expectations? <br />What do we expect of them? <br />Where are they? <br />How expert are they at what they do? <br />What is their availability? <br />
    34. 34. Analyze your stakeholders (cont.)<br />Examples of categories you could use are:<br />Decision makers (e.g., sponsors, artifact approvers) <br />Information providers (e.g., Subject Matter Expertise) <br />Regulatory (e.g., legal body, Center of excellence) <br />Implementers (e.g., developers, testers) <br />End users <br />Post implementation support (e.g., trainers, managers) <br />
    35. 35. Stakeholder engagement and communication<br />Stakeholder assessment<br /><ul><li>Identify the key stakeholders of the program and the extent to which they:
    36. 36. Need to be engaged
    37. 37. Require specific communication</li></ul>Stakeholder action plan<br /><ul><li>Outline a framework to manage stakeholder engagement and communications throughout the project</li></ul>Communication plan<br /><ul><li>Outline the detailed plan for communicating with key stakeholders throughout the project and establish responsibility for communication</li></ul>Figure 2: Stakeholder engagement Approach <br />
    38. 38. Engage stakeholders early and throughout the plan<br />Plan should build trust over time and should allow for revisiting of the goals and project implementation<br />Have a roadmap<br />Be flexible<br />Adhere to meeting times<br />Facilitate the meetings skillfully<br />Follow up<br />Fundamentals<br />
    39. 39. Stakeholder engagement strategies<br />Commitment Level: Advocacy & Ownership<br />Engagement strategy: Position as Champion<br />Low ABILITY TO INFLUENCE§ High<br />Commitment Level: Commitment & Action<br />Engagement Strategy: Involve extensively<br />Commitment level: Understanding<br />Engagement Strategy: Address concerns<br />Low DESIRED COMMITMENT High<br />High PROJECT IMPACT^ Low<br />Commitment Level: Awareness<br />Engagement Strategy: Keep informed<br />Commitment Level: Support & buy-in<br />Engagement Strategy: Enlist as needed<br />Start-up TIME Vision Achieved<br />Figure 3:Stakeholder engagement map<br />
    40. 40. Stakeholder engagement plan<br />Figure 4: Stakeholder engagement assessment and action plan <br />
    41. 41. Stakeholder communication plan<br />Figure 5: Stakeholder communication needs assessment and action plan <br />Figure 6: Stakeholder communication plan <br />
    42. 42. Commitment versus time<br />Engagement<br />Individuals are actively involved in and contribute to Project activities.<br />Acceptance<br />Individuals are receptive to working with and implementing Project changes amid uncertainty.<br />Understanding<br />Individuals have an appreciation for the impacts and benefits that the Project will have on their functional areas.<br />Awareness<br />Individuals have heard that the Project exists and are aware of basic scope of the Project and general concepts.<br />Commitment<br />Ownership<br />Individuals acknowledge that the Project belongs to them and create innovative ways to use and improve it.<br />Status quo<br />Time<br />Vision<br />Figure 7: Stakeholder commitment versus time graph <br />
    43. 43. Inadequate communication<br />Constraints on time and money<br />Pressures to meet schedules <br />Inappropriate planning<br />Little or no monitoring and evaluation process of interaction<br />Challenges<br />
    44. 44. Stories/Case Study<br />A leading global asset management firm announced merger of equal in late 2006 targeting close in mid 2007. The publicly announced target was more than half a billion dollars in cost reduction fully captured in five years. Deloitte was engaged to assist pre close planning, post close tracking, tools/system/framework development, enterprise wide base lining and non personnel expense execution. The mobilization of cross functional experts/staff and leverage of proprietary benchmarks and methodologies helped the firms successfully delivered/exceeded target slotted for the first six months of closing. In particular, the team achieved 40% cost saving in one major procurement category alone, which involved engaging close to 100 business stakeholders and gathering thousands of detailed specifications.<br />
    45. 45. Stories/Case Study<br />As a small credit union in the Vancouver area, Vancity was founded on principles of community and has won numerous awards for its work around sustainability and climate change. With a re-branding effort that included an opportunity to better highlight its sustainability efforts, Vancity actively engages members and prospective members through new social media channels, member forums, unique brand campaigns, educational activities, and numerous opportunities for stakeholder feedback. As a result, brand preference went up by 30% and Vancity announced that it became carbon-neutral at the end of 2007, two years ahead of plan. As part of this effort, Vancity recorded more than $2 million in cost savings since 1992 through reductions in energy usage alone.<br />
    46. 46. References<br />
    47. 47. Questions?<br />
    48. 48. Thank you<br />
    49. 49. Contact:<br />nethakur@deloitte.com<br />thakurne@gmail.com<br />
    50. 50. About DeloitteDeloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.Copyright © 2009 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu<br />

    ×