Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Practitioner's View
Innovative Practices in Software Quality Facilitation
What’s inside!
▪ Our Identity
▪ What is (Un)Conventional ?
▪ (Un)Conventional Best Practices
▪ The Next Big Thing
▪ Summary
Our Identity
▪ RNTBCI is a joint venture established under the Renault Nissan alliance on September, 2007.
▪ We are Renault Nissan ISITians.
▪ Global In-house Centre
▪ RNTBCI ISIT Journey with Software Quality framework
– ISO 20000-1:2011
– CMMI SVC V1.3, Maturity Level – 3 (World’s 1st Automobile Captive Entity Assessed)
– ITIL Framework Adaptation
Disclaimer
▪ It worked for our
– Business culture
– People
– Process Framework
▪ Many are practicing already and seen results
▪ Many are our intellectual practices and few from the outside world
What is (Un)Conventional ?
▪ Conventional Practices
– Prevalent in the industry
– Traditional
– Frequently Practiced
Un-conventional Practices
Non Traditional –
Rarely Evidenced –
New –
Process Definition
Process Facilitation
Process Complia
nce Review
Internal Audit
Process Innova
tion
Pillars of Quality Assurance
Process Definition
Process Definition
▪ Conventional
– Engaging Practitioners for process improvements
– Mapping the models, standard and frameworks as per Business needs
Process Definition
▪ Un-Conventional
– Monthly Hotfix to ensure process is ready for operational use
– Business Process Architecture Diagram
Process Facilitation
▪ Conventional
– PM request for assigning QA to projects
– Facilitation Support to Projects for practicing the quality management system
– Ensuring projects are at good health all time as per defined process/procedure
– Support given to projects for customer audit, 3rd party audit etc.,
– Data Analysis support given to projects
– Follow-up done with projects for closure
– Job Rotation
– Training the facilitators on “Effective Facilitation”
– Facilitation Support for Support groups
Process Facilitation
▪ Un-Conventional
– Framework for Workload Distribution
Framework of Workload distribution
▪ Weightage based on designation ▪ Weightage based on project type
Designation Weightage by
Designation
Senior QA 1.2
QA Engineer 1
Associate 0.8
Project Type
Description Workunits
High All Build and L1 5
Medium All Change 3
Low All AMO/Run, Migration, Testing , Re-engineering
1
Framework of Workload distribution Total Current Work Units
Total Available Effort
Projects Count
Total Available Effort
Not Considered Effort
arriving the Work Units
PQAO
Available Hrs
per
Month(18days
*8 hrs) Allocated %
Actual
Hours
Conducting
PCR
(2days*8hrs)
Meetings,
Trainings
and Leaves
(2days*8hrs)
John 144 100% 144 16 16
Umesh 144 15% 22 16 16
Yashitha 144 95% 137 16 16
Venkat 144 10% 14.4 16 16
Malathi 144 100% 144 16 16
Prashanth 144 100% 144 16 16
Jothi 144 85% 122.4 16 16
Total Available Effort 727
PQAO Run Change Build Grand Total
John 6 13 19
Umesh 1 1 1 3
Yashitha 3 14 1 18
Venkat 1 16 1 18
Malathi 5 5
Prashanth 8 9 17
Jothi 7 18 25
Total 31 71 3 105
PQAO Low(1) Medium(3) High(5) Total Work Units
John 6 39 0 45
Umesh 1 3 5 9
Yashitha 3 42 5 50
Venkat 1 48 5 54
Malathi 5 0 0 5
Prashanth 8 27 0 35
Jothi 7 54 0 61
Total Current Work Units 259
Total Current Work Units 259
Organization "A" Work Units 14
Organization "B" Work Units 245
Work Unit Per Resource(Organization "B" Work
Units(245) / No. of Resources(5)) 49
Total Available Effort(Organization "B" Resources) 691
Effort per work unit(Total Effort / Total current work units) 2.82
John Umesh Yahsitha Venkat Malathi Prashanth Jothi
Planned Load 36 39 40 36 38 27 48
Actual Work Unit 29 41 8 70 42 32 59
36 39 40 36 38
27
48
29
41
8
70
42
32
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Work Load Distribution
Process Facilitation
▪ Un-Conventional
– Framework for Workload Distribution
– Facilitation Log for all projects and support groups
– SLA for Facilitation findings
Vertical Total
Number of NC's
Open within
SLA
Open beyond SLA Closed Within
SLA
Closed beyond SLA Closed with
Proposed Action
ODO Lead QA
Head ODO Lead
QA Head
Vertical 1 220 31 53 0 0 83 53 0 0 0 Vertical 2 295 26 100 25 0 109 35 0 0 0 Vertical 3 253 16 142 0 0 77 18 0 0 0 Vertical 4 185 9 60 9 0 87 20 0 0 0 Vertical 5 158 18 0 16 0 94 30 0 0 0 Vertical 6 147 26 50 29 0 32 10 0 0 0 Vertical 7 139 14 39 0 0 51 35 0 0 0
Facilitation Log NC SLA Status
Process Facilitation
▪ Un-Conventional
– Framework for Workload Distribution
– Facilitation Log for all projects and support groups
– SLA for Facilitation findings
– Facilitation Effectiveness measured through findings leakage to IQA
Closed Open
Project List Count of
Status
Count of
StatusK1 K2 K3 K1 K2 K3
Project1 20 13 7 2 1 4 7 74% 2 0 2 4 3 87%
Project 2 88 66 22 0 4 0 4 96% 0 1 0 1 3 97%
Project 3 19 11 8 1 1 2 4 83% 1 0 1 2 2 90%
Project 4 29 5 24 0 1 1 2 94% 0 0 0 0 2 94%
Project 5 96 78 18 1 1 0 2 98% 0 1 0 1 1 99%
Project 6 4 4 0 0 3 1 4 50% 0 1 1 2 2 67%
Project 7 26 26 0 0 3 2 5 84% 0 0 1 1 4 87%
Project 8 19 19 1 3 1 5 79% 1 1 1 3 2 90%
Grand Total 662 441 221 5 17 11 33 95% 4 4 6 14 19 97%
Total
IQA NC
Mapped
in Log
IQA NC
after log
mapping
DRE
(Mappe
d in Log)
Log
count
Total IOA Count NCTotal
Count of
IQA NC
DRE
IQA NC mapped in
Formula = NCs reported in Facilitation Log / (NCs reported in Facilitation Log + IQA NCs)
DRE(Defect removal efficiency excluding the IQA NC reported in Facilitation Log
DRE(Defect removal efficiency considering the IQA and Log reported NC
95% 97%
74%
96%
83%
94% 98%
50%
84% 79%
87%
97% 90%
94% 99%
67%
87% 90%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Project1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Project 7 Project 8
IQA NC Leakage DRE DRE (Mapped in Log)
Process Compliance Review
Process Compliance Review
▪ Conventional
– Process Compliance review using Checklist
– SDLC specific audit checklist(V-model/Agile/Iterative/SAP)
– Cross linked QA conducts process compliance review
Process Compliance Review
▪ Un-Conventional
– Weightage Based Process Compliance Review model
▪ Corroborative and Non-Intrusive mode
– Dedicated PCR Team for performing and reporting the process compliance review
– SLA for all Process Compliance Review activities
Internal Audit
Internal Audit
▪ Conventional
– Annual Internal Audit Plan
– Trained Auditors from Quality Team
– Internal Auditors Training
– Audit tool for planning / executing / tracking the NC’s
Internal Audit
▪ Un-Conventional
– Trained Auditors from operational team with delivery expertise
– Facilitation Log based mapping to IQA NC which show cases assertiveness of facilitation team
– SLA Based Tracking from IQA Planning to Closure
Process Innovation
Coffee with Quality
▪ Un-Conventional
– People Oriented approach with minimal follow-up activities such as collating vertical representatives views, provide valid solutions and sharing meeting minutes
– More focus is provided on the ground level issues happening/happened in the current project scenario.
– Collating all the issues/Concerns and setting a target time and action plan to resolve them
– A Common platform to share the knowledge and Best practices among projects
Coffee with Quality
▪ Un-Conventional
– Forum which gives more close interaction with Quality
– Educating the project teams on through gamfication techniques such as snake and ladders and QMS – Crosswords
– Know the Unknown
Reach to Quality
▪ Un-Conventional
– Reach2Quality is a formalized way to post the queries
– Queries related to Quality and QUICK if the audience do not know whom to contact
– 8 X 5 Customer Service Support
– Committed SLA for support
Bookathon
▪ Un-Conventional
– Handbook for the project leaders
– Covering frequently asked questions from QMS
– Crowdsourced project leads from different verticals
▪ in 35 mins 119 questions generated.
Clicked @ Bookathon
The Next Big Thing
▪ Facilitation Effectiveness Indicator
– Weighted NC (4*K1+2*K2+1*K3) / Project Sample Size
▪ Internal Auditors Effectiveness Indicator
– Parameters of Evaluation
Quality of NCs’
Adhering to the IA SLA
Identification of BP
Summary
Pillars of Quality
Business Process Architecture Diagram
Facilitation Log & SLA’s
Internal Audit’s
CwQ, R2Q, Bookathon…
Thank you
