1. MSE StudioAutomated Test Framework P&C Problem Definition 2008-11-10 Paulo Casanova The Mappers team 1

2. Agenda Project background Which technique to choose? Our 4.5 phase process Some general reflections Questions 2

3. Project background • Q/A Department • Internal/external projects quality assurance • ATF will be one integrated tool which facilitates the testing process by taking into consideration the Q/A unit best practices and enables to work in a more efficient way. 3

4. Team • Mentors: Mário Rela, David Root, Marco Vieira 4

5. Stakeholders • New information system deployed at several layers within the organization • Testers • Team leaders • Managers 5

6. Problem Constraints • Need to understand the client’s work practice • Client presented solution upfront • No direct client interaction in Spring • Initial scope view was huge, unattainable and too broad and diffuse • Wish to apply new, learned, techniques 6

7. Technical Constraints • Microsoft Technology • No restrictions for operability • Must work on a virtual machine (to be used on a workstation) 7

8. Technique chosen Contextual Design: - Context discovery - Solution Vision - User Environment - UI Prototyping User Manual 8

9. What about Quality Attributes? The client is not concerned about Quality Attributes so we’ll just document that! (Better safe than sorry) 9

10. 1: Context Discovery • Our approach: contextual design prescription! • Contextual interviews • Interpretation sessions • Consolidation session • Client walkthrough • Analysis: • Coherence • Problem and model acceptance by client 10

11. 2: Developing a Vision • Our approach: • Affinity diagram • Vision • No storyboards... • Analysis: • Acceptance of vision • No new items in vision • First draft of scope 11

12. 3: Designing the User Environment • Our approach: • By the book! • Analysis: • Problems addressed • Client aproval 12

13. 4.5: Prototypes and Manual • Our approach: • Risk-based approach to paper prototypes; • Interleaved with user manual; • Incremental delivery of user manual; • Analysis: • Number of changes required in both items; 13

14. Reflections • Clearing up the problem without defining borders too early • Keeps client out of technical details • Early end user involvement – might provide invaluable • Helped to identify stakeholder concerns • Communication eased by low formality 14

15. Reflections • Vision design was made in parallel with scope control decisions • Marking items as “mandatory” or “nice to have” allowed more fine-tuned scope-shaping • Hard to measure success • Expensive but would generally be worthy 15

16. Questions 16

17. Reflections on Context Discovery • It worked (so it seems)... Why? • Technique studied and respected. • Client was given a detailed explaination of contextual design – we interviewed the right people! • High number of interviews (20%). • Client culture allowed to establish a trust relationship easily. • Client accepted (and promoted) the models! 17

18. Reflections on the Vision • We performed an initial “free” brainstorm on the vision to help attain a common focus • List of identified problems revealed very useful • Integration with external tools discussed with vision 18

19. Reflections on the UE • We explicitly avoided refering to the user interface while describing the UED and it provided to be successful as the client didn’t start discussing user interface either • The UED provided a solid basis to discuss the application and confirmed previous models 19