Enhancing QA Efficiency Through Improved Issue Tracking and Resolution Processes
This document outlines the inefficiencies in the current QA process regarding issue tracking and testing. Key problems include wasted support and engineering resources due to duplicated logging and unresolved issues. The existing system leads to increased costs and redundancy. Recommendations focus on implementing a policy change combined with a modified database and additional software to streamline issue resolution, facilitate test-case reuse, and enhance access to support log information. This approach is cost-effective and aimed at breaking even within ten months.
Enhancing QA Efficiency Through Improved Issue Tracking and Resolution Processes
E N D
Presentation Transcript
GDHM Keith Drexel, Jason Gregory, Weimin Hou, & CD Martin
A Little Background • GDHM has experience with • Design & documentation tools • Workflow management solutions • Training management software • Various image utilities
Specializes in training methods such as… • Instructor-led • Multimedia & CBT • Interactive distance learning • Self-study
The Overall Problem • Cause: • The QA process for tracking and testing of issues is not handled efficiently and promptly • Effect: • Loss of money due to wasted person hours • Redundancy & complacency
Problem List • Call support work time being wasted by logging in issues that have already been logged. • Engineering work-time being wasted by resolving issues and testing fixes that have already been resolved. • Issues are being “dropped” (not addressed) due to not being logged or log entry ignored due to log non-use. • QA work time being wasted in creating Test Cases that had previously been created for other similar problems.
Problem List cont. • Issue resolution being slowed by QA not creating Test Cases until Fix needs to be tested. • High-cost Engineering work time being used on Log input issues when other departments bring issues to them. • Call support work-time being wasted by QA / Development staff asking for more detailed customer problem issue information from the Support Log. • Engineering work time being wasted by arguments between QA and Development over whether a reported problem should be fixed.
Requirements • Reduce duplicated logging of Issues • Facilitate the reuse of Test-Cases • Allow Engineering Direct Access to Support Log Info • Eliminate some of the steps between Issue Receipt and Resolution • No More than 16 hours of training per person for Call Support personnel SYSTEM MUST
Constraints • Fall Within $250,000 (One-Time) • Must Break-Even Within 2 years • Full Implementation: 12-31-2001.
Alternatives • Alternative One Outsource Maintenance • Alternative Two Policy Change • Alternative Three Policy Change, Modified Database, Additional Software
Alternative #1: Outsourcing Maintenance • OUTSOURCE ALL ACTIVITY DEALING WITH ISSUES • TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALREADY OPTIMIZED SYSTEM • CALL SUPPORT WILL FOCUS ON HELP DESK • DEVELOPMENT / QA WILL FOCUS ON NEW RELEASES • ESTIMATED COSTS OVER CURRENT (ANNUAL): 1,008,038
Alternative #2: Policy Change • CHANGE POLICY • DEALS PRIMARILY WITH FORMALIZING LOGGING • MINIMIZES DUPLICATION OF: • LOGGING / DEVELOPMENT / TESTING • DOES NOT ADDRESS TEST CASE RE-USE • ESTIMATED COSTS (ONE-TIME): $15,113 • ESTIMATED BENEFITS (ANNUAL): $148,807 • BREAK-EVEN TIME: <2 MONTHS
Alternative #3: Policy Change, Modified Database, & Additional Software • ALL BENEFITS OF POLICY CHANGE, PLUS... • INSTALLATION OF QA TEST ASSISTANCE SOFTWARE • TRANSFERRING SUPPORT LOG ISSUE INFO FUNCTION • INTO ISSUE LOG • ESTIMATED COSTS (ONE-TIME): $166,354 • ESTIMATED BENEFITS (ANNUAL): $214,202 • BREAK-EVEN TIME: <10 MONTHS
Our Recommendation • Alternative #3: Policy Change, Modified Database, & Additional Software • Falls within the desired budget • Recover employee time that was previously wasted • Alternative #1: Outsourcing Maintenance • Shown to be cost-prohibitive • Alternative #2: Policy Change • Does not address Test-Case reuse or • Engineering access to Support Log information
