The purpose of this section is to provide a framework for Quality Assurance during the execution of the "PRIDE" methodologies (EEM, ISEM, DBEM).
INTRODUCTION
It is generally agreed that the quality of a product is
judged by how well it conforms to specifications. It is not a
matter of how well it compares to another product of the same
kind, but how well it fulfills the requirements for which it
was designed. What this means is that quality is concerned with
fulfilling the expectations of the customer. In this regard,
quality can be described as providing a product the customer
wants, when the customer wants it, and at the price the customer
agreed to purchase it.
Quality Products Come From Quality Workmanship
Historically, quality was checked simply by how well the
finished product conformed to specifications. This is the
"black hole" approach for developing a quality product. Here,
requirements are loosely formulated before they are turned over
to the development staff for design. A quality inspection is
performed only after the product has been installed and made
operational. The process looks something like this:
This approach concentrates only on the final deliverable
and not on the overall process by which the product is to be
developed. By the time the final product is produced, it may be
unrecognizable to the user and the project may have exceeded
estimated cost and schedule. To overcome this problem, the
entire development process must be precisely defined so the
workers know who is to perform what, when, where, why and how.
This is the intent of an assembly line or methodology which
specifies the sequence of steps required to complete a project,
from initiation to completion.
Quality must be built into the product DURING design.
Instead of inspecting the whole product all at once after the
fact, the product is reviewed in smaller, more easily examined
pieces during its development, thus allowing for the early
detection of defects, if any.
Each stage of product development is defined as a work
station on an assembly line. At each station specific tasks are
performed and deliverables produced. As the product progresses
from one work station to the next, it is checked for
completeness. For example, following a sequential flow of work
stations (WS) from A to E, the review process looks like this:
Notice the progression of review and expertise. This means
the worker at WS-B must be knowledgeable in the tasks and
deliverables for both WS-A and WS-B. The worker at WS-C must be
knowledgeable about WS-A, B and C. The worker at WS-D must be
knowledgeable about WS-A, B, C and D. The worker at WS-E must
be knowledgeable about all of the Work Stations. To close the
loop, the worker at WS-A must be knowledgeable about WS-E.
In other words, there are no formal inspectors required.
All of the employees participate in the development of a quality
product. The benefit of this approach is that it eliminates the
problem of viewing quality as the responsibility of a single
person, such as an inspector. All stations work as a team and
make all of the workers directly responsible for quality.
Because the worker must learn about the activities at other work
stations, the worker has a more comprehensive understanding of
the total product and the process required to develop it. In
some Japanese companies, the workers rotate from station to
station, thus enabling them to experience all facets of work.
From this perspective, the workers are more apt to recommend
improvements in the way the product is built. The Japanese
refer to this as thinking in "360 degrees."
Remember, quality is a way of life, not a burdensome
overhead.
THE METHODOLOGY'S ROLE
Quality Assurance is concerned not only with the
integrity of the deliverables, but also with the mechanism by
which they are produced. The "PRIDE" methodologies help in this
regard. They clearly identify all of the required processes
(phases) and work products (deliverables). Further, through the
Phase Review Checklists, they prescribe the acceptance criteria
for each deliverable. This enables developers to design, build
and evaluate the product with a high degree of precision.
With the methodology defining the specific benchmarks in
the development process, it becomes a relatively simple matter
to review the progress of the product while it is in
development. Each station along the assembly line has a
clear responsibility for the development of the product and
defines the tangible deliverables for review.
What this highlights is that Quality Assurance is much more
than an inspection type of function. It is a corporate
philosophy and shared responsibility, requiring participation
from personnel throughout the enterprise. It is a combined
corporate responsibility, not just the responsibility of a
single individual or department.
"PRIDE" subscribes to the "mini-Project Manager" concept.
This is a concept that places the responsibility of the project
with everyone involved with the project. Each person is viewed
as a professional and an essential link in the development
process. They participate in both development and review
activities in their phase of work. As such, each person is
responsible for developing their own estimate and schedule for
their part of the project. This, of course, must be reviewed
with a Project Manager who coordinates the entire process.
QA PROGRAM
There are three parts to an effective Quality Assurance
program:
STANDARDS
Standards improve communications between parties. They are
an essential aspect of any Quality Assurance program in that
they promote understanding and improve productivity.
The establishment of standards is a responsibility of
Executive Management. Only management can determine how much
quality is sufficient. Standards are used to define the formal
mode of operation or work environment. They define WHO is to do
WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY. Executive Management must
determine how much regimentation and discipline is required.
Methodologies, such as those embodied in "PRIDE", are used
since they delineate these considerations. All participants must
have an in-depth knowledge of the methodology and a thorough
understanding as to how their duties and responsibilities are
related. In essence a methodology is an assembly line consisting
of a series of workstations. Although each station has its own
purpose and objectives, together they produce a finished product.
Although "PRIDE" includes a substantial number of standards
for an organization to implement, there are other standards
which must be addressed. For example, there should be formal
standards for the preparation of a cost/benefit analysis (such
as mathematical formulas), interviewing, programming, etc.
"PRIDE" provides for these standards but recognizes that the
techniques and tools used may vary from company to company.
These should all be identified and incorporated into the
methodology. It is extremely important that these standards are
accurately defined relative to the methodology so that
participants know precisely where and when they are to be used.
This is why there are sub-sections in "PRIDE" on
Tools & Techniques under the various phase
activities.
In order to improve the development process, standards
should be reviewed, updated and distributed to appropriate
personnel on a routine basis. In this respect, Quality
Assurance should be considered as an expediter for the
methodology. They should be constantly measuring and evaluating
the data management work effort and looking for ways to
simplify. These standards should be maintained in either a
standards manual or on the computer (such as an in-house web page
or "Help" file).
EXECUTION
When a standard is adopted, each person in the process must
understand that they have a vital role to play in producing a
quality product. This includes management, the development
staff, and support personnel.
During the development process, each person at each phase
in the methodology is asked to evaluate the product so far. An
evaluation criteria for the product at each phase is required.
To this end, "PRIDE" provides Phase Review Checklists for the staff
to evaluate completeness and product integrity. At this time,
participants are asked to accept the product as is, reject it,
or ask that it be modified. If required, the project will
either go forward as planned, iterate to the previous phases
for rework, or be cancelled completely. It is important that
the participants realize that these are their decisions to make.
Problem areas should be reconciled by Executive Management.
Changes and constructive criticisms should be openly
encouraged, not discouraged. Making changes can be irritating
and frustrating. They should be done in moderation, not all at
one time. This is the approach that "PRIDE" takes. If
necessary, a project may have to stop and back-up to a previous
phase or activity in order to move forward again. There is
little point to progressing with a project if it is consciously
known that it is going to have problems later on. All
participants must keep in mind that the objective is to develop
a quality product.
QUALITY CONTROL
There is no reason to enact legislation if it is known that
it will not be enforced. For this reason, Quality Control is
concerned with verifying that the development staff is adhering
to standards.
This is the area that is concerned with inspecting the
product for completeness and workmanship. Before each phase
is closed, a final review with a neutral third party can be
valuable to assure that nothing was overlooked and that the best
possible work was produced. In this instance, Quality Control
can halt a project for glaring omissions and poor workmanship.
They can also offer constructive criticisms that can be helpful
to the project.
THE QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION
Reporting as a staff position to the senior IRM executive,
such as a Chief Information Officer (CIO), is the Quality
Assurance group. Instead of being regarded as a clerical
burden, the QA group should be viewed as industrial engineers to
the IRM assembly lines, constantly looking for new and improved
ways to expedite the development and control of information
resources. In this capacity, they are continually looking for
new techniques and tools to be used in the IRM methodologies.
TYPICAL IRM QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION
The IRM engineer will have the triple role of standards
analysis, inspector and technology advisor. Project
Administration polices project management and works closely with
the technical librarian who maintains project and IRM related
documentation, both current and historical. The IRM training
coordinator provides a curriculum to continually sharpen IRM
related skills.
At this point, you might believe that creating an IRM
quality assurance group is creating additional overhead. Just
the reverse will occur; it will reduce overhead and bring
development costs down, while the quality of the product will
soar. In most organizations, the systems analysts and
programmers do this work now (at least they are supposed to do
it). By centralizing the function, it can be handled more
effectively and quickly by a dedicated group. As a result, the
systems analysts and programmers can concentrate on their
primary functions.
This is not to suggest the burden of quality assurance
rests with one department or group. Far from it. Each employee
is responsible for quality.
For a complete description of the Quality Assurance function,
along with other pertinent functions, see: Functional
Descriptions.
| |
