May 22, 2008TPTF

Quality Center Update

Eileen HallKen Kasparian

22

Nodal Quality is of Increasing Concern

• Areas of Concern

– Limited testing in lower environments

– Late detection of defects increasing defect resolution time

– Increased number of releases requires support for multiple versions of software (2+)

– Defects not uniformly prioritized from a program perspective

– Currently do not have integrated test environment

– Final builds of critical components have not been integrated

• Mitigation Measures

– Provide for adequate test cycles in revised schedule

– Minimize number of releases/builds

– Program level participation in defect prioritization

– Accelerate build out of integrated test environment

33

Nodal FAT Active Defects by Severity by Project

Problems areas include:

NMMS has 30 Severity 1 and Severity 2 defects

MMS has 14 Severity 2 defects

OS UI has 10 Severity 2 defects

EIP has 9 Severity 1 and Severity 2 defects

Note – Includes New, Open, Reopen, Fixed and Test

The number of Severity 1 and Severity 2 defects is increasing.

44

Nodal Active Defects by Severity Trend

• Severity 3 trend is remaining relatively constant (784 currently outstanding)• Severity 2 defects are increasing due to defect reclassification to reflect must-fix defects

Sev 2

Sev 3

Sev 1

55

Average Days to Fix FAT Severity (1, 2, 3) Defect by Vendor

Defect turnaround time is one key indicator of vendor performance.

66

Nodal % Reopened Defects by Vendor

ABB, AREVA, and Siemens are fixing their products with a low reopen rate, a good indication that these vendors are sufficiently testing their releases/defect bundles prior to delivery.

Increased focus on more robust dev/pre-FAT testing for vendors with high reopen rate.

Key indicator of vendor performance (indicates what percentage of fixes delivered by a vendor failed retest).

77

Severity 1, 2, and 3 defects found in the Early Delivery Systems (EDS)

Majority of EMS defects are detected in EDS.

1 Data Loss/Critical Error2 Loss of functionality w /o w o..3 Loss of functionality w ith w ..

Defect Summary Graph

Project

CR

R

EM

S

MM

S

MM

S M

M

OS

UI

Num

ber

of D

efe

cts

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

4

60

3

10

3

88

Quality Strategy Moving Forward

• Ensure adequate testing time in the appropriate environment.• Minimize number of releases/builds.• Prioritize defects according to program impact.• Complete integration test environment.