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.