150 likes | 279 Views
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
E N D
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