1. AMEX Pega Testing – Moving towards TCoE
6th Sept. 2011

2. Agenda Cognizant’s Pega Testing footprint in AMEX Why move to a TCoE?
Core-Flex model of Resourcing
Appendix
Case studies

3. Cognizant’s Pega Testing Footprint in Amex

4. Cognizant’s footprint of PEGA engagements with AMEX
Delivered Engagements
ECM EMEA Release 1 & Release 2
ECM EMEA R1 & R2 Reporting
B2B RCubed
Global Merchant Services
Online Merchant Services
iCruse
ECM Disputes – CRs
GCM Acquirer - CRs
Ongoing Engagements
GCM GDN
System Assurance - UAT
iCruse – BAU
OMS Support
ECM Disputes – CRs
GCM Acquirer – CRs
What we noticed?
Different SDLC models followed : Iterative model followed in ECM, while B2B adopted SmartBPM then Iterative.
Differences in testing approach: Risk based testing followed in ECM
Automation testing : Adopted in ECM release 1, Benefits accrued in Release 2.
Comprehensive status reporting followed in ECM R1
Common Challenges:
Requirements Management
Change Management
Test Data identification & preparation
Services provided
Functional Testing
Integration Testing
Report Testing
Test Data identification
Regression Testing
Automation Testing
Performance Testing
User Acceptance Testing
Business Acceptance Testing
E2E Test Management

5. TCoE Evolution: Where are we today?
QA is a separate function providing shared services
Business Unit
People
Automation
Shared Services Model
Performance
Tools
Process
Cost of Quality driven TCoE
QA is a separate function, but each project is treated separately
Business Unit
People
Project led Independent Testing
Process
Tools
Cost Tracked & Managed
No separate function for QA
Business Unit
People
Process
Tools
Development / BA led Testing
QA costs not tracked
QA/ Testing is part of Development
Independent QA for each project separately
QA/ Testing as a service

6. Why move to a TCoE Model? Where do we want to be?
Key Elements of a TCoE?
What is different for Pega Testing?
Benefits of moving to a TCoE

7. Centralized Testing Organization Testing Center of Excellence
Why move to a TCoE model?
The need for QA Centralization
Decentralized Testing Organization
Centralized Testing Organization
App 1
App 2
App N
Testing Center of Excellence
Standard
Processes
Development
Team
Development
Team
Development
Team
Common Tools &
Infrastructure
Structured Software Testing
Testing Tools
Testing Tools
Testing Tools
Testers
Testers
Testers
Knowledge
Repository
Resources
Software Quality Organization
Varied methodologies, processes, tools, infrastructure and metrics across groups
Little or no sharing of resources and knowledgebase; Resource management (on-boarding, ramp-up and release) processes have to be managed by each project
Number of software licenses that can be used is typically lesser that what is needed, due to cost considerations; extensive use of Microsoft Excel
Consistent methodologies, processes, tools, infrastructure and metrics across groups
Centralised work management & resource planning in Core-Flex model
Shared Infrastructure and tools. Maintenance and upgrade costs shared across projects

8. TCoE Evolution: Where do we want to be?
QA is a separate function providing shared services
Business Unit
People
Automation
Shared Services Model
Performance
Tools
Process
Cost of Quality driven TCoE
QA is a separate function, but each project is treated separately
Business Unit
People
Project led Independent Testing
Process
Tools
Cost Tracked & Managed
No separate function for QA
Business Unit
People
Process
Tools
Development / BA led Testing
QA costs not tracked
QA/ Testing is part of Development
Independent QA for each project separately
QA/ Testing as a service

9. Key Elements of a TCoE Centralized QA
Single test organization with defined governance model
Benchmarks for productivity and SLAs based on metrics gathered over time
Centralized resource management (Core-Flex team) for efficient demand management
Common processes for On-boarding, training & competency development
Standardized templates, guidelines and checklists across STLC
Framework based test automation that is used across projects
Centralized license management for testing tools
Test environment management
Centralized test data management
In-house product and technology specialists who serve as “go-to” gurus for all projects
Centralized QA

10. TCoE Ecosystem (Future State)
Business
Project Management Office
Strategic Planning & Governance
Budget Allocation
Overseeing TCoE SLA adherence
Business process definition
Provide/validate/signoff requirements
Recommendations to Change Control board
Test
Planning &
Estimation
Test Design
&
Build
Execution &
Management
Reporting
SLA / Metrics
Test Program
Testing
Centre of
Excellence
Process Team*
Process Definition/ Maintenance
Metrics Institution
Test Process Training
Continuous Process Improvement
Best Practice Implementation
Infrastructure Services
Test Tools COE*
Environment Management
Test Data Management
Release & Configuration Management
Tools standardization
Tools administration
Tools support
Automation/NFT*
Proof of concept
Standards & Guidelines
Feasibility Analysis
Technical Consultancy
Reusable Frameworks
Development
AMEX
Cognizant
Application Development
Maintenance/ Enhancements
Defect Fixes
Service Spectrum
Functional Testing
Regression Testing
Performance /Load Testing
Automation Testing
UAT Support
Core-Flex
resourcing
Standard process
& Frameworks
Common Tools,
Infrastructure & Automation
Solution
Accelerations/
Best practices
Governance structure
Inter group relationship of TCOE with external groups
* Refer to Appendix for details about each team

11. Centralized TCoE for Pega
Pega TCoE – what is different for Pega, that makes it necessary to have a dedicated TCoE?
SDLC Model
Available models include Waterfall, Iterative, Agile and Pega’s own Smart BPM approach. By standardizing the model, it is possible to optimize processes, tools and templates and derive benchmarks for reference
Team composition
In addition to Business Analysts, the team needs to include Pega specialists who understand Pega PRPC product and have prior experience in Pega Testing
Test Strategy
Pega Testing is much more than UI based functionall testing. It is important to know how to test Rules and Workflows, how to test web-services, how to focus on specific flow paths for test execution during different stages of application development, how to rules that are data intensive, and how to use tools / utilities with Pega ie AUT, TMF, PAL etc
Centralized TCoE for Pega
Tools & Automation
For some needs, Pega’s own tools i.e AUT, TMF, PAL, PLA are recommended, whereas other tools like QTP and Cognizant’s proprietary tools like ADPART for Pega , CRAFT, TCGEN work better in other cases. Knowledge how each of these tools work is therefore critical
Change Management
It is common to find requirements evolving frequently in Pega projects. With changing requirements, it is necessary to identify changes in test scenarios immediately, and continuously maintain regression test scripts. Tools like ADPART for Pega can be used to deal with this challenge very effectively

12. Benefits of moving to a TCoE model?
Standard
Processes
Optimised
Resourcing
Common Tools
& Infrastructure
Central
Repository
Higher system quality
Better planning & estimation
Rigorous metrics collection
Continuous process improvement
Lower labor costs through optimised utilisation of resources
Dedicated team builds expertise over time
Reduced effort through reuse of common frameworks, templates, and data repositories
Maximised test automation
Optimized tool licensing requirements
Institutionalise knowledge
Better test coverage
Efficient knowledge transfer
Testing is delivered as a Shared Service, i.e, Functional Testing, Automation Testing, Performance Testing across projects, thus reducing the cost of testing to each project
Common pool of experts is leveraged by all projects
Enables enterprise wide adoption of frameworks for Automation Testing – thus reducing cost of script maintenance due to product upgrades (ie Pega 5.5 to 6.2)
Having a common knowledge repository ensures each project team does not go through the same learning curve separately.

13. The Core-flex model of Resourcing
Governance Structure

14. Core Flex Resourcing Model
Staffing is done based on demand projections and average productivity observed on a quarterly basis
In case of ramp-up in Core team, flexi team resources at offshore would be moved to core, and new associates inducted in flexi team

15. Capacity Planning in the Core-Flex model
Fixed Capacity
1,680 hours per month
Forecasted demand based on 3 month rolling forecast
Ceiling Limit
(Forecasted demand + 10% of fixed capacity)
Floor Limit
(90% of forecasted demand)
The capacity model is built on
Fixed Requirements – i.e. core team of fixed number of resources having identified skills
Flex team to support short term requirements for scaling up at short notice (typically up to 10% of core team size, provided core team size > 25)
Timely Demand Forecasting
Factoring a minimum lead time for ramp-ups (Ramp-up of Core team is done by moving resources from flex team, and replenishing the flex team within 6 to 8 weeks typically)
Floor and Ceiling Limits

16. Core Flex Resourcing Model
Tiers
Capacity Slab (Person hrs/ Month)
Equivalent FTE slab
Resource Mix (Person hrs / Month)
Onsite/Offshore Ratio
Flex Team at offshore ON
OFF 1
2496 15
480
2016
19%
81% - 2
4168 25
640
3528
15%
85% 3
6680 40
800
5880
12%
88% 4
10032 60
960
9072
10%
90% 6

17. Steady State TCoE Governance Structure

18. TCoE – Cognizant/AMEX Roles & Responsibilities
* Vision, Goals & Objectives
* Policies & Procedures
Business Analysis & SME
Cognizant will assume delivery ownership and strategy/ planning/ execution/reporting for all testing activities done as part of the TCoE
AMEX will have ownership of SME support activities and Supplier Coordination
* Cognizant to partner with AMEX for formalizing strategies and help implement Vision, Policies and procedures and Budget allocation, as well as Release Planning, and Business Prioritization
** Cognizant to help AMEX with Environment Management and Configuration Management, by leveraging existing/proposed Cognizant presence in those areas
Program management, Risk management and Communication Management will be shared responsibilities
AMEX
** Environment Management
** Configuration
Management
* Release Planning
* Budget Management
Supplier Coordination
* Business Prioritization
Shared
Program Management
Communication Management
Risk Management
Manage & Deploy Resources
Estimation
Tool Administration
Cognizant
Performance Management
PMO Reporting
KPI Tracking
Test Strategy/Planning
Test Design/Execution
Defect Management

19. Thank you

20. Transition Approach:
from current state to TCoE
from incumbent team

21. Typical TCoE Implementation Timeline*
Pega Testing as a service offered to BUs
Transition from incumbent team
Metric s benchmarked
Decentralized state
Define Basic Processes
Identify initial set of applications to be brought under Pega TCoE
Environment Set-up & access creation
Knowledge Transition
Define guidelines and frameworks
Configuration of reusable assets
Execution and base-lining
Quarterly Demand forecasting
Consolidation at Enterprise Level M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
M36
* Indicative sample only. Actual timeline will be formalized after more details are gathered

22. Vendor Transition - Overview
Cognizant understands existing processes and application under the supervision of existing team
Cognizant will undertake execution of majority of test cases in steady-state
Test Execution by Cognizant team on trial to validate knowledge gained
Shadow
Share
Lead
Cognizant
Incumbent
Entry criteria
SoW signed
High level KT Plan shared
KT team identified
Draft KT document reviewed
Tester logins created
Separate instance for Cognizant testers
All existing test cases executed at least once
Test Management processes defined
Scope
Business Processes
Application & Interfaces
QA Environment
Test Mgnt processes
Identified set of test scenarios (business critical)
Testing of batch processes
Full scope of application & Interfaces that are available in QA environment
Exit criteria
Draft KT document prepared by Cognizant
Gaps (between application and test scripts) identified
Metrics for test cases executed by Cognizant team
Updated gap analysis document
Ongoing assessment through agreed metrics and delivery review
How is it measured?
No of topics covered, hours of KT
Productivity
Defect Leakage
Any other metric specifically agreed

23. Appendix
Case-studies

24. Experience in setting TCoE for leading Industry Players
Banking & Financial Services
Customer Profile
Peak Team Size
Leading UK based financial group
800+
One of the oldest fin. services firms in the world
350+
One of the largest banking and insurance group in UK
Switzerland based fin. services Org
250+
Large U.S saving bank holding co.
100+
Rich experience establishing large scale TCoEs across more than 30+ clients globally
Healthcare
Customer Profile
Peak Team Size
One of the largest U.S. health plan
450+
3rd largest health plan in the U.S.
350+
One of the largest Blues
180+
One of the largest clearing houses
100+
Communication, Media and Entertainment
Customer Profile
Peak Team Size
Leading Telecom Equipment vendor
70+
Leading Broadband Service provider
30+
Large legal solutions and risk analytics company
250+
One of the world’s largest information co.
150+
Life Sciences
Customer Profile
Peak Team Size
One of the largest Pharma co.
250+
One of the oldest EU Pharma co.
50+
TCoEs
Insurance
Customer Profile
Peak Team Size
A Fortune 100 insurance company
150+
The largest U.S insurance company
250+
U.S based Intl. fin. Servicers firm
100+
Leading fin. services product co.
Top 3 fin services co. of U.S
200+ ?
Retail, Travel & Manufacturing
Customer Profile
Peak Team Size
U.S based Internet travel company
150+
World's largest office supply retail store chain
100+
One of the largest Manufacturing conglomerates
Technology
Customer Profile
Peak Team Size
Online stock brokerage fin. service co.
120+
Largest Software Products co.
100+
Largest Engg Design Software Co.
70+

25. PRPC Testing – Global Financial Services Company
Project Summary
Business Objective:
Implementation of a Credit Cards Dispute Management Application at the Acquirer end
Eliminate existing manual processes like case creation, case processing etc.
Automate processes by implementation of the Pega PRPC Enterprise Case Management system
Testing carried out in various business centers and Markets.
2 cycles of Testing in 6 months to perform confirmation and regression testing to ensure that the product meets requirements
Used Quality Center 9.0 for Test management tool, QTP 9.2 for Automation and Load Runner for Performance Testing
Technology Stack:
Key Modules
Multi Market Testing
PRPC
SSO Agent Login
Get Work & Search Case
Retrieval Requests
Charge backs
Financial adjustments
Integration with
GC&S (Case creation)
OpsNet & Towerscan
(Image storage)
Unitech (Case validation)
Airlines
British Airways
Lufthansa
Pay pal
Highways
Scope
Team Composition
PEGA Rules based Testing
Functional Testing
Integration Testing
Regression testing
E2E Testing
UAT Support
Performance Testing
1 Onsite & 6 Offshore Test Analysts
Specialized PEGA Testing team comprising of Manual, Automation and Performance Test Analysts
Automation Coverage
Client Benefits
Automation of 90% of the manual Credit Card dispute processes using PRPC
Significant reduction in case processing time
76% of defects were identified before UAT, ensuring stability of the application
0% production defects
18% defects were raised in the Rules Testing phase
~40% of System Test Cases were automated - More than 50% reduction in Test Execution time
Reusable automation framework resulting in ~30% reduction in script creation effort
Applause
I wanted to share with you all the very positive feedback we have received from the UAT testers. Big wins on two fronts: Testing Training – really engaging, useful, enjoyable; ECM System: really useable, easy to navigate, professional, barely need training its so easy. We had a bunch of seasoned users who are not easily impressed by things - to get this kind of feedback is a resounding success! WOW!!!!!!
Manager, Strategic Project Implementation
Just wanted to say thank you to all the Team for their tremendous effort and getting this back on track
Director, World Services Technologies
PRPC V5.5 SP1
IBM Web-sphere Portal
V6.x.x, JDK 1.4.2,
IBM DB2 database 25

26. PRPC Testing – Global Financial Services Co. …contd.
No of Test Cases
Enhanced Test Coverage
Increased Productivity
Performance Testing
Defect Detection Efficiency- Defects by Priority
Automation coverage
Manual versus
Automation Coverage
Optimized Delivery
Time in secs
Test Execution Productivity
Defect Detection Efficiency- Defects by Severity
Defects by Severity
Defects by Priority
1554 test cases designed and executed across various modules
76% defects identified before UAT 26

27. Testing Centre of Excellence - Large Financial Services Provider
Background
Project Highlights
The client identified the need for a dedicated Testing Center of Excellence (TCoE) for catering to the testing needs of all its IT systems and applications as well as to centralize its testing processes and inculcate best quality practices across the organization.
Effort Details
2 Years elapsed time & Ongoing
Peak team size: 147
Onsite – 31
Offshore – 116
Key LoB
Customer Ops
Employee Benefits
Applications Tested
Microsoft CRM
Policy Admin System
Mainframe and Web Applications
Cognizant Solution
Scope of the TCoE
Cognizant performed a strategic assessment of the client’s testing organization and established a dedicated Testing Center of Excellence (TCoE) which encompasses resources from both the client and Cognizant jointly addressing the testing needs of the client.

28. Testing Centre of Excellence - Large Financial Services Provider
Client Benefits
Cost Savings through Automation
Productivity: Automation resulted in over 90% of effort and over 80% of cost savings
Resourcing: Established core + Flex staffing model which enabled staff ramp up to 63% in 2 weeks
Quality: High test case coverage and continuous process improvements ensured a very high quality of deliverables
Balance Scorecard: Establishment of a Balance Scorecard with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) covering Budget, timely delivery, Quality and CSAT.
Risk Based Testing (RBT) : Cognizant has also developed a Risk based testing model for the client to reduce the overall testing cost by optimizing the number of test cases and reducing the testing cycle time.
Risk Based Testing Approach

29. Test Planning in Agile model for an e-trading leader
A Branch is cut from main trunk (code which is in prod)
New feature is developed on independent branch
QA signoff/ release before an enhancement/ feature can be merged with the Branch
After promotion to trunk, regression test done on trunk
Minimum Acceptance Tests after regression test
Branch & Merge Strategy
New feature on independent branch
Unit Test -> QA approval for merge
Independent Branch
Final Merge, ownership transfer to Main
Uprev’s , synch up’s btw branches
Enhancement to existing feature cut from branch
Merge
Merge with Main Trunk, transfer of ownership to client
Release Versions
Targeted Release