Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

AMEX Pega Testing – Moving towards TCoE

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "AMEX Pega Testing – Moving towards TCoE"— Presentation transcript:

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


Download ppt "AMEX Pega Testing – Moving towards TCoE"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google