Smef 2008 Harold Van Heeringen Outsourcing Test Activities How To Prove Cost Reductions V1

Outsourcing Test activities How to prove cost reductions Harold van Heeringen, Metrics Consultant Sogeti Wednesday May 28, Milan, Italy

Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Problem definition ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Test activities Client Client Sogeti Client Functional design Technical design Coding + Unit test Systems test User Acceptance Test

Factors that influence Test Performance ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

The relation between these factors ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Defects remaining Impossible Unpractical Effort (hour) Duration

When do we test well? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Defects found < expected Defects found = expectated Defects found > expected hours spent < expected ? + ++ hours spent = expected - ± + hours spent > expected -- - ?

QSM SLIM Estimate ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Benchmark test performance ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Model proposed: 3 stages ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Model step 1: Baseline analysis ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

CASE: Baseline analysis ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Project Size in CFP Hours S-test Defects S-test Defects A-test /1st M production A 310 554 12 8 B 512 937 27 5 C 212 508 22 12 D 224 732 52 18 E 487 878 35 8

Model step 2: Operational execution ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

CASE: Operational execution ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Scenario Defects S-test FS Defects A-test + 1M Prod. FAP Defects Total FT FS/FT Client baseline 30 31 61 0,49 Scenario Test hours TU Hour rate R Costs C (TU*R) Client baseline 2.045 80 163.600

CASE: Operational execution ,[object Object],[object Object],Scenario Test hours TU Hour rate R Costs C (TU*R) Client baseline 2.045 80 163.600 Sogeti actuals 1.800 82 147.600 Scenario Defects S-test FS Defects A-test + 1M Prod. FAP Defects Total FT FS/FT Client baseline 30 31 61 0,49 Sogeti actuals 35 30 65 0,53

CASE: Operational execution ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],*100% *100% Outsourcing Efficiency OF ,[object Object],[object Object],Outsourcing Effectiveness OV ,[object Object],[object Object]

CASE: Operational execution ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Outsourcing effectiveness Outsourcing efficiency - 100 % 100 % 0 % 100 % - 100 % 0 % No Cost Reduction Cost Reduction

CASE: Operational execution ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],OV = Outsourcing Effectiveness OF = Outsourcing Efficiency w1 = weight factor OV w2 = weight factor OF Cost Reduction CR ,[object Object],[object Object]

Model step 3: Evaluation ,[object Object],8% 8% Outsourcing effectiveness Outsourcing efficiency - 100 % 100 % 0 % 100 % - 100 % 0 % No Cost Reduction Cost Reduction

CASE: Evaluation ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Project OV OF C Baseline CR % CR € Q 9,7% 8,2% € 163.600 8,95% € 14.642 R 12,3% 6,1% € 312.150 9,2% € 28.718 S 8,2% 3,0% € 122.650 5,6% € 6.868 T 6,4% 13,3% € 718.120 9,85% € 70.735 U 15,6% 8,8% € 67.050 12,2% € 8.180 Total € 1.383.570 € 129.143

First results ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Conclusions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Smef 2008 Harold Van Heeringen Outsourcing Test Activities How To Prove Cost Reductions V1

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (8)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (10)

Ähnlich wie Smef 2008 Harold Van Heeringen Outsourcing Test Activities How To Prove Cost Reductions V1

Ähnlich wie Smef 2008 Harold Van Heeringen Outsourcing Test Activities How To Prove Cost Reductions V1 (20)

Mehr von Harold van Heeringen

Mehr von Harold van Heeringen (20)

Smef 2008 Harold Van Heeringen Outsourcing Test Activities How To Prove Cost Reductions V1