The Development of a Thorough Test Plan in the Analysis Phase Leading to More Successful Software Development Projects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Communications of the IIMA Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 5 2005 The Development of a Thorough Test Plan in the Analysis Phase Leading to more Successful Software Development Projects Jim Nindel-Edwards Seattle Pacific University Gerhard Steinke Seattle Pacific University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima Part of the Management Information Systems Commons Recommended Citation Nindel-Edwards, Jim and Steinke, Gerhard (2005) "The Development of a Thorough Test Plan in the Analysis Phase Leading to more Successful Software Development Projects," Communications of the IIMA: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima/vol5/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communications of the IIMA by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Development of a Thorough Test Plan Jim Nindel-Edwards & Gerhard Stelnke The Development of a Thorough Test Plan in the Analysis Phase Leading to more Successful Software Development Projects Jim Nindel-Edwards Seattle Pacific University e-mail: nindeiiSsDit.edii Gerhard Steinke Seattle Pacific University e-mail:asteinke!2isriu.edii ABSTRACT A critical problem in many software development projects is missing some important requirements until late in the development life cycle. The impact of a missing or misunderstood requirement can add to the project cost and delay product launch due to rework both of the application code, documentation updates, and addition test passes. Building a thorough test plan very early in the product development cycle has the potential for early discovery of missing requirements with attendant reduction in project costs and schedule improvement. In this paper we discuss some of the causative factors of how and why requirements can be missed in software development projects and show how the early formulation of a test plan can directly address these factors. Key to the success of this approach is the understanding that mature tests often go beyond the documented requirements for applications and into exploring the boundaries of the application domain where missing requirements can often be uncovered. In addition the test methodology of looking at features from multiple users' perspectives and less common use cases, shed light on misinterpreted and/or misunderstood requirements. Key words: Requirements management, test plan, test plan checklist, functional requirements, missing requirements. INTRODUCTION Software development projects invariably work better when requbements are thoroughly documented, designed and developed,. Yet in many cases the users and stakeholders of projects are not entirely clear in expressing their product requirements (Jones, 1997). The difficulty in visualizing the end product makes it challenging, if not downright difficult, to capture and document all the software product requirements. Without clear and complete requirements documentation developers often must build a complete, complex system from the only view of the product that typically has any real meaning to the user, the ubiquitous feature list. This list - hopefully found in the project proposal -becomes the de facto description of the new, or newly enhaneed, software product. Yet even complete, approved, requirements documentation often miss items critical to the success of a software project. The requirement may simply be assumed by the customer, may have been consider and not documented, or at the start of a project simply unknown. The missing requirements may be discovered in the build process or test cycle. Sadly some requirements go totally undiscovered until the product is released or implemented only to fail or be seriously defective in its first use due to "bugs", some of which may in fact be missed requirements. While it is both possible and likely to miss some product functionality requirements, the bulk of truly missed requirements lie outside the realm of the function/features of a software product (Leffingwell and Widrig, 2003). Factors such as product performance, load limits, target installation environments, and applieable standards are not generally considered primary requirements of a software product yet play a key role in the success (or failure) of a software product. While good and well structured requirements documentation will address many of these environmental requirements, those that are missed in the requirements stage often still are missing at product launch. To the extent they truly are requirements for product success early discovery of these in the project can be a critical success factor in helping to create an "on time, on budget" software development effort that meets both customer and stakeholders' expectations. Various methodologies. Object Oriented, Spiral (Boehm, 2000), Unified Development, Extreme (Jeffiies, 2001), and many other development lifecycles (Kay, 2002) address requirement elaboration in different ways and while Communications of the IIMA 41 2005 Volume 5 Issue 1 Development of a Thorough Test Plan Jim Nindel-Edwards & Gerhard Steinke typically not focused on requirements management recognize the importance of the base requirements. Regardless of the chosen methodology recognition of important requirements late in the product lifecycle is an expensive consequence. In this paper we look at the foundational elements of project requirements and suggest that a thorough test plan will provide the environment for determining and classifying a more complete list of requirements beyond the commonly used functional requirement orientation. This enhanced emphasis on the test plan will be used to help us understand key strengths and key weaknesses of typical requirement methodologies. We suggest completing a test plan template that should allow the software development manager to better understand the full requirements of the software project going beyond functional requirements—and thus lead to more successful projects. GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The starting point for our research starts with the definition of "requirements". A typical usage of this term requirement is "a statement of need, something that some class of user or other stakeholder wants." (Alexander and Stevens, 2002) Another definition of requirements is offered by requirements engineering authors Dorfinan and Thayer (1990) in two parts: 1. A software capability needed by the user to solve a problem to achieve an objective. 2. A software capability that must be met or possessed by a system or system component to satisfy a contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed documentation. In both of these definitions the primary emphasis is on the functionality of the software product, those features that satisfy a user's needs. Alexander and Stevens (2002) go on to define a function as "... something that a system or subsystem does, presumably because a requirement made it necessary." They also state that the commonly used term "functional requirement" "in practice ... means the same as function." Note that the second part of the Dorfman and Thayer (1990) definition of requirements goes beyond the needs of the software product, moving into the "contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed documentation." Typically it is in these documents - the contracts, standards, specifications, etc., that the hidden or missed requirements will be found. Certainly we can miss functional requirements, but it is the area of form, fit, finish, and integration where we are more likely to overlook project requirements and it is in the "testing" of these less well documented requirements that the test plan creation process can help uncover missing project requirements. Humphrey Watts (1990) refers to unknown requirements and later misunderstood requirements. A misunderstood requirement often is recorded, but missing some contextual reference that would allow the requirement to be fully understood. Why should we be concerned about these other requirements that do not directly affect application functionality? Simply, meeting the second class of requirements is a prerequisite for acceptance of the project. Failure to meet a specification can preclude payment for a project. Rework may be required to fulfill a standard. Missing a contractually defined delivery date my reduce payment and/or impose late delivery payments from the supplier. Clearly it is our best interest as project managers to fully understand all the requirements of a project and in doing do lessen the risk of missing or misinterpreting any requirements. We suggest that these requirements will not be forgotten if a thorough test plan is included in the requirements definition phase. Requirements come in various forms and a clear, comprehensive understanding of all the project requirements is a prerequisite for the thorough test plan. Looking broadly we can classify requirements in to at least six different types. Functional Requirements - What an application must do Functional requirements are the most basic of all software and project requirements and many books and articles, including Manasins Software Reauirements (Leffingwell and Widrig, 2003)_and Writins Better Requirements (Alexander and Stevens, 2002), have been written on this subject. Simply stated, the functional requirements of a software product must answer the question: "What must the software product do?" to be a successful