Effectiveness of Systems Integrity Assurance Actions - Maxil Aerospace - Case Study Example

Software Quality Assurance – Effectiveness of Systems Integrity Assurance Actions: The Case of Maxil Aerospace ID: Software Quality Assurance – Effectiveness of Systems Integrity Assurance Actions: The Case of Maxil Aerospace Maxil Aerospace has been in the aviation business for many years, having kept a clean record throughout its lifetime. The company, based in Middleton, designs and develops aircraft that it then sells to commercial airlines. The scope of the company’s activities employs a lot of locals in Middleton, therefore, making it a key economic pillar of the region. Whereas Maxil Aerospace’s business has been largely successful it has been experiencing a lot of challenges in the recent past. Mr. Spencer-Jones, the CEO admits that the firm has been under financial pressure due to reduced sales of their Maxil CC5 aircraft. This had been worsened by stiff competition from Vader Aircraft’s Vader XX8 and their yet to be launched Vader XX9 aircrafts. Nonetheless, Maxil has been a model aviation firm, until the recent tragic incident that involved one of their aircrafts, the recently launched Maxil FBW1. This report presents an analysis of the events leading to the accident; it not only indicates how the events contributed to the incident, but also makes recommendations on how improvements can be made in the development of safety critical systems at Maxil. Investigations reveal a lot of loopholes and inconsistencies that could have, in one way or another, caused the accident. Some of these include shortage of experts in engineering, design and programming, poor cooperation among project stakeholders, as well as threats and intimidation of staff. However, it is evident that the most probable cause of the disaster was the software; data from the flight recorder indicated that the computer controlling the aircraft caused a severe height adjustment moments before the crash. Interviews with the various people involved in the design and development of the software used in the aircrafts indicate that there was a lack of professionalism, right from the programming to the testing phase. However, the most likely cause of the calamity was poor testing. Development and Testing of the Software Software testing starts during the coding of the application. The programmers identify and correct errors in the code as they continue with their work. In this case, despite the fact that Maxil has a team of capable programmers, their knowledge of the ADA and Assembler programming languages, which are utilized in the development of software in the aviation industry, was insufficient. They had to rely on Wayne Goldsmith, himself a design Engineer, to translate the code written by the programmers into either ADA or Assembler. This provided an opportunity for many errors in the code to go unnoticed since only Wayne was sufficiently familiar with both ADA and Assembler. The other problem with testing came about right from management. The Metrics and Quality Manager, Sid Bentley is an expert in Mechanical Engineering, not Software Engineering. His knowledge in product and metrics testing was, therefore, not sufficient in software testing; he had just started learning about code analysis, GQM, CMM, and PROFES. He relied on the integrity and professionalism of the software engineers and a strict testing regime, hoping they would deliver quality software. However, this was not realized because of the unprofessional conduct of the programmers, coupled with the absence of a well structured testing rubric for the applications. These are evidenced by the fact that the team of programmers was not available to test the software when they were needed. In addition, much as they claimed to have the knowledge to test the software, it is not entirely professional for programmers to test their own software. The integrity of the software came into question after the testing session that was carried out by John Garside. The fact that Ralph Plunket delivered the code late, together with the threats issued by the CEO on the consequences of failure on the part of the programmers, John Garside had a lot of pressure while testing the software. The fact that he was alone in the office (everyone else had gone home), his insufficient knowledge of ADA and Assembler, and short experience in testing made it hard for him to conduct in-depth tests. Despite his frantic efforts to reach his superiors for assistance and direction, none of them gave him any meaningful input. This shows Maxil’ attitude towards software testing; the company does not prioritize software quality among its goals. Beatrice Warner, the chief programmer at Maxil stated that the project had not been a happy one; she cited frustration from their engineering colleagues and Sid Bentley, the Metrics and Quality Assurance manager. Despite the fact that he was in charge of quality assurance, Bentley did not offer much assistance when the programmers approached him about test planning and measuring of their processes. The facts that the programmers did not interact with the engineers as much as they are required to, as well as the failure by the Metrics and Quality assurance manager to engage the programmers fully posed a formidable challenge to the software testing process; the process not only requires a good testing framework, but also inclusiveness where all the stakeholders of the project work together. The sequence of events and situations that characterized the coding and testing of the software led the development team to overlook some flaws in the system. The fact that the computer that controlled the airplane electronically via signals initiated the change in height that led to the crash implies that something went wrong with its system. This made it send wrong commands to the wings and tails; hence causing the tragedy. This malfunction could have been caused by failure in software. If proper testing had been done, the software bug could have been discovered early enough and steps taken to remove it. The accident could have been avoided and lives saved. How software testing can be improved to provide a robust setting for the development of safety critical software at Maxil The success or failure of any software product depends on the degree to which it meets, or fails to meet, the requirements defined in the Software Requirements Specifications (SRS) document. In order to determine whether an application meets its specifications or not, thorough software testing has to be undertaken. The software has to be tested against each requirement; this should include both familiar and unfamiliar environments (McCaffrey, 2009). Maxil Aerospace should not be an exception to these software testing practices. In order to make a suitable environment for development of safety critical applications, the company should make a couple of changes to its software development system. This section of this article provides an in-depth analysis of the adjustments that Maxil has to implement to help avert calamities in future. a. Investment In A Software Testing Team It is essential that the company invests heavily in software testing; this is the only way it can be sure it develops quality applications (Patton, 2005). This will require that Maxil separates the process of software testing from traditional software development. The company can do this by either hiring or outsourcing software testing professionals. The latter is more economic than hiring since software testing is not a primary function of the company (Kaner, Falk and Nguyen, 1999). The team should be composed of all stakeholders affected by the system, including professionals with excellent backgrounds in software testing, as well as a good understanding of the programming languages used in the development of the software. In addition, the team members should be aware of the requirements of the systems that they are to test. It will, therefore, be necessary to constitute the testing team right from the beginning of the project (Schulmeyer and McManus, 1987). This will ensure that the team can handle any system competitively. The software testing team should be given access to all the resources it needs to carry out its activities (Crispin and Gregory, 2009). This will ensure that the team comes up with software testing benchmarks that are specific to the software being tested; this could be achieved by integrating manual testing with automated testing for maximum performance (Bohnke, 2012). This will enable it to locate and correct flaws; hence enable them to deliver software that is reliable, maintainable, usable, and with high performance. b. Promoting working relationships between departments The relationships between departments working together on any software project need to be a cordial if the project is to succeed (Green, 2012). This is because many activities in software development are interrelated. For instance, if the testing team finds flaws in the system, it should be able to communicate its findings to the programming team so that the errors are corrected (Graham and Fewster, 2012). Microsoft, one of the world’s leading software development companies, has created a system whereby programmers and testers interact at the same level. One cannot tell the difference between a programmer and a tester at the company (Page, Johnston and Rollison, 2008). c. Hiring Enough Qualified Professionals For Every Department Maxil is highly understaffed, especially when it comes to areas related to software development. Apart from the head programmer, there are only two other programmers, and one junior programmer. Considering the complexity and importance of the work that this group does, the number is not enough. The company should consider hiring additional staff for its programming department. The composition of the staff should also reflect the requirements of the tasks they handle (McDonald, Musson and Smith, 2007). For instance, the staff should be able to handle both Assembler and ADA programming languages comfortably. In addition, the staff should undergo frequent refresher courses and trainings to keep them up to speed with new trends in programming and software development (Whittaker, 2009). This will ensure that the company has a competent team of developers with quality output. In addition, the company should consider hiring a person with experience in software development and testing to head its Software Metrics and Quality Assurance section. This is because the current head, Sid Bentley is not competent enough to handle software quality issues because of his academic and professional background. Software, unlike regular engineering products, is not tangible; hence, conventional engineers find it quite challenging to comprehend (Black, 2009). This should also be done in other departments in the company, perhaps by appointing deputies to the Metrics and Quality Assurance Manager from the various departments. d. Finally, the company, through its CEO, should strive to create a friendly working environment for its employees. This, unlike issuing of ultimatums and threats, will make sure that employees give their best services to Maxil. The company can achieve this by promoting good relations between management and staff (Whittaker, 2002). This can be done through sharing relevant information with staff members; it is easier for employees to deliver on company goals when they know the company’s mission and objectives than when they are kept in the dark about them (Kaner, Bach and Pettichord, 2001). Positive working relationships can also be boosted through social company activities like parties, camps, and retreats. Such activities enhance relationships among colleagues by creating personal bonds between them. If these bonds are exploited well, they can yield positive results on employee output (Royer, 1992). Activities like software testing and quality assurance will be easier to carry out with a united staff, rather than a divided workforce. Maxil Aerospace has been a reputable company that has not only benefited its stakeholders and employees, but also the community where it operates. Whereas this is commendable, the company should strive to uphold its hard earned reputation. It is, therefore, necessary that Maxil adheres to all industry standards, especially when developing software that run their airplanes. The company should invest in the development of quality software by availing enough funds to cater for software testing. The quality of Maxil’s software products will determine whether or not it remains at the helm of the aviation industry in Middleton. List of References Black, R., 2009. Managing the testing process: Practical tools and techniques for managing hardware and software testing. London: Wiley. Crispin, L. and Gregory, J., 2009. Agile testing: A practical guide for testers and agile teams. London: Addison-Wesley Professional. Graham, D. and Fewster, M., 2012. Experiences of test automation: Case studies of software test automation. London: Addison-Wesley Professional. Green, B. 2012. Programming problems: A primer for the technical interview. Seattle: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Kaner, C., Bach, J. and Pettichord, B., 2001. Lessons learned in software testing. Hobokken: Wiley. Kaner, C., Falk, J. and Nguyen, H. Q., 1999. Testing computer software. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley. McCaffrey, J. D., 2009. Software testing: Fundamental principles and essential knowledge. South Carolina: BookSurge Publishing. McDonald, M., Musson, R. and Smith, R., 2007. The practical guide to defect prevention (Best Practices (Microsoft)). Virginia: Microsoft Press. Page, A., Johnston, K. and Rollison, B., 2008. How we test software at Microsoft. Virginia: Microsoft. Patton, R., 2005. Software testing. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Sams Publishing. Royer, T. C., 1992. Software testing management: Life on the critical path. New Jersey Prentice Hall. Schulmeyer, G. G. and McManus, J. I., 1987. Handbook of software quality assurance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Whittaker, J. A., 2002. How to break software: A practical guide to testing W/CD. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Whittaker, J. A., 2009. Exploratory software testing: Tips, tricks, tours, and techniques to guide test design. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Read More