Skip to main content

Author: Jonathan Malkin

Fed-Gov Learning Management

Written by Jonathan Malkin on . Posted in Articles.

Business analysts are masters at adaptation and learning.  A BA can be dropped into any situation and quickly learn everything necessary to get the job done.  A business analyst must quickly become a subject matter expert in his or her domain. 

Learning Management Systems (LMS) for U.S. Federal Government clients is the domain I currently serve.  My first task in entering this position was to identify the key knowledge areas unique to this domain and become an expert in them.  This month I explain the key LMS concepts for Federal Government clients: EHRI and SF-182.

“Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) is one of five OPM led e-Government initiatives designed to leverage the benefits of information technology”, http://www.opm.gov/egov/e-gov/EHRI/.

EHRI requires that federal agencies report all training data on federal employees to (Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  This gives OPM, Congress and the President ready access to training data across all federal agencies.  Training records are maintained across agencies so if an employee moves from Department of Labor (DOL) to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) their training is ultimately reported to the same repository.

Training data is organized in two major categories: Internal and External.

Internal Training

Internal training is training delivered by an agency to its employees.  Typically this training takes place on-site and does not require travel accommodations or other travel expenses.  Internal training includes instructor-led and online courses.  Internal training typically does not require a provisioning process to allocate money to pay for training and travel. 

External Training

External training is training delivered by an external vendor.  External training typically requires provisioning money to pay for the course and for travel and accommodations.  External training includes instructor-led courses, conferences, and workshops.  To facilitate the provisioning process the federal government requires an SF-182 form submitted by the employee.

The SF-182 is submitted through an approval process that most likely includes the employee’s supervisor and the finance or budget department.  The employee attends training then validates the actual expenses, course dates, and attendance.

Conclusion

EHRI is a major initiative in the Federal Government to create an electronic record for every government employee.  Each employee may be tracked independent of agency assignment.  There are many technical challenges in integrating this data that will take several years to resolve.  I look forward to a day when federal employees may track their career including training throughout their government service.

Federal Government

Written by Jonathan Malkin on . Posted in Articles.

The country is buzzing with excitement over the new administration.  Promises of a “change in government” have created optimism about government not seen since Reagan. 

How will this new administration be effective?  How can this new administration properly administer the agencies of federal government and affect change?

My current projects are examples of the complexity of working with federal government:

  • Data consolidation for nine federal agencies 
  • Multiple systems across agencies and within some agencies
  • Standardization of 40 agencies on one system and set of business processes 

What are your challenges in helping government be more efficient?

We, as business analysts, have the opportunity to help our country by making government more efficient and by getting more accurate information to decision-makers.  We can help government standardize and modernize so the type of data available to CEOs of corporations is available to congress and the president. 

In summary I leave a challenge to you and to myself:

How will we, as business analysts, help the new administration get the information it needs to be effective and help streamline and modernize government operations?

Post your comments here or email me at [email protected].  Or you can visit me at my LinkedIn page at http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmalkin

Test Plan

Written by Jonathan Malkin on . Posted in Articles.

Last month I discussed the justification for testing.  Here are the minimum testing requirements of any organization.  If you are a client purchasing software or contracting for the development of software, then consider requesting proof that it actually works.

Acceptance Tests
Responsibility: Quality Control

  • QC develops acceptance tests for key system features
  • QC adds to the acceptance test suite as new features are implemented or customers contract for customizations

Unit Testing
Responsibility: Developers.

  • Developers write unit tests as an integrated part of the code base
  • In many cases the test code will be as large as the system of test

Release

  • A developer does not release code until
    • The code is written
    • All unit and acceptance tests pass.
    • All requirement and test case documents match and accurately reflect the actual code delivered.
  • Three Components of any Release 
    • Code Base 
    • Testing Base 
    • Documentation

Defect Resolution

  • Unit and acceptance tests are written to replicate any reported bugs. 
  • The entire test suite, including the new tests, is executed to ensure the bug has been      resolved and no new bugs have been introduced.

Reducing the Cost of Change through Software Testing

Written by Jonathan Malkin on . Posted in Articles.

In business environments that include software development, business analysts must be able to identify key areas for improvement and justify the cost of changing software development practices.  IT departments may not write automated unit tests and QC departments may manually click-through the application.  Automated testing may not be a part of the software development life cycle.  Automated testing directly impacts the cost of software by reducing the Cost of Change.

Definition: Cost of Change = Cost of Changing Code and Cost of Changing Process

A software project with a high cost of change typically exhibits some of the following bad smells.

  • Quality delivered to customer is unacceptable
  • Delivering new features to customer takes too long
  • Software is too expensive to build (product development and implementation services)
  • “Hardening” phase needed at end of release cycle
  • Integration is infrequent (Manual Testing Cycle)

Cost of Changing Code

CS2/T = (Complexity of Code base) * (Slack of “in-flexibility” of design) 2 / (Test Coverage)

The cost of changing code (making a programming change) is a factor of Code Complexity, Slack or “in-flexibility” of design and test coverage. 

Automated testing reduces this risk by:

  • Providing a way for programmers to know when they’re done.
  • Enforcing a quality standard.

What if unit tests are only written some of the time and the QC department manually “clicks-through” the application for every acceptance test?  What is the value of purchasing new tools and retraining staff?  Automated testing reduces the cost of maintaining code.

Cost of Changing Process

=  (Reduction in Cost of Changing Code) * (Number of changes implemented each year) / (Investment in training and tools)

The cost of any new investment in testing tools and training will be realized as a return on reduction in the cost of changing code.

The Bottom Line

  • Initial investment in automated testing tools and training for developers and QC.
  • Negligible change in cost for on-going training; cost of on-going training in automated testing similar to cost of current training in manual testing.
  • Increased licensing expense for better tools
  • Decreased cost of implementing new features
  • Increased quality to market
  • Increased flexibility – able to adapt to market conditions more quickly
  • Reduced time to market

Let me know what you think!  If there is sufficient interest in this topic I will return to it in my next blog and delve into the details of a test plan that adheres to this standard.

Jonathan Malkin is a Business Analyst at Plateau Systems.  Jonathan provides configuration, integration, documentation, and deployment support services for a leader in Talent Management Systems.  Jonathan’s areas of support include 21 CFR Part 11 Validation and customizations to COTS software for which he has won multiple awards.  His experience includes work in the federal government, telecommunications, mortgage and banking, and custom software development industries.  Plateau Systems is a leading global provider of adaptable, unified web-based talent management software, content and services to onboard, develop, manage and reward talent.

Jonathan may be reached by email at [email protected] or by visiting his LinkedIn page at http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmalkin

The Cost of Validation

Written by Jonathan Malkin on . Posted in Articles. 1 Comment on The Cost of Validation

Initial Analysis $100,000
Development and Execution $500,000
Validation Priceless

 

It is amazing, a client pays 100K to 2M or more to develop a system and $0 to make sure the system works. How do we ensure the system meets our needs?

Solution Assessment and Validation

Solution Assessment and Validation is one of six knowledge areas defined in the BABOK (Business Analysis Book of Knowledge). I recently helped a government client document and execute validation under FDA 21 CFR Part 11 rules.

FDA 21 CFR Part 11 Computer Systems Validation outlines validation methods to ensure the system works as expected and meets the business need. All systems must have a Validation Plan, User Requirements, Functional Requirements, and Test Scripts.

User Requirements are general requirements concerning the use of a system.

Functional Requirements break down User Requirements into how users will specifically interact with the chosen system.

Test Scripts are written for each Functional Requirement.

Test scripts are executed, witnessed, and counter-signed. After execution the organization has a fully documented and auditable trail to show the system was properly installed and qualified to meet the business need and technical requirements.

In addition, a validated client documents Standard Operating Procedures for use of the system. This step forces the organization to take a close look at how the system will be used and why it is being implemented. Any time people spend to think through how and why they use a system is a good thing!

Downside?

The downside is less flexibility in making system changes. A COTS system that is highly configurable and easily changed is now subject to a multi-level change control process. A simple configuration change may take days or weeks to propose, authorize, document, and implement.

Conclusion

21 CFR Part 11 Validation is worthwhile where the cost of deviation from process greatly exceeds the cost of change. In the case of manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines, minor deviations in process can impact the lives of millions of people with drastic consequences. It’s in these very cases that validation is indeed worthwhile to ensure systems meet the safety and security concerns of all.

Jonathan Malkin is a Business Analyst at Plateau Systems. Jonathan provides configuration, integration, documentation, and deployment support services for a leader in Talent Management Systems. Jonathan’s areas of support include 21 CFR Part 11 Validation and customizations to COTS software for which he has won multiple awards. His experience includes work in the federal government, telecommunications, mortgage and banking, and custom software development industries. Plateau Systems is a leading global provider of adaptable, unified web-based talent management software, content and services to onboard, develop, manage and reward talent.

  • 1
  • 2