Fanfare Blog

NUMMI and Toyota Quality as it relates to testing..

Last night I shared an evening with a couple of friends who work at the NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc) plant in Fremont, CA.  NUMMI was a joint venture between Toyota and GM.  Due to the financial implosion of the auto industry they are closing down the NUMMI plant in a few weeks.  Lots of workers (10,000+) lose jobs; supporting industries are closing or laying off, and in general, big news.  At the plant they build frames, stamp body panels, and assemble cars.  My friends are both quality engineers and when I asked, "so what exactly do you do?", what I found most interesting was their knowledge of the relative quality of "other" parts. "Where do the best engines come from?" They instantly ranked the locations in US and other countries in quality order and knew whether each was improving or getting worse. Again, when we spoke about tires, they could instantly identify the two best tire manufactures.  Amazing.  They then made a very loose association with this knowledge, the quality of various components, and quality of components sourced from contractors to connect with the mechanical issues Toyota was seeing in other plants, currently in all the headlines. As I drove home I wondered; in our industry, "is it the same"?  Do testers know who the best coders are?  Do they know why?  Do testers know how good other software is?  Do they really the know quality from a sixth sense perspective?  I realized that this started to sound like a management challenge, "Well, we need to know the real info from the trenches, the frontlines.  I guess we had better hire a consultant".   (Anyway, a little humor.)   But the question remains, does your team know more than is expected of them?  Is that knowledge really being leveraged to improve your company's products and processes, or does it get the 'just go to the freezer and get the box' type of treatment?


    Related Entries
TrackBacks | Comments | Tag with del.icio.us | System and Device Testing Home | Permalink: NUMMI and Toyota Quality as it relates to testing..

Tags: , , ,
Copyright System and Device Testing

When is Test Automation not about Testing?

Shop Talk Blog - January 18, 2010
A couple of Fanfare’s customers have done something quite interesting. They realized that in the list of things that testers do every day, there are a lot of time-consuming tasks that can be automated much more easily than the complex tests they are trying to perform. So why not start with the low-hanging fruit?

Testing and 2009

System & Device Testing Blog - January 8, 2010
Happy New Year.If you are like most testers, 2009 was more--not listening from the bosses, and more-- we need the product to market faster than before with superior quality and..... no additional resources. However recently on the radio there was a discussion regarding some sports team. It was about their loss, and many say to forget it and move on. But the radio anchor was saying, and I agree, you need to look at loss, so you don't repeat the same mistakes. 2009 was painful in many ways, but what did you learn? What will you not do again? What would you absolutely do again? Then forget 2009.


    Related Entries
TrackBacks | Comments | Tag with del.icio.us | System and Device Testing Home | Permalink: Testing and 2009

Tags: ,
Copyright System and Device Testing

Wireless Testing?

System & Device Testing Blog - December 14, 2009

Every few months, new mobile phones and technologies hit the market. Many consumers, however, will now be shopping for more than a new phone. After the latest service outages by Clearwire and T-Mobile, many will also be looking for a new carrier.

These outages demonstrate the growing importance - and business value - of network testing. As the complexity of multifunction wireless devices grows, testing has become more complex for both carriers and device manufacturers. In addition, LTE will soon make testing an order of magnitude more difficult for carriers. Coinciding with this growth in complexity is the fast rate of churn among wireless devices.

These challenges are exposing the underlying weaknesses of current testing practices. For instance, carriers seldom conduct true end-to-end testing that includes a phone's applications. Often, they test only whether the phone can send and receive calls, SMS, and data not how well Facebook works. They also test their networks against standards - as opposed to specific devices - while using very few real phones to validate the results. Still, they assume that their network will work for any phone and its applications. Device manufacturers follow a similar approach, testing a few handsets against a standard and then assuming that all models will work on any network worldwide.

As a result, many carriers are making dangerous assumptions about interoperability, placing them at risk for a T-Mobile-style fiasco. It's time for carriers and manufacturers to stop testing in isolation and to revamp their testing processes to address the convergence of software and hardware in these devices. More specifically, they need a standardized way of automating testing and exchanging information, including tests and results. This will allow them to share the work and deliver the best quality products and services to their mutual customers.

Imagine, for example, if Nokia could provide Deutsche Telecom with automated tests for a phone's operation and software. Deutsche Telecom would then be able to run these tests in its lab to validate that this specific device works on its network. This would eliminate the need to build these tests themselves - or just rely on standards. Likewise, Deutsche Telecom could provide Nokia with tests to validate its handset and back-end infrastructure.

Had such an arrangement been in place in the case of Clearwire, there would have been no outage to report on. Clearwire's testing did not keep pace with the regularly scheduled software updates, patches, fixes, and new features of its Motorola network devices. These, too, must be subject to testing prior to network deployment in order to prevent the introduction of new bugs into the network, and to ensure that functionality is not impacted in an unforeseen way.

By efficiently exchanging information and sharing assets on a regular basis, carriers and manufacturers can expedite the testing process. At the same time, they can ensure that all the hardware and software are compatible and functional before making a product or service available to consumers. Without such a system, carriers run the risk of their services or the device's applications not living up to customer expectations. After all, today's consumers are more apt to blame carriers (think AT&T) whenever an application malfunctions on their wireless device (think iPhone). And who wants that call?


    Related Entries
TrackBacks | Comments | Tag with del.icio.us | System and Device Testing Home | Permalink: Wireless Testing?

Tags: , , ,
Copyright System and Device Testing

Categories: , Fanfare Blog

December 31, 1969
Syndicate content