ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Instructions
2
The most important skill for a manager is to select the ONE idea to implement this week. Not trying to do 10 at once. Only ONE forces the manager to pick the BIGGEST IMPACT item that is doable in a week. Elite managers are comfortable being forced to make decisions about cost and priority and timing, not JUST produce a list of things for someone else to choose from. What happens with bad managers is they generate all the ideas and pick the wrong things to do at the wrong times.
3
4
Deliverable #1: What is the biggest impact item for this team that you would do next week?
Define and enforce an Internal Quality Bar to improve External Quality Bar FTAR from 94.28% to 100%.
5
6
Deliverable #2: Provide a summarized stack rank (1 = action you would take next week.......5 = least important decision to make)of all the actions you recommend for this team based on your insights with WS data.
7
8
ActionAffect quality?Easy/Hard?Quick/Long?
9
1.Define and enforce an Internal Quality Bar
Currently the team has no Internal Quality Bar. My analysis proves that introducing a properly designed IQB will improve EQB FTAR to 100%.
8.53%EasyQuick
10
2. Introduce a standardized code quality review toolset
IC do the reviews of the quality of their own code in an ad-hoc manner. Using a standardized set of tools that detect the most common causes of EQB failures would result in a major FTAR improvement.
6.13%EasyQuick
11
3.Implement Shrink to Grow
The 3 bottom performers are responsible for the majority of all EQB failures. Sending them to bootcamp and substituting them with top performers could yield a significant improvement in EQB FTAR.
2.66% after Shrink
4.83% after Shrink and Grow		EasyLong
12
4.Mandate the use of static code analysis tools during development
Issues reported by the Code Review Network are the single most common cause of HUT team’s EQB failures. If all ICs used static code analysis during development those issues could be avoided.
4.21%EasyQuick
13
5.Use mutation testing tools
Inadequate code coverage by unit tests is a common cause of PCAs rejecting the HUT team tickets. PiTest (Java) / CSharpMutation (C#) checks could be used by ICs to verify code coverage.		1.08%EasyQuick
14
15
Deliverable #3 Instructions: Identify at least 10 specific units that failed the quality bar. For each unit, provide the reason for failure and the solution that would prevent this failure. Then stack rank the solutions in deliverable #4.
16
Jira ticket linkReason for QB failureSolution
17
GFIL-7956PCA reports a build failure.Verify that the pull request compiles and all tests pass.
18
BEC-280PCA reports low coverage.Verify test coverage before PR submission. Use mutation testing.
19
SBM-59530CRN 1 Red - Shadowing fields with a local variable. 1 Yellow.Use static code analysis.
20
HAND-822Extra files added in the PR. Build failure.Verify that the pull request compiles and all tests pass.
21
SBM-59499CRN 1 Red - The Hashtable represents one of the implementations of the Map interface. It is recommended to rely on the interface. 2 Yellows.Use static code analysis.
22
CC-109687PCA wants to change formatting and the location of fake assemblies.Verify that the pull requests conforms to project requirements.
23
HAND-885PCA reports overly complex code and improper naming.Verify code complexity and naming during review.
24
CC-183608CRN 1 Severe issue.Use static code analysis.
25
HAND-967CRN 1 Severe issue - This instruction assigns a value to a variable, but the value is not read or used in any subsequent instruction. 2 Yellows.Use static code analysis.
26
CC-109688PCA reports low coverage and other issues.Verify test coverage before PR submission. Use mutation testing.
27
CC-109700PCA reports low coverage.Verify test coverage before PR submission. Use mutation testing.
28
CC-109772Build failed.Verify that the pull request compiles and all tests pass.
29
CC-109795PCA reports a falied build and extra files in the pull request.Verify that the pull request compiles and all tests pass.
30
HAND-823CRN review failed: 2 Yellows: This code references a type by its full name.Verify that the code uses naming coherent with the project code.
31
CC-109774CRN 1 Severe - This code creates instances of a type that implements IDisposable and leaves it open. 1 Yellow. PCA reports low coverage. Build failed.Use static code analysis. Verify test coverage before PR submission. Use mutation testing. Verify that the pull request compiles and all tests pass.
32
QCD-8032CRN 1 Red issue - BigDecimal is instantiated using new BigDecimal(double). 2 Yellows. PCA reports low coverage.Use static code analysis. Verify test coverage before PR submission. Use mutation testing.
33
CC-155869CRN 1 Red issue.Use static code analysis.
34
SBM-58839CRN 1 Red - In this snippet of code if a verification will fail, then the test will fail. 1 Yellow.Use static code analysis.
35
SBM-58526CRN 1 Severe - A resource is opened here but is prone to remain open. 1 Yellow.Use static code analysis.
36
SBM-58424CRN 1 Red - The snippet of code relies on concrete implementation instead of being as generic as possible. 1 YellowUse static code analysis.
37
CC-90015PCA reports failed builds.Verify that the pull request compiles and all tests pass.
38
ACTA-46586PCA reports broken test coverage report.Verify test coverage before PR submission.
39
SVSOCIAL-12861CRN 1 Severe - This code creates instances of a type that implements IDisposable and leaves it open. 2 Yellows.Use static code analysis.
40
41
Deliverable #4: Stack rank of solutions for QB failures
42
1. Use static code analysis.
43
2. Verify coverage before PR submission. Use mutation testing.
44
3. Verify that the pull request compiles and all tests pass.
45
4. Verify that the pull requests conforms to project requirements.
46
5. Verify code complexity and naming during review.
47
6. Verify that the code uses naming coherent with the project code.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100