Page 69 - Dataquest

dIGITal ENTErPrISE | BFSI

responsibilities in the hands of their IT teams,
who look at it from a purely technological angle,
often ignoring business consequences. And
here is where the problems start in the multi-
year, heavy investment IT adoption process.
Secondly, banks do not develop banking
products themselves or from ground-up.
They often choose customized Commercial
Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products to suit their
requirements. Adding to the existing conflict
between business and IT teams, a product
vendor and an implementation partner are
added to the crew, each with their own ideas on
how to develop and implement the product.
Thirdly, there are often numerous gaps in the translation While banks do have their own testing teams, the
of business requirements into the product. Products are time, cost and effort required to make their testing teams
often selected on the basis of high-level demonstrations perform core transformation activities will be tremendous.
which might, on the whole, appear to contain all the This is where an independent assurance provider can
features the bank requires. However, it is only when detailed help, by supporting the bank’s internal team testing team
requirements are discussed, realization sets in that intense with knowledge and expertise either during testing, or by
customization is required. Once these customizations are assuming all testing responsibilities.
in force, the product companies cannot really predict how With product and implementation partners customizing
their product will behave as it is now a complex product the product, an assurance provider has a solid role to play
placed in a complex environment with multiple surround right from the requirements workshop, by gatekeeping
systems with which it has to work. the requirements to ensure comprehensive business
Eventually, neither the product company nor the bank and testing sense. Quality assurance from the start
are equipped to test the complex product, which is why prevents delays later during system integration and user
an independent assurance provider with thorough domain acceptance test stages.
knowledge is necessary. Banks, fatigued with running their
usual businesses, often get disenchanted when multiple ChallENGES, aNd rOad ahEad
test runs are essential to ensure product stability. Often, There are several challenges in quality assurance in
the product company and implementation partners are banking software. First comes the budget. As assurance
incentivized to get the product rolling by a certain date, is often an afterthought with inadequate provisioning
which could result in testing taking a backseat. Familiarity from the beginning, there is a surge of less-tested
with the product is just not enough. Being unsure about products with stability issues. While testing should
the customer’s business lifecycle makes them test the ideally take 25 percent of the total efforts in building the
product in certain accustomed paths, often ignoring software, in reality, it is only about 10 percent. Secondly,
potential scenarios in reality. regression issues in testing leads to delayed delivery of
functionalities, affecting services. Thirdly, banks do not
ThE NEEd fOr INdEPENdENT QUalITy aSSUraNCE have appropriate testing strategies in place right from
PrOvIdErS the project’s inception. Lack of forethought and clarity on
The practice of quality assurance differs from region to what each stakeholder is accountable for impacts product
region, largely dependent on the software development quality and user experience.
and IT adoption processes prevalent in the region. In the Banks are now waking up, and are more aware of the
Middle East and Asia Pacific, banks entrust testing in the importance of quality assurance. Banks are now moving
hands of independent assurance partners. In Europe, towards consolidating vendors, and at the same time,
there is low recognition for independent assurance ensuring that development and testing of the same
partners, and testing responsibilities are often given to the portfolio do not lie with one vendor.
implementation partner, who lack core competency, often
resulting in conflict of interest. (The author is CEO of Maveric Systems)

| A CyberMedia Publication www.dqindia.com January, 2018 | 69