Case study AllianzNet

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case study AllianzNet"

Noreen Jacobs
8 years ago
Views:

1 Case study AllianzNet Automated versus manual testing D E G O U D E N D R A A D D O O R U W B E D R I J F S V O E R I N G 1

2 Pleased to meet you Hans van Loenhoud secretary TestNet managing partner INQA Quality management Test management Service management Project management Guido van Leeuwen consultant INQA Test support / test management AllianzNet project 2

Service management Project management Guido van Leeuwen

3 Contents The context: Allianz and AllianzNet Testing AllianzNet: the strategy Automated testing: what did we do? And here are the results Next time, we will 3

4 Allianz A company of the Allianz Group, one of the largest integrated financial service providers in the world, with over 60 million clients in over 70 countries Allianz Schadeverzekering NV in the Dutch general insurance market, one of the largest players, in particular in the fire and motor classes distribution exclusively through the intermediary channel (insurance agents) 4

Schadeverzekering NV in the Dutch general insurance market, one of the largest players, in

5 AllianzNet the past agent back office front office policy customer 5

6 AllianzNet the future agent back office policy customer 6

7 AllianzNet the application Internet application, developed on COTS Java based web engine replaces current mainframe based front office system Automated input forms for 6 insurance types home, car, motor, caravan, boat, legal assistance Online... completion, verification and validation of data calculation of premiums acceptance of insurance Work flow between agents and Allianz 7

types home, car, motor, caravan, boat, legal assistance Online.

8 AllianzNet the project First phase 1½ years (proposals & new orders) >25 man years spent on IT work of which >25% on testing separate development teams vendor enhancements to web engine Allianz infrastructure customisation of web engine interfaces between web based front office and mainframe based back office system step-wise development multiple releases, builds and patches November 7, 2005: live! 8

infrastructure customisation of web engine interfaces between web based front office and mainframe

9 Testing strategy - risk Extremely high risk project new business process new technology new methodology new organisation (both business and IT) high complexity high volumes high potential damage (e.g. acceptance of bad risks) high external visibility 9

organisation (both business and IT) high complexity high

10 Testing strategy - master test plan Unit testing developer teams System testing dedicated test team Integration testing dedicated test team Acceptance testing dedicated business team (UAT) exploitation & maintenance team (PAT) outsourced (performance, security) 10

test team Acceptance testing dedicated business team (UAT)

11 Testing strategy - test automation High complexity (30 years of insurance knowledge) current front office system contains the truth automated output prediction from front office system validations premiums High volumes (~ 1000 concurrent agents) automated performance tests Multiple releases automated regression tests Existing tool: Winrunner 11

office system validations premiums High volumes (~ 1000 concurrent agents) automated

12 Let s test! 12

13 What did we do Automated premium calculation performance regression testing Manual premium calculation workflow field validations verification rules acceptance rules external connections 13

14 What did we do - time line Test project Preparation System test Integration test Acceptance test Live! Sept 2004 Today Dec 2004 Oct 2005 Testing strategy Building scripts April 2005 Sept 2005 June 2005 Today Test conditions Test cases Premium testing 14

Sept 2004 Today Dec 2004 Oct 2005 Testing strategy Building

15 The figures Conditions, cases and findings Conditions Cases Findings Effort (hrs) Automated Manual Effort on automated testing 40% during system testing 20% during integration testing 5% during acceptance testing 15

1300 810 1250 Effort on automated testing 40% during system

16 The findings Total amount of findings 900 of which found by automated testing 90 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% System Integration Acceptance 16

17 Evaluating the testing strategy - test automation Automated premium calculation tests Succeeded, at a cost: manual testing: 3,5 hours per finding automated testing: 15,0 hours per finding Automated performance tests Succeeded, could not have done without (reusing existing scripts) Automated regression tests Did not utilize, except for premium testing 17

hours per finding Automated performance tests Succeeded, could not have done without

18 Lessons learned (To) Early start of building scripts time lost in rebuilding scripts Quality of test scripts determines value of automated testing need for structured design of test scripts Be selective consider benefits versus costs 18

determines value of automated testing need for structured

19 Recommendations Choice for automated testing should depend on + reusability of test scripts + stability of application need for flexibility When choosing for automated testing, make sure there is a clear and smart scope for automated testing there is a structured design approach for developing standardised test scripts enough expertise on automated testing is available maintenance of test scripts is embedded 19

smart scope for automated testing there is a structured design approach for developing standardised

Comprehensive Testing Services for Life Insurance Systems

Insurance the way we do it Comprehensive Testing Services for Life Insurance Systems Capgemini s testing services provide the framework and tools to drive significant improvements in quality and efficiency