It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

RQM Implementation planning the right way?


Michael Reed (126516) | asked Nov 13 '12, 5:07 p.m.
I am hoping that Bernie or someone else associated with RQM might be able to post some links to threads, documents, white papers, tech notes, etc that will provide guidance with a "right way" implementation of the product.  These scenarios in particular:
  • RQM implementation planning going into a ClearQuest, ClearCase and ReqPro environment with no immediate plans to migrate to any of the other CLM tools
  • Planning the ramp-up of a management and administrative team that is extremely lightweight in the newer Jazz.net technologies
  • Migration planning and effort for a testing team that is spreadsheet and document based. 
  • How best to introduce RQM to a fairly non-tech savvy systems testing organization
  • Pitfalls to avoid
  • Integrations to focus on
  • How to get the most out of the product with the least amount of resistance to change (at least for the short term...)

I know that's a tall order but the documentation really doesn't do all of these topics much justice.

Thanks!

-michael

One answer



permanent link
David Chadwick (1511) | answered Nov 14 '12, 11:52 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
I will give it a shot off the top of my head.  Hope some of these ideas help.

RQM implementation planning in CQ/CC/RP environment:
Many of our true blue Rational shops start here.  As each of these tools are enterprise level tools, they each are seen as a sharable backbone resource of the organization.  Their integrations can be as shallow or deep as you want with very resource intensive customizations that must be maintained and migrated to each new tool release.  With the Jazz infrastructure the hope is to address some of these difficulties with project leaders performing most project based administration using the GUI based tailoring of things like pick lists, process template choices, and even adding custom fields to work items.  The need for deep programmatic customizations by tool administrators should be minimized.
My experience is that you may want to implement work items in RQM for tasks planning but hook CQweb up as your defect provider for all your testing project areas.  If you aren't going to take advantage of the development planning and work item system for your development shop then there is little need for representing your development projects in RTC given you are leaving your source and build support to ClearCase.
I suggest that starting with RQM and integrating ReqPro for requirements and CQ for defects will work pretty well.  You will be missing out on a lot of RTC value but those elements (source control, dev project planning, and build support as well as moving change management to work items) can be done in a stepwise fashion.
The integrations allow functionality, traceability, and reporting with Insight.  By adding RQM on, you can get visibility into your testing coverage, your progress, and collaborate on your testing tasks.  However the closer collaboration with development and the analysts (requirement owners) is not achieved with this configuration nor is a migration to agile very easily achieved.  Migrating your developers and analysts to RTC and RRC with improved the cross functional collaboration and therefore enhance your overall project productivity.  By hanging on to the older tools, you localize the impact of adoption to your testing team but also continue to incur the administrative overhead and high costs of forward migration imposed by having them in your infrastructure.  Moving to an all Jazz infrastructure as soon as it makes sense for your projects will speed your organization's collaboration and flexibility to adjust to the pressures of delivering projects at a faster rate with better quality.
I know that this sounds like marketing hype but in reality support for agile planning, collaboration across disciplines, and project self administration are worth the training and tooling costs of moving to a full CLM environment.
The product information center includes tutorial and role based scenarios that help you get up to speed about how the tool works and how the projects are constructed.  Deploying and walking through the Proof of Technology using the Money that Matters project area that is complete with linked example assets of a project at a particular midstream development point can help you completely visualize how the moving parts work together.  Along the way, you will have questions about how to use a test plan, do I need test environments, who and when to Test Execution Records need to be created, and how do I get the reporting and dashboards to reflect project status the way we want.  These can be best handled through more targeted questions to the forum.

Comments
Michael Reed commented Nov 15 '12, 12:39 p.m.

Hi David,


Thanks for the response.  I totally agree that a move to the complete CLM solution would be beneficial in most cases.  Unfortunately this customer is not a software development shop but a systems integrator and has no desire to make major tool changes at this time.  I inherited the current environment and am working to get everything up and running (all of the tools were basically shelf-ware) with a mandate to keep the expenses down to an absolute minimum but still create a completely integrated environment.  As you can imagine it is difficult to play catch-up with all four tools.  This is especially difficult since my primary expertise is with ClearQuest, ClearCase and RTC.  I made the attempt to get ReqPro migrated to RRC with no joy.  I also pitched the possibility of RTC, RRC and RQM as a much more integrated solution with the same results. :(  I currently have CQ, CC, and ReqPro configured and just about finished being integrated which leaves me with RQM.  I can sit and learn what I need to know but hope to get some implementation guidance to shorten the time.  Thanks! 

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.