Challenges Addressed by Truugo

This page outlines prevalent challenges where Truugo can offer solutions across key areas: documentation, conformance testing, quality assurance, and test reporting.

Documentation

Implementations are not compliant with documented requirements

It's a common challenge that system implementations deviate from documented specifications, resulting in unnecessary issues and costs. This issue originates from traditional documentation practices, often conducted in isolation without a tangible link to verify implementations against the documentation.

Documentation style varies case by case

The lack of standardized documentation tools results in a fragmented understanding across the team and trading partners, hindering effective collaboration. Maintaining documentation in a Word document is easy, but it is far from optimal from a standardization perspective.

Only a few people have the required skills for documentation work

Documentation work requires a thorough understanding of the subject, limiting the pool of qualified individuals. Furthermore, complex documentation tools compound the need for more experienced users, posing a notable personnel risk for knowledge continuity.

It is an overwhelming burden to keep all material up-to-date and aligned

Without proper tools, the continuous effort of updating and aligning documentation is overwhelming, resulting in outdated and inaccurate reference materials. This challenge is particularly pronounced when related materials are maintained separately.

Conformance testing

Only a few people have access to testing tools

Restricted access to testing tools limits the participation of team members in the testing process, causing unnecessary bottlenecks, delays, and additional costs.

Only a few people can interpret test results

Interpretation of test results is confined to a small group of individuals when error notices are just technical outputs, lacking a reference to the underlying requirement or the exact context.

Testing requires the use of multiple tools

Using multiple testing tools introduces unnecessary complexities, adversely affecting the efficiency of the testing process. While it may seem liberating to leverage various open-source tools concurrently, the actual costs emerge from the added workload and ongoing maintenance.

Testing does not cover case-specific requirements

Testing often focuses on general requirements, disregarding case-specific ones and leading to undetected issues. This common challenge stems from the difficulty of configuring and maintaining validation artifacts tailored to specific cases.

Onboarding new trading partners takes too much time and resources

The onboarding process proves resource-intensive, resulting in delays in expanding business relationships. This logical outcome is exacerbated by insufficient and unclear documentation and the lack of independent testing possibilities, necessitating extensive bilateral communication.

Quality assurance

The production system has limited control over data quality

The absence of robust control mechanisms compromises data quality and reliability. It's surprising how much lower the requirements imposed on the data interchange are compared to the documented requirements, resulting in manual processing, delays, and additional costs.

Updating requirements is not a task but a project

Updating data requirements is expensive and inconvenient when inbound and outbound data validation is embedded in the data processing system. The schedule is entirely dependent on system updates, and making changes requires extensive testing.

Quality assurance is not a reusable function

The inability to reuse quality assurance functions for diverse use cases leads to duplicated efforts and inefficiencies. The quality assurance function is frequently an integral part of the system, hindering its utilization in other scenarios. That becomes particularly problematic during system migrations.

Test reporting

Reporting takes too much time and resources

Manual reporting processes lead to prolonged lead times and heightened costs, adversely impacting overall efficiency. The time-consuming nature of manually reporting and how often it leads to iterative loops are usually underestimated. Contrary to common belief, this task is far from taking just a few minutes.

Reporting tasks accumulate to key experts

The absence of adequate tools and shared access concentrates reporting responsibilities on key experts, creating bottlenecks and hindering the timely dissemination of critical information. Consequently, key experts bear an overwhelming burden of repetitive reporting tasks, leading to overload and demotivation.

Reporting style varies case by case

The absence of standardized reporting styles results in inconsistency, diminishing the effectiveness of communicating testing outcomes. That necessitates additional communication to interpret reported issues, and the varied feedback does not convey a professional image.

Next article: Overview of Truugo benefits