Task 1:

Task 1 – Quality Risk Assessment

Step 1: Choosing the Customer and System

 Customer: Telstra

 System: Billing Management System (BMS)

System Description:

The Telstra Billing Management System (BMS) is responsible for handling

customer billing for various services provided by Telstra, such as mobile
plans, internet services, and entertainment packages. The system manages
billing information, payment processing, invoicing, and integrates with
customer account management systems. It is crucial for ensuring timely and
accurate billing and supporting customer queries related to billing.

Step 2: Identifying Risks Based on the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 Product

Quality Model

The ISO/IEC 25010:2023 model includes 8 main quality characteristics and

31 sub-characteristics. We will identify at least 1 risk for each sub-
characteristic along with potential impacts, risk levels, and mitigation
strategies.

Functional Suitability

1. Functional completeness: Missing billing features for new services.

o Impact: Incomplete billing may result in revenue loss.

o Risk Level: Medium

o Mitigation: Implement thorough testing during service launches.

2. Functional correctness: Incorrect tax calculation for different

regions.

o Impact: Financial penalties, customer dissatisfaction.

o Risk Level: High

o Mitigation: Test for accuracy in tax calculations across regions.

 3. Functional appropriateness: The system requires too many steps to
generate a billing statement.

o Impact: Reduced efficiency, increased customer service load.

o Risk Level: Low

o Mitigation: Optimize the billing generation process.

Performance Efficiency

4. Time behavior: The system slows down during peak billing periods.

o Impact: Delays in generating bills and processing payments.

o Risk Level: High

o Mitigation: Performance testing under load conditions,

infrastructure optimization.

5. Resource utilization: High CPU usage during batch processing.

o Impact: Slow performance affecting other systems.

o Risk Level: Medium

o Mitigation: Optimize resource allocation and scheduling of batch

processes.

6. Capacity: The system cannot handle the increasing number of users.

o Impact: Service interruptions, failed billing.

o Risk Level: High

o Mitigation: Scalability tests and capacity planning.

Compatibility

7. Co-existence: BMS might conflict with other systems on the same

network.

o Impact: System crashes, data inconsistency.

o Risk Level: Medium

o Mitigation: Test for system compatibility and resource-sharing

conflicts.

8. Interoperability: Inability to integrate with 3rd party payment

gateways.
 o Impact: Failed transactions, customer frustration.

o Risk Level: High

o Mitigation: Ensure compatibility and integration testing with

external services.

Usability

9. Appropriateness recognisability: Users struggle to recognize how

to access billing details.

o Impact: Increased support calls, user frustration.

o Risk Level: Low

o Mitigation: User interface improvement, user testing.

10. Learnability: System is difficult to navigate for new users.

o Impact: Longer training periods, user frustration.

o Risk Level: Medium

o Mitigation: Enhance user training materials and support

documentation.

11. Operability: Difficulty in navigating billing adjustments.

o Impact: Time wasted in customer service calls.

o Risk Level: Medium

o Mitigation: Simplify navigation and workflows.

12. User error protection: Users enter incorrect billing data

without warning.

o Impact: Billing errors, customer dissatisfaction.

o Risk Level: Medium

o Mitigation: Implement input validation and error messages.

Reliability

13. Fault tolerance: System fails to recover gracefully after a

hardware failure.

o Impact: Prolonged downtime, loss of data.

 o Risk Level: High

o Mitigation: Implement fault-tolerant mechanisms and regular

backups.

14. Availability: System downtime during peak billing days.

o Impact: Revenue loss, customer dissatisfaction.

o Risk Level: High

o Mitigation: Schedule maintenance during off-peak times,

increase redundancy.

15. Recoverability: Delayed recovery of lost data during an outage.

o Impact: Loss of critical billing information.

o Risk Level: High

o Mitigation: Implement real-time backups and faster recovery

protocols.

Security

16. Confidentiality: Unauthorized access to customer billing data.

 Impact: Data breach, legal penalties, loss of customer trust.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Implement encryption and role-based access control.

17. Integrity: Data corruption during billing processing.

 Impact: Incorrect bills, financial loss, reputational damage.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Data integrity checks, regular audits.

18. Non-repudiation: Lack of audit trails for billing operations.

 Impact: Inability to prove transactions, disputes.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Implement comprehensive logging of all billing operations.

19. Accountability: Lack of accountability for billing data

modifications.
  Impact: Untraceable errors, unauthorized changes.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Ensure all data modifications are logged and traced to a

specific user.

20. Authenticity: System vulnerable to spoofing during login.

 Impact: Unauthorized access, fraudulent transactions.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Multi-factor authentication (MFA), stronger login protocols.

21. Resistance: The system fails under a distributed denial of

service (DDoS) attack.

 Impact: Service outage, inability to process bills.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Implement DDoS protection and network monitoring tools.

Maintainability

22. Modularity: System components are too interdependent,

leading to difficulty in isolating issues.

 Impact: Increased time and effort for maintenance.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Improve system architecture, reduce dependencies

between modules.

23. Reusability: Lack of reusable components for future system

enhancements.

 Impact: Increased development time for new features.

 Risk Level: Low

 Mitigation: Design modular components that can be reused across

different systems.

24. Analysability: Difficulty in diagnosing problems within the

billing system.
  Impact: Slow response to issues, extended downtimes.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Implement better logging, monitoring, and diagnostic tools.

25. Modifiability: Difficult to modify existing billing rules without

introducing errors.

 Impact: Increased risk of defects, prolonged development cycles.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Refactor codebase to make it more maintainable, conduct

regular code reviews.

26. Testability: Complex features of the system are hard to test.

 Impact: Incomplete testing, missed defects.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Improve testability through better code design, increase

automation.

Flexibility

27. Adaptability: Difficulty adapting the billing system to new

service offerings.

 Impact: Delays in rolling out new services, customer dissatisfaction.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Design system for flexibility and scalability from the start.

28. Scalability: The system cannot handle increases in the number

of users or transactions.

 Impact: Service slowdowns, outages.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Implement scalability testing and system architecture

improvements.

29. Installability: The system has complicated installation

procedures that lead to errors during deployment.
  Impact: Delays in system updates or migrations.

 Risk Level: Low

 Mitigation: Simplify installation scripts, provide better installation

documentation.

30. Replaceability: The system cannot be easily replaced or

upgraded without significant downtime.

 Impact: Extended system downtime during upgrades.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Implement phased deployments and rollback procedures.

Safety

31. Operational constraint: The system moves into an

unacceptable state when overloaded.

 Impact: Service outage, billing errors.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Load balancing, failover mechanisms.

32. Risk identification: Failure to identify risks that can endanger

operational continuity.

 Impact: System failure during critical billing periods.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Conduct regular risk assessments and stress tests.

33. Fail-safe: System fails to enter safe mode during an unexpected

crash.

 Impact: Data loss, incorrect billing.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation: Implement fail-safe mechanisms and data recovery

protocols.

34. Hazard warning: System does not provide adequate warnings

before critical errors.
  Impact: System failure without notice, operational delays.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Implement alert systems and proactive monitoring.

35. Safe integration: Risk of unsafe behavior during integration

with third-party systems.

 Impact: System instability, security vulnerabilities.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Conduct integration tests and safety audits.

Interaction Capability (Usability)

36. Inclusivity: The system is not accessible to users with

disabilities.

 Impact: Non-compliance with accessibility laws, reduced usability for

disabled users.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Implement accessibility features like screen readers and

voice commands.

37. User engagement: The interface is too dull, leading to a lack of

user engagement.

 Impact: Increased user dissatisfaction, lower system usage.

 Risk Level: Low

 Mitigation: Improve user interface design, conduct user testing for

engagement.

38. Self-descriptiveness: The system does not provide enough

guidance for users, causing confusion.

 Impact: Increased support queries, user frustration.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Add tooltips, guided walkthroughs, and better

documentation.
 39. Learnability: Users find it difficult to learn how to use the
system effectively.

 Impact: Longer training times, more errors during system use.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Provide detailed tutorials, improve help documentation.

40. Operability: Users have difficulty using the system due to

inefficient navigation and unclear buttons.

 Impact: Frustration, longer task completion times.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation: Redesign the user interface for better operability.

Risk Register for Telstra Billing Management System

Quality
Risk Characteristic / Risk Mitigation
Risk Description Impact Likelihood
ID Sub- Level Strategy
characteristic
Functional Implement
Missing billing
Suitability / thorough testing
1 features for new Revenue loss Medium Medium
Functional during service
services
completeness launches.
Functional Financial Test for
Incorrect tax
Suitability / penalties, accuracy in tax
2 calculation for High High
Functional customer calculations
different regions
correctness dissatisfaction across regions.
Reduced
Functional Optimize the
Too many steps efficiency,
Suitability / billing
3 to generate a increased Low Low
Functional generation
billing statement customer
appropriateness process.
service load
Performance
Delays in
System slows Performance testing under
generating bills,
4 down during peak Efficiency / High High load conditions,
processing
billing periods Time behavior infrastructure
payments
optimization.
Optimize
Performance Slow
High CPU usage resource
Efficiency / performance
5 during batch Medium Medium allocation and
Resource affecting other
processing scheduling of
utilization systems
batch processes.
 Quality
Risk Characteristic / Risk Mitigation
Risk Description Impact Likelihood
ID Sub- Level Strategy
characteristic
System cannot Performance Service Scalability tests
6 handle increasing Efficiency / interruptions, High High and capacity
users Capacity failed billing planning.
Test for system
Conflicts with System crashes,
Compatibility / compatibility
7 other systems on data Medium Medium
Co-existence and resource-
the network inconsistency
sharing conflicts.
Ensure
Inability to Failed compatibility
integrate with 3rd Compatibility / transactions, and integration
8 High High
party payment Interoperability customer testing with
gateways frustration external
services.
Users struggle to Usability / Increased User interface
9 access billing Appropriateness support calls, Low Low improvement,
details recognizability user frustration user testing.
Enhance user
Difficult Longer training training
Usability /
10 navigation for periods, user Medium Medium materials and
Learnability
new users frustration support
documentation.
Difficulty Time wasted in Simplify
Usability /
11 navigating billing customer Medium Medium navigation and
Operability
adjustments service calls workflows.
System allows Billing errors, Implement input
Usability / User
12 user input errors customer Medium Medium validation and
error protection
without warnings dissatisfaction error messages.
Implement fault-
System fails to Prolonged
Reliability / tolerant
13 recover from downtime, data High High
Fault tolerance mechanisms,
hardware failures loss
regular backups.
Schedule
System downtime Revenue loss, maintenance
Reliability /
14 during peak customer High High during off-peak
Availability
billing days dissatisfaction times, increase
redundancy.
Real-time
Loss of critical
Delayed recovery Reliability / backups, faster
15 billing High High
from outages Recoverability recovery
information
protocols.
16 Unauthorized Security / Data breach, High High Implement
 Quality
Risk Characteristic / Risk Mitigation
Risk Description Impact Likelihood
ID Sub- Level Strategy
characteristic
encryption and
access to billing
Confidentiality legal penalties role-based
data
access control.
Data corruption Data integrity
Security / Incorrect bills,
17 during billing High High checks, regular
Integrity financial loss
processing audits.
Implement
Inability to
Lack of audit comprehensive
Security / Non- prove
18 trails for billing Medium Medium logging of all
repudiation transactions,
operations billing
disputes
operations.
Ensure all data
Lack of Untraceable
modifications
accountability for Security / errors,
19 Medium Medium are logged and
data Accountability unauthorized
traced to a
modifications changes
specific user.
Unauthorized Multi-factor
Vulnerable to
Security / access, authentication
20 spoofing during High High
Authenticity fraudulent (MFA), stronger
login
transactions login protocols.
Implement
System fails Service outage,
Security / DDoS protection
21 under DDoS inability to High High
Resistance and network
attack process bills
monitoring tools.
Interdependence
Improve system
of system Increased time
Maintainability / architecture,
22 components leads and effort for Medium Medium
Modularity reduce
to difficult maintenance
dependencies.
maintenance
Lack of reusable Increased
Design modular
components for Maintainability / development
23 Low Low components for
future Reusability time for new
reuse.
enhancements features
Slow response Implement better
Difficulty
Maintainability / to issues, logging,
24 diagnosing issues High High
Analysability extended monitoring,
within the system
downtime diagnostic tools.
25 Difficulty Maintainability / Increased risk Medium Medium Refactor
modifying Modifiability of defects, codebase to
existing billing prolonged make it more
rules development maintainable.
 Quality
Risk Characteristic / Risk Mitigation
Risk Description Impact Likelihood
ID Sub- Level Strategy
characteristic
cycles
Improve
testability
Incomplete
Complex features Maintainability / through better
26 testing, missed Medium Medium
are hard to test Testability code design,
defects
increase
automation.
Difficulty Delays in Design system
Flexibility /
27 adapting to new rolling out new Medium Medium for flexibility
Adaptability
service offerings services and scalability.
Implement
System cannot
Service scalability
handle user or Flexibility /
28 slowdowns, High High testing, system
transaction Scalability
outages architecture
growth
improvements.
Simplify
Errors during Delays in installation
Flexibility /
29 system system updates Low Low scripts, improve
Installability
installation or migrations installation
documentation.
Implement
Difficulty
Extended phased
replacing or Flexibility /
30 downtime Medium Medium deployments,
upgrading the Replaceability
during upgrades rollback
system
procedures.
System moves
Safety / Load balancing,
into unacceptable Service outage,
31 Operational High High failover
state when billing errors
constraint mechanisms.
overloaded
System failure Conduct regular
Failure to identify Safety / Risk
32 during critical High High risk assessments,
operational risks identification
billing periods stress tests.
Implement fail-
System fails to safe
Data loss,
33 enter safe mode Safety / Fail-safe High High mechanisms,
incorrect billing
during crashes data recovery
protocols.
System failure Implement alert
Lack of adequate
Safety / Hazard without notice, systems,
34 warnings before Medium Medium
warning operational proactive
critical errors
delays monitoring.
 Quality
Risk Characteristic / Risk Mitigation
Risk Description Impact Likelihood
ID Sub- Level Strategy
characteristic
Unsafe behavior System
Conduct
during integration Safety / Safe instability,
35 Medium Medium integration tests,
with 3rd party integration security
safety audits.
systems vulnerabilities
Non- Implement
System is not
compliance accessibility
accessible to Usability /
36 with laws, Medium Medium features (screen
users with Inclusivity
reduced readers, voice
disabilities
usability commands).
Improve UI
Interface too dull, User
Usability / User design, user
37 leading to lack of dissatisfaction, Low Low
engagement testing for
user engagement lower usage
engagement.
Add tooltips,
Lack of guidance
Increased guided
in the system Usability / Self-
38 support queries, Medium Medium walkthroughs,
causes user descriptiveness
user frustration better
confusion
documentation.
Users find it Longer training Provide tutorials,
Usability /
39 difficult to learn times, increased Medium Medium improve help
Learnability
the system errors documentation.
Difficult Frustration, Redesign UI for
Usability /
40 navigation causes longer task Medium Medium better
Operability
users to struggle completion operability.

Risks Matrix with Classification

Risk Likeliho Impac Risk Level

Risk Description
ID od t (from Matrix)

Missing billing features for new Mediu Medium Risk

1 Medium
services m (Yellow)

Incorrect tax calculation for different

2 High High High Risk (Red)
regions

Too many steps to generate a billing Low Risk

3 Low Low
statement (Green)

4 System slows down during peak High High High Risk (Red)
Risk Likeliho Impac Risk Level
Risk Description
ID od t (from Matrix)

billing periods

High CPU usage during batch Mediu Medium Risk

5 Medium
processing m (Yellow)

System cannot handle increasing

6 High High High Risk (Red)
users

Conflicts with other systems on the Mediu Medium Risk

7 Medium
network m (Yellow)

Inability to integrate with 3rd party

8 High High High Risk (Red)
payment gateways

Users struggle to access billing Low Risk

9 Low Low
details (Green)

Mediu Medium Risk

10 Difficult navigation for new users Medium
m (Yellow)

Difficulty navigating billing Mediu Medium Risk

11 Medium
adjustments m (Yellow)

System allows user input errors Mediu Medium Risk

12 Medium
without warnings m (Yellow)

System fails to recover from

13 High High High Risk (Red)
hardware failures

System downtime during peak

14 High High High Risk (Red)
billing days

15 Delayed recovery from outages High High High Risk (Red)

16 Unauthorized access to billing data High High High Risk (Red)

Data corruption during billing

17 High High High Risk (Red)
processing

Lack of audit trails for billing Mediu Medium Risk

18 Medium
operations m (Yellow)

19 Lack of accountability for data Medium Mediu Medium Risk

Risk Likeliho Impac Risk Level
Risk Description
ID od t (from Matrix)

modifications m (Yellow)

20 Vulnerable to spoofing during login High High High Risk (Red)

21 System fails under DDoS attack High High High Risk (Red)

Interdependence of system Mediu Medium Risk

22 Medium
components m (Yellow)

Lack of reusable components for Low Risk

23 Low Low
future enhancements (Green)

24 Difficulty diagnosing issues High High High Risk (Red)

Difficulty modifying existing billing Mediu Medium Risk

25 Medium
rules m (Yellow)

Mediu Medium Risk

26 Complex features are hard to test Medium
m (Yellow)

Difficulty adapting to new service Mediu Medium Risk

27 Medium
offerings m (Yellow)

System cannot handle user or

28 High High High Risk (Red)
transaction growth

Low Risk
29 Errors during system installation Low Low
(Green)

Difficulty replacing or upgrading the Mediu Medium Risk

30 Medium
system m (Yellow)

System moves into unacceptable

31 High High High Risk (Red)
state when overloaded

32 Failure to identify operational risks High High High Risk (Red)

System fails to enter safe mode

33 High High High Risk (Red)
during crashes

Lack of adequate warnings before Mediu Medium Risk

34 Medium
critical errors m (Yellow)

35 Unsafe behavior during integration Medium Mediu Medium Risk

Risk Likeliho Impac Risk Level
Risk Description
ID od t (from Matrix)

with 3rd party m (Yellow)

System is not accessible to users Mediu Medium Risk

36 Medium
with disabilities m (Yellow)

Interface too dull, leading to lack of Low Risk

37 Low Low
user engagement (Green)

Lack of guidance causes user Mediu Medium Risk

38 Medium
confusion m (Yellow)

Users find it difficult to learn the Mediu Medium Risk

39 Medium
system m (Yellow)

Difficult navigation causes users to Mediu Medium Risk

40 Medium
struggle m (Yellow)

Project Risk Register

Ris Risk
Project Risk Potential Impact Mitigation
k ID Level

Establish clear and

detailed project
Miscommunication
Lack of clear documentation;
leading to delayed Mediu
PR1 project involve all
deliverables or incorrect m
requirements stakeholders during
system functionalities
requirement-gathering
sessions

Strictly define project

scope and establish a
Increase in project time
Project scope change request
PR2 and cost, compromising High
creep process to review and
deadlines and budget
approve scope
changes

PR3 Poor resource Insufficient team Mediu Create a resource plan

Ris Risk
Project Risk Potential Impact Mitigation
k ID Level

with proper allocation,

and continuously
capacity, causing
management m monitor team
delays in deliverables
workloads to balance
resources effectively

Develop and maintain

Unforeseen risks a risk register, review
Inadequate risk
PR4 impacting the project High regularly, and assign
management
schedule and success risk owners to monitor
potential risks

Conduct technology
Technology Delays due to inability assessments early on,
limitations or to integrate new and develop
PR5 High
integration technologies or systems alternative solutions or
issues as planned integrate compatible
systems

Establish clear roles

Confusion among team and responsibilities
Unclear roles
members leading to Mediu early in the project and
PR6 and
missed deadlines or m communicate them
responsibilities
tasks effectively across the
team

Set up a
Ineffective communication plan
Misaligned expectations
communication Mediu with regular updates,
PR7 and delays in decision-
among m stakeholder meetings,
making
stakeholders and clear reporting
mechanisms

Maintain strong vendor

Missed milestones or
relationships, set clear
Vendor or third- extended project
deadlines in vendor
PR8 party service timeline due to delays High
contracts, and develop
delays in external services or
contingency plans for
vendor deliverables
delays
Project Risk Matrix with Classification

Risk Likeliho Impac Risk Level (from

Risk Description
ID od t Matrix)

Mediu Medium Risk

PR1 Lack of clear project requirements Medium
m (Yellow)

PR2 Project scope creep High High High Risk (Red)

Mediu Medium Risk

PR3 Poor resource management Medium
m (Yellow)

PR4 Inadequate risk management High High High Risk (Red)

Technology limitations or
PR5 High High High Risk (Red)
integration issues

Mediu Medium Risk

PR6 Unclear roles and responsibilities Medium
m (Yellow)

Ineffective communication among Mediu Medium Risk

PR7 Medium
stakeholders m (Yellow)

Vendor or third-party service

PR8 High High High Risk (Red)
delays

Assumption of Customer System Familiarity

 It is assumed that Telstra's stakeholders (managers, executives, and

users) are already familiar with the core functionalities and limitations
of their Billing Management System. This understanding helps
guide the identification of risks based on real-world use cases.

 Risk Impact and Likelihood Judgements

 The impact and likelihood of each risk have been assessed based on
typical industry standards and past project experiences. This includes
considering Telstra’s capacity to mitigate issues quickly due to its
status as a large and well-resourced organization.

 Scope of Risk Assessment

  The risk assessment is limited to ISO/IEC 25010:2023 product
quality model characteristics and project risks as per the
assignment's scope. Broader risks, such as organizational-level risks
not directly tied to the billing system, have been excluded from this
analysis.

 Risk Mitigations

 It is assumed that all proposed risk mitigations (including

preventive and detective QA activities) are feasible within the project’s
budget and timeline, and that Telstra has the resources, tools, and
skills necessary to implement these mitigations effectively.

 Stable External Environment

 The external environment (e.g., regulatory requirements, market

conditions, technological advancements) is assumed to remain
relatively stable throughout the duration of the project. Significant
changes in regulations or technology may introduce additional risks or
require reassessment of current risks.

Task 2:

Name of the AI tool is ChatGPT 4o @ [Link]

4a) Here are potential risk impacts, risk levels, and mitigations,
including preventative and detective testing and QA activities for each
of the 40 product quality risks:

1. Functional Completeness Risk

 Impact: Missing key features could lead to customer dissatisfaction,

loss of trust, and increased support calls.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:
 o Preventative: Conduct thorough requirements gathering
sessions and ensure stakeholder involvement throughout
development.

o Detective: Perform user acceptance testing (UAT) with a diverse

set of real-world customer scenarios to confirm completeness.

2. Functional Correctness Risk

 Impact: Incorrect billing could lead to financial discrepancies and legal

disputes.

 Risk Level: Critical

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement automated unit testing for all critical

billing calculations and backend integrations.

o Detective: Conduct integration testing to ensure correct data

exchange and validation.

3. Functional Appropriateness Risk

 Impact: Inefficient task completion could lead to frustration and poor

user experience.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Conduct workflow reviews to optimize user

interactions.

o Detective: Perform usability testing with target users to identify

pain points in task completion.

4. Time Behaviour Risk

 Impact: Slow response times could drive customers away and

overload support systems.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Optimize database queries and backend

processing logic.
 o Detective: Conduct performance testing, including load testing
and stress testing under peak conditions.

5. Resource Utilization Risk

 Impact: High CPU/memory usage could lead to server crashes and lost
revenue during high-demand periods.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Optimize code and use caching strategies where

applicable.

o Detective: Monitor resource usage in real-time, using APM

(Application Performance Management) tools and alerts.

6. Capacity Risk

 Impact: The system might fail to handle peak loads, causing outages
or service degradation.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Conduct scalability planning and infrastructure

scaling.

o Detective: Perform stress and capacity testing to determine the

system’s limits and ensure it scales with demand.

7. Co-existence Risk

 Impact: Conflicts with other systems may lead to data corruption and
unexpected behavior.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Ensure system isolation and

compartmentalization of environments.

o Detective: Perform compatibility testing with other systems

running on the same infrastructure.

8. Interoperability Risk
  Impact: Failed third-party integrations may result in incomplete or
incorrect transactions.

 Risk Level: Critical

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Set up regular communication and error-handling

protocols with third-party services.

o Detective: Perform end-to-end testing with all integrated

services and simulate service outages.

9. Usability (Learnability) Risk

 Impact: Users may struggle to adopt the system, increasing training

costs and support requests.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Provide clear onboarding processes and intuitive

interfaces.

o Detective: Conduct usability testing focused on the ease of

learning the system for new users.

10. Usability (Operability) Risk

 Impact: Users may experience frustration and inefficiency while using

the system.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Simplify workflows, minimize user steps, and

ensure responsive design.

o Detective: Use operability tests during UI/UX reviews and

monitor customer support complaints for usability issues.

11. Usability (User Error Protection) Risk

 Impact: Incorrect data input could lead to billing errors, requiring

manual corrections.

 Risk Level: High

  Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement strong input validation, guided error

messages, and correction tools in the UI.

o Detective: Perform data validation testing and UI/UX

walkthroughs to ensure error protection works properly.

12. Reliability (Availability) Risk

 Impact: System downtime could prevent customers from accessing

billing services, leading to lost revenue and dissatisfaction.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement high-availability architecture,

redundant servers, and failover strategies.

o Detective: Monitor uptime and run availability tests under

normal and failure conditions.

13. Reliability (Fault Tolerance) Risk

 Impact: System crashes could lead to data loss or corruption during

critical billing operations.

 Risk Level: Critical

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Design fault-tolerant systems, including

automatic backups and rollback mechanisms.

o Detective: Conduct fault injection testing and simulate

hardware/network failures.

14. Security (Confidentiality) Risk

 Impact: Unauthorized access to sensitive billing data could result in

data breaches and legal penalties.

 Risk Level: Critical

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Use encryption for sensitive data and enforce

role-based access controls.
 o Detective: Conduct regular penetration tests and security audits
to ensure access controls are robust.

15. Security (Integrity) Risk

 Impact: Incorrectly modified billing data may lead to financial errors

and potential fraud.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement data integrity checks and strong

validation before any data is committed.

o Detective: Conduct regular audits, review logs, and implement

real-time integrity checks.

16. Security (Non-repudiation) Risk

 Impact: Lack of traceability could lead to unresolved errors or disputes

about changes in billing data.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement audit trails that log all actions with

timestamps and user information.

o Detective: Review audit logs regularly and ensure retention

policies are enforced.

17. Security (Accountability) Risk

 Impact: Difficulty in attributing actions to users could lead to

unresolved incidents or fraudulent activity.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Use logging mechanisms to capture detailed user

activity with unique identifiers.

o Detective: Regularly audit user logs and ensure compliance with

accountability requirements.

18. Security (Authenticity) Risk

  Impact: Impersonation or unauthorized access by fake users could
compromise system security.

 Risk Level: Critical

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) and

strong password policies.

o Detective: Perform security testing to simulate attempts at

unauthorized access.

19. Security (Resistance) Risk

 Impact: System could be taken offline by denial-of-service attacks,

affecting all users.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Deploy rate-limiting, anti-DoS measures, and

firewalls to prevent attacks.

o Detective: Conduct penetration tests that simulate DoS attacks

to assess system resilience.

20. Maintainability (Modularity) Risk

 Impact: Updates to one module could negatively affect the

performance of others, leading to system instability.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Design the system with modularity in mind,

ensuring components are loosely coupled.

o Detective: Conduct regression testing after updates to ensure

no other modules are affected.

(Continuing with the same format for the remaining risks...)

Final 20 Risks
For each of the final risks, ensure that the impact focuses on operational
disruption, customer dissatisfaction, or financial losses, while the
mitigations focus on both preventative actions (e.g., proper architecture,
security measures) and detective actions (e.g., testing, monitoring,
auditing).

21. Maintainability (Reusability) Risk

 Impact: The inability to reuse components could lead to longer

development cycles and higher costs in future projects.

 Risk Level: Low

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Design components with reusability in mind and

ensure they are modular and well-documented.

o Detective: Regular code reviews to ensure adherence to design

principles that favor reusability.

22. Maintainability (Analysability) Risk

 Impact: Difficulty in diagnosing system issues could lead to longer

downtimes and higher support costs.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement comprehensive logging and

monitoring to capture system behavior in real time.

o Detective: Conduct regular diagnostic tests and log analysis to

ensure easy identification of root causes in case of failures.

23. Maintainability (Modifiability) Risk

 Impact: Complex code or poor documentation may result in extended

time for changes or new feature development.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Regularly refactor code to simplify it and improve

clarity. Maintain updated documentation.
 o Detective: Use automated tools to assess code complexity and
conduct peer reviews for all changes.

24. Maintainability (Testability) Risk

 Impact: Difficulty in testing the system could result in undetected

bugs being pushed to production, leading to system instability.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Design the system with testability in mind (e.g.,

clear separation of logic layers, use of stubs/mocks).

o Detective: Implement automated testing frameworks to ensure

comprehensive test coverage.

25. Flexibility (Adaptability) Risk

 Impact: The system may not be able to adapt to new billing policies or
changes in the market, leading to a competitive disadvantage.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Design the system to be flexible, with

configurable settings for policy changes.

o Detective: Conduct regular change management tests to ensure

adaptability in new market scenarios.

26. Flexibility (Scalability) Risk

 Impact: The system might not handle a sudden increase in user

numbers, leading to service outages and revenue loss.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Build the system with scalable architecture (e.g.,

cloud-based solutions) to handle growing user numbers.

o Detective: Perform load and stress tests to verify the system

can handle expected growth.

27. Flexibility (Installability) Risk

  Impact: Difficulties during installation or upgrades could lead to
service disruptions and lost business hours.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Provide detailed installation guides and

automated deployment scripts to ensure seamless setup.

o Detective: Conduct installation testing in multiple environments

to ensure smooth deployment.

28. Flexibility (Replaceability) Risk

 Impact: The system may not be easily replaceable or upgradeable,

resulting in outdated technology and high maintenance costs.

 Risk Level: Low

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Build the system using standardized, modern

technologies to facilitate future upgrades or replacements.

o Detective: Perform regular technology stack reviews to ensure

compatibility with newer systems.

29. Safety (Operational Constraint) Risk

 Impact: Inability to maintain safe operations during high load or failure

scenarios could result in financial and reputational loss.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Build the system with defined operational

constraints that prevent unsafe states.

o Detective: Monitor system operations in real-time to detect and

address unsafe behaviors.

30. Safety (Risk Identification) Risk

 Impact: The system may fail to identify and mitigate potential risks
(e.g., overbilling or incorrect transactions), leading to legal issues.

 Risk Level: Medium

  Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement proactive risk identification measures,

including automated auditing tools.

o Detective: Regularly audit transaction records and billing

processes to detect irregularities.

31. Safety (Fail Safe) Risk

 Impact: In case of failure, the system may not revert to a safe state,
resulting in data corruption or service outages.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Design fail-safe mechanisms that ensure the

system reverts to a stable state during failures.

o Detective: Perform failover and disaster recovery testing to

ensure the system reverts to a known good state.

32. Safety (Hazard Warning) Risk

 Impact: Failure to warn users or system administrators about

impending failures could lead to catastrophic breakdowns.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement automated warning and alert systems

for critical system conditions (e.g., high CPU load, memory
overflow).

o Detective: Conduct failure simulation tests to verify that

warnings are triggered at appropriate thresholds.

33. Safety (Safe Integration) Risk

 Impact: Integration with third-party systems could lead to instability if

those systems fail or introduce vulnerabilities.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:
 o Preventative: Ensure third-party services meet strict
performance and security criteria before integration.

o Detective: Perform regular integration testing and monitor third-

party system performance.

34. Usability (User Engagement) Risk

 Impact: Lack of user engagement could lead to lower adoption rates

and dissatisfaction with the billing system.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Continuously update the user interface based on

customer feedback and industry trends.

o Detective: Perform A/B testing and collect user engagement

metrics to assess the system’s appeal.

35. Usability (Inclusivity) Risk

 Impact: The system may not be accessible to all users, leading to

exclusion of users with disabilities and non-compliance with
regulations.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG)

from the start of development.

o Detective: Conduct usability and accessibility testing with

diverse user groups, including those with disabilities.

36. Compatibility (Co-existence with Legacy Systems) Risk

 Impact: Conflicts with legacy systems could lead to operational

inefficiencies and data corruption.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Ensure backward compatibility by following

integration guidelines and data formats.
 o Detective: Perform legacy system compatibility tests and mock
data exchanges.

37. Performance Efficiency (Latency Risk)

 Impact: High latency in billing processes could lead to delayed

transactions and customer dissatisfaction.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Optimize system architecture and ensure low-

latency communication between modules.

o Detective: Conduct latency testing in real-time environments

and optimize where needed.

38. Reliability (Recoverability) Risk

 Impact: Failure to recover quickly from a crash could result in

extended downtime and loss of customer trust.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement robust backup and disaster recovery

plans with automated failover mechanisms.

o Detective: Conduct regular recovery drills and ensure recovery

time objectives (RTO) are met.

39. Maintainability (Documentation) Risk

 Impact: Poor documentation could result in difficulties when making

changes or troubleshooting issues, increasing downtime.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Ensure all system components and processes are

documented in detail and updated regularly.

o Detective: Perform regular documentation audits to ensure

completeness and accuracy.

40. Security (Data Leakage) Risk

  Impact: Leakage of sensitive customer billing data could lead to
severe legal and financial penalties.

 Risk Level: Critical

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Use encryption for data at rest and in transit, and

ensure secure backup handling.

o Detective: Conduct regular security audits and penetration

testing to identify potential vulnerabilities.

These mitigations include both preventative testing activities (e.g.,

ensuring proper design, optimizing code, setting up redundancies) and
detective testing activities (e.g., regular audits, performance monitoring,
real-time tests). This approach ensures that risks are identified early and
managed effectively through the system's lifecycle. Let me know if you need
further adjustments or more risks!

4d) Risk Register Example

Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

Functional Missing features Conduct thorough

Completeness lead to customer High requirements
Risk dissatisfaction. gathering and UAT.

Implement
Incorrect billing
Functional Critica automated unit
results in financial
Correctness Risk l tests, integration
discrepancies.
testing.

Functional Inefficient task Perform usability

Mediu
Appropriateness completion testing, optimize
m
Risk frustrates users. workflows.

Slow response times Performance and

Time Behaviour
frustrate users High load testing,
Risk
during peak periods. optimize queries.
 Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

System crashes due Monitor resources,

Resource Mediu
to high resource optimize code
Utilization Risk m
consumption. efficiency.

Scalability testing,
System fails under
increase
Capacity Risk peak user load, High
infrastructure
causing outages.
capacity.

Conflicts with other Perform integration

Mediu
Co-existence Risk systems cause and compatibility
m
performance issues. testing.

Failed third-party End-to-end testing

Interoperability integrations lead to Critica with external
Risk incomplete l services, simulate
transactions. service outages.

Users struggle to
Provide training and
Usability adopt the system, Mediu
optimize UI/UX for
(Learnability) Risk leading to m
ease of learning.
frustration.

Users face
Usability Mediu Improve UI, conduct
inefficiency due to
(Operability) Risk m operability testing.
poor UI design.

Implement input
Usability (User Incorrect inputs lead
validation, test
Error Protection) to billing errors and High
error-handling
Risk manual corrections.
mechanisms.

System downtime
during billing High-availability
Reliability
periods causes High architecture, uptime
(Availability) Risk
customer monitoring.
dissatisfaction.

Reliability (Fault System crashes Critica Implement

Tolerance) Risk result in data loss or l redundancy and
corruption. failover mechanisms,
 Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

test fault tolerance.

Use encryption,
Security Data breaches due implement role-
Critica
(Confidentiality) to unauthorized based access
l
Risk access. control, penetration
testing.

Billing data may be Implement audit

Security
incorrectly modified, High trails, perform data
(Integrity) Risk
leading to fraud. integrity checks.

Lack of traceability
Implement detailed
Security (Non- in billing data
High logging and audit
repudiation) Risk changes causes
trails.
unresolved disputes.

Actions can't be
Security Log all user actions,
attributed to users, Mediu
(Accountability) audit user activity
leading to potential m
Risk regularly.
fraud.

Implement multi-
Unauthorized users
Security factor
gain access to the Critica
(Authenticity) authentication,
system, causing a l
Risk perform security
breach.
testing.

Use rate-limiting,
Denial-of-service
Security anti-DoS measures,
attacks cause High
(Resistance) Risk conduct penetration
system outages.
tests.

Changes to one
Use modular design
Maintainability system component Mediu
principles, conduct
(Modularity) Risk affect others, m
regression testing.
causing instability.

Maintainability Components are not Low Design reusable

(Reusability) Risk reusable in future components, conduct
projects, increasing
 Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

costs. code reviews.

Issues are difficult Implement detailed

Maintainability
to diagnose, leading logging, use
(Analysability) High
to longer diagnostic tools for
Risk
downtimes. real-time monitoring.

Complex code Refactor code,

Maintainability
increases time to Mediu ensure clear
(Modifiability)
implement changes m documentation, use
Risk
or updates. code analysis tools.

Use automated test

Difficulty in testing
Maintainability frameworks, design
leads to undetected High
(Testability) Risk testable
bugs in production.
components.

Build the system

The system can't
Flexibility with configurable
adapt to new billing Mediu
(Adaptability) policies, conduct
policies or market m
Risk change management
changes.
testing.

System can't scale Use scalable

Flexibility to handle user architecture, conduct
High
(Scalability) Risk growth, leading to stress and capacity
failures. testing.

Difficulty in system Provide automated

Flexibility
installation Mediu deployment scripts,
(Installability)
increases downtime m perform installation
Risk
during deployment. testing.

The system may not

Use standardized
Flexibility be easily
technologies,
(Replaceability) replaceable, leading Low
perform regular
Risk to maintenance
system reviews.
issues.

Safety System enters High Implement

(Operational unsafe states during operational
 Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

high load, affecting safeguards, monitor

Constraint) Risk
operations. system constraints.

System fails to
Use automated risk
Safety (Risk identify risks like
Mediu identification tools,
Identification) overbilling, leading
m perform regular
Risk to customer
audits.
dissatisfaction.

System doesn't
Implement fail-safe
revert to a safe
Safety (Fail Safe) mechanisms,
state during High
Risk conduct failover
failures, leading to
testing.
data loss.

Implement
Lack of system
automated alerts for
Safety (Hazard warnings leads to
High critical conditions,
Warning) Risk catastrophic
perform warning
breakdowns.
system tests.

Ensure third-party
Integration with systems meet
Safety (Safe Mediu
third-party systems performance criteria,
Integration) Risk m
causes instability. conduct integration
testing.

Low user Regularly update

Usability (User engagement leads Mediu UI/UX, conduct A/B
Engagement) Risk to poor system m testing to increase
adoption. engagement.

Implement
System is not
accessibility
Usability accessible to users
High standards (WCAG),
(Inclusivity) Risk with disabilities,
perform accessibility
leading to exclusion.
testing.

Compatibility (Co- System conflicts Mediu Perform

existence with with legacy systems compatibility tests,
 Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

ensure data
Legacy Systems) cause operational
m synchronization
Risk inefficiencies.
between systems.

High latency causes Optimize

Performance
delayed billing Mediu architecture,
Efficiency
reports and user m perform latency
(Latency Risk)
frustration. testing.

Failure to recover Implement robust

Reliability
quickly from crashes backup and disaster
(Recoverability) High
leads to extended recovery, conduct
Risk
downtime. recovery drills.

Poor documentation Maintain detailed

Maintainability makes system documentation,
Mediu
(Documentation) updates difficult, conduct
m
Risk leading to longer documentation
downtimes. audits.

Sensitive customer Use encryption for

Security (Data data is leaked, Critica data at rest and in
Leakage) Risk leading to legal l transit, perform
penalties. security audits.

This Risk Register for the 40 product quality risks includes their
corresponding impacts, risk levels, and detailed mitigations. Each
risk is addressed through preventative measures (such as improving
system architecture, processes, and training) and detective
activities (like continuous testing, monitoring, and audits). This will
help in identifying and managing risks to ensure a stable, secure,
and high-quality system for Telstra's Billing Management System.
Let me know if you need further refinements or additional details!
4.b) Here are the 8 testing project risks for the Billing Management
System, including risk impacts, levels, and mitigations with
preventative and detective testing and QA activities:

1. Reputation Risk

 Risk: System failures or defects could damage Telstra's reputation if

customers experience issues during critical billing cycles.

 Impact: Negative media coverage, loss of customer trust, potential

decrease in revenue.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Ensure thorough performance, stress, and user

acceptance testing (UAT) before deployment, with specific focus
on peak billing periods.

o Detective: Implement continuous monitoring and customer

feedback loops to detect issues early, allowing for quick
resolution before widespread impact.

2. Resourcing Risk

 Risk: Insufficient testing resources, such as staff or expertise, could

lead to incomplete or inadequate testing.

 Impact: Missed defects and potential system instability in production.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Hire and train additional testers or outsource

testing to ensure all test phases (e.g., functional, performance,
security) are covered.

o Detective: Track progress against test plans regularly and

conduct periodic reviews to ensure resource levels are sufficient.

3. Budget Risk

 Risk: Budget constraints may limit the scope of testing, leading to

inadequate test coverage.
  Impact: Some parts of the system may not be tested properly,
increasing the likelihood of defects in production.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Prioritize critical components for testing within

budget constraints and explore cost-effective testing tools, such
as automated testing frameworks.

o Detective: Review the test scope and budget allocation

regularly to ensure efficient use of resources and adjust as
necessary.

4. Schedule Risk

 Risk: A compressed timeline may result in rushed or incomplete

testing, leading to defects being introduced in production.

 Impact: Critical bugs may be missed, leading to system failures after

go-live.

 Risk Level: High

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Ensure a realistic testing schedule is part of the

project planning, with dedicated time for testing at each phase.

o Detective: Use test coverage and defect tracking tools to assess

progress and ensure sufficient test execution time is available.

5. Environments Risk

 Risk: Testing environments may not match the production

environment, leading to missed defects that only manifest in
production.

 Impact: Undetected issues during testing that surface in production,

causing instability or failures.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:
 o Preventative: Ensure testing environments mirror the
production environment as closely as possible, including
hardware, software versions, and configurations.

o Detective: Perform environment validation tests to ensure

consistency between test and production environments.

6. Defects Risk

 Risk: A high number of defects during testing may delay testing

schedules and overwhelm resources, leading to insufficient testing of
key areas.

 Impact: Critical bugs could go unresolved, leading to customer-facing

issues in production.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Implement early-stage defect prevention

measures, such as code reviews and static code analysis, to
reduce defect density before formal testing.

o Detective: Utilize a defect management tool to prioritize and

track defects, ensuring the most critical defects are addressed
first.

7. Tools Risk

 Risk: Inadequate or ineffective testing tools may lead to incomplete

testing or inefficiencies, delaying the overall testing process.

 Impact: Missed bugs or inefficiencies in the testing process, leading to

longer testing cycles and higher costs.

 Risk Level: Medium

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Evaluate and select the most suitable tools for

automated testing, performance testing, and defect tracking
early in the project.

o Detective: Continuously review tool performance and

effectiveness throughout the project and make adjustments if
tools are not meeting requirements.
8. Regulations & Compliance Risk

 Risk: The billing system may not meet regulatory requirements (e.g.,
GDPR or financial compliance), leading to fines or legal action.

 Impact: Significant financial and reputational damage due to non-

compliance.

 Risk Level: Critical

 Mitigation:

o Preventative: Incorporate regulatory and compliance

requirements into test cases from the outset, ensuring that all
relevant legal standards are met.

o Detective: Perform compliance audits and run specific tests

focused on data privacy and security regulations to ensure the
system meets legal obligations.

4d) Risk Register Example

Here’s a structured risk register table with risk details, levels, and
mitigations:

Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

Loss of customer Comprehensive testing

Reputation trust, negative media (UAT, stress testing) before
High
Risk coverage, revenue deployment, customer
loss. feedback monitoring.

Insufficient testing
Resourcing Hire/train additional testers,
resources leading to Medium
Risk periodic resource reviews.
incomplete testing.

Budget constraints
Prioritize testing for critical
limiting test
Budget Risk High components, use cost-
coverage, leading to
effective testing tools.
missed bugs.

Schedule Risk Compressed timeline High Plan realistic schedules with

leading to missed dedicated testing time, use
 Risk
Risk Impact Mitigation
Level

defects. test tracking tools.

Test environments not Ensure mirrored

Environments
reflecting production Medium environments, environment
Risk
environments. validation testing.

High number of Defect prevention

Defects Risk defects delaying Medium measures (code reviews),
testing and release. prioritize critical defects.

Inadequate testing
Select suitable tools early,
tools causing
Tools Risk Medium review tool performance
inefficiencies and
regularly.
missed bugs.

Non-compliance
Regulations & Regulatory test cases,
leading to legal
Compliance Critical compliance audits,
penalties and
Risk privacy/security testing.
reputational damage.

This approach ensures that all critical risks in the testing phase of the Billing
Management System are identified and mitigated using both preventative
and detective measures. Let me know if you need further assistance with
any of the risks or details!

4e)

Here are the prompts that were used to generate the product quality risks,
testing project risks, risk levels, impacts, mitigations, and the risk registers
above:

Prompts for Task 2:

Prompt 1: Product Quality Risks

“Generate 40 product quality risks based on the ISO/IEC 25010 model for a
Billing Management System. Cover all quality characteristics and sub-
characteristics (Functional Suitability, Performance Efficiency, Compatibility,
Usability, Reliability, Security, Maintainability, Portability, and Safety). For
each risk, include a description of the risk, potential impacts, and possible
mitigations.”

Prompt 2: Testing Project Risks

“Generate 8 testing project risks for a Billing Management System, focusing

on areas like reputation, resources, budget, schedule, environments,
defects, tools, and regulations. For each risk, include potential impacts, risk
levels, and mitigations, focusing on testing and quality assurance activities.”

Prompt 3: Risk Levels and Mitigations

“For each of the risks generated, specify risk levels (low, medium, high) and
include both preventative and detective testing & QA activities that can
mitigate each risk. Be sure to include detailed impacts and mitigation
strategies for each of the 40 product quality risks and 8 testing project
risks.”

Prompt 4: Risk Register for Product Quality Risks

“Create a detailed risk register for the 40 product quality risks generated
earlier. Include columns for the risk description, impact, risk level (low,
medium, high), and detailed mitigation strategies (both preventative and
detective QA activities).”

Prompt 5: Risk Register for Testing Project Risks

“Create a detailed risk register for the 8 testing project risks generated
earlier. Include columns for the risk description, impact, risk level (low,
medium, high), and detailed mitigation strategies (both preventative and
detective QA activities).”

Task 3 – Compare the Results

In this task, we will compare the risks generated by the AI tool in Task 2
against those identified manually in Task 1, and provide answers to the
given questions.

5a) Did the AI tool generate any risks that were not included in your
risk register?

a. Would any of the new risks have been useful to include in your
risk register (e.g., to produce a higher-quality system for the
customer)?
Yes, the AI-generated some risks that were not identified during the manual
risk assessment in Task 1. For example, the AI identified risks related to
usability inclusivity, such as accessibility for users with disabilities
(following WCAG standards). This was not explicitly covered in the
manually identified risks. Incorporating inclusivity risks could ensure that the
billing system is accessible to a wider range of users, which is critical in
today’s regulatory environment.

Additionally, the AI-generated interoperability risk focused on potential

conflicts with third-party services, which is crucial for payment gateways and
other external integrations. While integration risks were considered
manually, the specific case of third-party service failures was highlighted
more directly by the AI.

Would it be useful?
Yes, including these risks would be valuable to produce a more robust and
higher-quality system by addressing accessibility, compliance, and the
growing dependence on third-party services.

b. Were any of the new risks not useful?

Some AI-generated risks may not be directly relevant or might be overly

general. For example, flexibility and replaceability risks might not be as
immediately useful for a Billing Management System, which typically has
a longer lifecycle and fewer requirements for frequent replacements. These
risks may not warrant significant attention during the current system
lifecycle phase but could be considered for long-term strategic planning.

5b) Were any ISO/IEC 25010:2023 product quality sub-

characteristics missed by the AI tool?

a. Which sub-characteristics were missed?

The AI tool covered most of the critical ISO/IEC 25010:2023 sub-

characteristics, but it didn’t explicitly mention risks under self-
descriptiveness (Usability), which refers to how easily a system explains
itself to users. Additionally, maturity (Reliability) was not given specific
attention in the AI-generated risks.

b. Why do you think they were missed?

These sub-characteristics might have been missed because they are more
user-experience oriented and nuanced, requiring deep context about the
specific system users and their expectations. AI might focus more on
technical and functional risks, as those are more readily defined by
structured data. Self-descriptiveness and maturity often involve subtler
insights that depend on qualitative feedback from users and system
operators, which might be harder for AI to grasp without real-world context.

c. Could any of the missing sub-characteristics impact the quality of

the system?

Yes, self-descriptiveness could impact the usability of the system,

making it harder for users to understand the interface and navigate through
the billing process, which could lead to increased support requests and
user dissatisfaction. Maturity affects system reliability over time, and if
overlooked, the system may not handle long-term operational stresses well,
potentially leading to increased failures or defects after prolonged usage.

5c) Did the AI tool introduce any new risk types that were not
included in the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 product quality model?

a. Were they useful?

Yes, the AI tool introduced risk types related to regulatory compliance and
accessibility, particularly around GDPR compliance and adherence to
accessibility standards like WCAG. While these specific risk types are not
explicitly listed in the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 model, they are highly relevant
in today’s software development environment, especially in industries that
handle sensitive data or have diverse user bases.

Regulatory and compliance risks ensure that the system avoids legal
penalties and safeguards user data, and accessibility risks ensure
inclusivity for all users, which could prevent the exclusion of users with
disabilities.

b. Would they be useful to include in the ISO/IEC 25010 product

quality model?

Yes, including these new risk types (e.g., compliance and accessibility) in
the ISO/IEC 25010 model would be highly beneficial. Modern systems
operate under strict regulatory frameworks, and accessibility is a growing
concern in both public and private sectors. By integrating these risks into the
model, organizations can ensure that their systems are legally compliant and
accessible to all users, ultimately improving system quality and user
satisfaction.

5d) Which approach to risk identification do you think could result in

a higher-quality system – task 1, task 2, or a combination?

A combination of both approaches would likely result in the highest

quality system. Here’s why:

 Task 1 (Manual): The manual approach is valuable because it is

context-specific and tailored to the actual project and customer
needs. It draws on detailed knowledge of the Billing Management
System and its intended users, ensuring that relevant and business-
critical risks are identified. However, it might be limited by the
experience or perspective of the assessor, potentially missing broader
or industry-wide risks.

 Task 2 (AI-Generated): The AI approach excels at broad coverage

of technical risks, including industry-standard risks like security
vulnerabilities or performance risks. AI can suggest regulatory
compliance and accessibility risks that might not be immediately
apparent. However, AI might miss context-specific nuances and
generate overly general or less relevant risks for the specific system.

Combining the manual specificity from Task 1 with the comprehensive

technical breadth from Task 2 would provide a holistic view of risks. The
manual input ensures the system is aligned with business goals and
customer expectations, while the AI adds layers of industry-wide
considerations and best practices, including some overlooked areas like
compliance and inclusivity.