“ QUALITY STRATEGY OVERHAUL “

Aristocrat Technologies
About : Aristocrat Technologies

Aristocrat Technologies is an ASXIOO listed company and one of the world’s leading
providers of gaming solutions. We're licensed in 240 gaming jurisdictions and operate in
90 countries around the world, with a team of over 5000 employees who deliver
outstanding results by pushing the boundaries of innovation, creativity and technology.

Since our humble beginnings in 1953, we've been driven by a desire to create the world's
greatest gaming experience, every day. We offer a diverse range of products and services,
including electronic gaming machines, social gaming and casino management systems. But
despite our global presence and exponential growth, we remain an ideas company at
heart, committed to entertaining the world one game at a time.

To learn more about our product portfolio, kindly Click Here

Global Presence & Our Mission | Aristocrat Technologies

• To create the world’s greatest gaming experience everyday.

• Integrity is a core objective of gambling policy in all regulated markets and while our products are robustly tested under gambling
regulations, these additional quality controls complement that objective.
• A central pillar of Aristocrat’s business is strict compliance with regulatory requirements in all markets that it does business.
• As part of its corporate governance strategy, Aristocrat actively seeks to uphold objectives of integrity and fairness through its robust
compliance strategy.
• Aristocrat’s quality strategy flows from Aristocrat’s core values and behaviours.
 SECTION - 1
[ Project Background and Purpose ]

Section 1.01 : Organizational Approach to Project Planning

Section 1.02 : Project Identification Process
Section 1.03 : Project Selection Process
Section 1.04 : Project Selection (Specific)
Section 1.05 : Project Goals and Benefits
Section 1.06 : Success Measures/Criteria Identified
Section # 1.01 Organizational Approach to Project Planning

WHO ?

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Product Officer
Chief Technology Officer
Sr. Vice President – Quality
Quality Sr. Vice President – Technology
Sr. Director – Field Quality
Advisory Sr. Director – Global Quality
Council* Head – Quality ( India )
*formed in 2016

Strategic Factors Lead Indicators

TEAM CHARTER
> Greater Customer Satisfaction > Player Feedback, Customer
Surveys, Customer Connects
• Define Organizational Quality > Minimize Field Defects > Field Service Reports
Strategy
• Sponsor Quality Initiatives > Benchmark | Standardize > Quality Summits, SME Workshops,
• Provide Strategic Direction our Software Practices External Surveys (CEB)
• Govern Project Selection
• Define Minimum Adherence > Robust Audit Framework > Quality Summits, SME Workshops,
External Surveys (CEB)
Standards
• Create Open Channels of > Traceability & Enhance Field > Quality Performance Indicators
Issue Management Workflow
Communication
Section # 1.01 Organizational Approach to Project Planning

✓ Each planning cycle essentially goes through a 5 step strategic planning process ( depicted below )
✓ Outcomes of key initiatives, their performance indicators ( positive / negative ) fed into this process to yield :
➢ Strategic objectives, goals, communication plan, budgets and execution mechanism aligned to current
planning cycle in coherence to the organizational product strategy

Source: CEB

• Measure and evaluate outcomes, adoption rates & key performance indicators
• Record the results > results undergo external audit process > Published as/when approved
• Results then analyzed for Expected vs. Actual outcomes
Section # 1.02 Project Identification Process (General)
Section # 1.03: Project Selection Process (General)

Objectives of the Quality Summit :

• Brainstorm Our Strategic Business Vision
• Enhance Overall Customer Experience
• Establish a Robust Audit Framework
• Strategize Around Benchmarking and
Standardization of Software Practices
• Discuss Further Traceability &
Enhancements in Field Issue Management
Workflow

Share
Gather
Workshops Brainstorm Learnings /
Momentum
Results
1.02 : Gaps Identified  Implications  Goals

High Cost of Defect

Field Issues 1 5 Correction

Benchmarking 2 6 Weak Culture of Quality

Lack of Common Quality

Address Silos 3 7 Strategy on Org. Level

Practice Standardization 4 8 No Audit Framework

MAJOR GAPS
• Percentage of Issues Identified Late into
Development Cycles
• High Rework to Approval Ratio
• Low Customer Satisfaction Score
• High Cost of Quality
• Development Studios Operating in Silos
• Lack of Process Standardization &
Maturity
IMPLICATIONS
• Millions of dollars spent on reworks
• Loss of customer & player trust
• Complicated issue resolution workflows
• Un-auditable product development
practices
• No benchmarking possible
• Lack of Structure to flow of information
and best practices.
GOALS
• Reduce Rework to Approval Ratio by
25% Year on Year till 2020
• Introduce AW4-SW-ST-Audit
• Formalize Field Issue Mgmt. Workflow
• Form Dedicated Quality Org.
• Build Intrinsic Culture of Quality
• Reward Quality Goals Achievements
• Improve Customer Trust
Section # 1.04 Project Selection (Specific)

Identify Potential Prioritization Matrix

Problem Identification Select Projects
Candidates Generation

Customer Ease of
Project/Gap Description Strategic Impact
Impact
Product Impact
Implementation OVERALL
Software Quality Issues / Field Issues H H H L H
High Cost of Defect Correction H L M M M
Lack of Common Quality Strategy on Org. Level H H H M H
No Standardization of Practices H H H L H
No Audit Framework M L M M M
Weak Field Issue Management System H H H H H
Weak Culture of Quality H M M M M

Priorities Identified :
1. Fix High Occurrences of Software Quality Issues and Field Issues
2. Lack of a dedicated central quality strategy at org. level ( Intrinsic Cleansing  Governance Model )
3. No Benchmarking, Standardization of Software Practices ( Functional Silos )
4. Weak Field Issue Management System – Introduce enhanced workflow
Section # 1.04 Project Selection (Specific)
2015
• Trade-off between Quality and
Time
• Addressing field issues
Challenges
• Learnings from field issues
• No Central Quality Organization
alignment
• Quality Policy & Objectives
• Field Issue Management
• Root cause Analysis
Initiatives
• Introduce rework targets
• Started creation of a central
quality organization
High Rework
Overheads
2016
• Learnings from Field Issues not
implemented
• No dedicated platform to discuss
Quality initiatives
• Development and Test practices
• Introduction of new Rework vs
Approval targets
• Acceptability of Rework Targets
• Quality KPOs for everyone
• Quality Action Request (QAR)
• Aristocrat Development and Test
Frameworks
• Redefine rework metrics
• Formed a strategically aligned
Core Quality Organization
• Introduced Annual Quality
Summits
• Root Cause
Deep Dive Analysis
Action • Strategic
Planning Initiatives
2017 2018
• Critical defects discovered late in
the development and delivery
• Implement Audit framework
cycle.
• Further build Culture of Quality
• Customer Experience not
• Upscale workforce skills
improving
• Streamline communication
• Employees not empowered to
channels
make quality decisions, quality
• Upscale and streamline existing
performance not shared.
framework challenges
• Lack of established quality
gate/criteria for measuring Cost of
Quality
• Next Gen QAR Rollout
• Quality Trainings
• Extend Quality Organization (Hub
• Aristocrat Way for Software
& Spoke)
Development & Software Test
• Culture of Quality
Auditing (AW4SW/T)
• Quality Plan and Quality Cert
• Quality Governance – Further
• Started measuring Cost of Quality
Develop Hub & Spoke
Organization
Section # 1.05: Project Goals and benefits

Formulate Quality Policy Streamline Field issue

and disseminate across management by defining
the organization process and identifying owners

Continuous Improvement of
Enhance Quality Awareness by
Software Practices by
Publishing & Tracking External
Mandating RCA’s via Quality
Failure Cost
Action Requests (QAR)

Benchmarking and
Integrate Quality with
Standardization of Software
Delivery via Q-Plan/Q-Cert
Practices via Aristocrat
Phase Gate Reviews
Specific Frameworks

GOALS / BENEFITS
Section # 1.06: Success Measures/Criteria Identified

INITIAL REWORK TARGET

INTRODUCED
Introduced a target maximum of ‘N’ field REVISED REWORK
issues per qtr. Q2-2015 onwards which
would be monitored and reviewed after a TARGETS – PHASE 2
year. Results were reviewed and the new target
of 25% year over year reduction in
reworks starting Q1-2017

REDUCED FIELD ISSUES
It was analyzed that these actions will
have a direct effect on reduction in Field
Issues which is critical for the organization
to be a differentiator in this business area.
BENCHMARKED
PRACTICES
Adoption of standardized practices across
all software groups in Aristocrat.
PUSH LIMITS – PHASE 3
After continuously meeting the rework
reduction targets for an extended period
of time, it was again time to stretch the
goals, so target to reduce the rework
count by further 25% starting Q2-2018
 SECTION - 2
[ Project Framework ]

Section 2.01 : Concise Project Statement

Section 2.02 : Type of Project
Section 2.03 : Scope Statement
Section 2.04 : Assumptions/Expectations
Section 2.05 : Project Schedule/High-level Plan
Section 2.06 : Budget (Financial or Resource)
Section 2.07 : Risk Management
Section # 2.01 | 2.02 Project Statement | Type

Section 2.01 : Project Statement

Aristocrat Technologies operates in a heavily regulated Casino gaming and entertainment business. It is a highly
competitive space with almost no new casino's getting added every year. Quality along with business performance is
key. "Critical & High Severity Field Issues" is one of the important indicators of product Quality. Currently, Field issues
are a major source of not only revenue loss but also loss of brand value and market goodwill.

Project objective is to reduce the "Critical & High Severity Field Issues" and overall
rework count by 25% year over year
Development and implementation of Frameworks (Product Quality, Development, Testing) which help bake quality in
the products are planned. Their impact should result in the reduction of critical field defect count across different
Development Teams in Aristocrat Technologies. These processes will be used as a basis, guide, and/or benchmark for
product development teams and facilitate their continuous and/or transformational change efforts.
Section 2.02 : Project Type
Project uses a typical multi-iterative PDCA methodology : Plan-Do-Check-Act
Section # 2.03 Project Scope, Project Assumptions

In Scope Out of Scope

(Limitations)

• “How-to” around Software Dev & Test

• Applicable for Product Development
practices
Organization within Aristocrat
• Development & Testing practices for
• Field Issue Management Framework
Hardware groups
• Product Quality Framework
• Mandate on specific tools for SW Dev
• Software Development & Testing
• Mandate on specific tools for SW
Process Standardization
Testing
• Audit Framework
• Framework adoption not mandatory
• Governance model for
for newly acquired Groups ( Digital )
implementation and evolution of
above initiatives
• Build a Culture of Quality
Section # 2.04 Project Assumptions

Section 2.04 : Project Assumptions / Expectations

Executed using Hub &

Spoke Model Framework Development
Multi-Year Project Hub: Central Quality Team Ownership: Central
Spoke: Development Quality Team (CQT)
Teams

Framework
Framework will continue
Implementation
Generic Framework to evolve based on
Ownership: Development
feedback
Teams

Development Teams
Digital Business out of
Executive Buy-in from Quality measured via
Immediate Framework
Development Teams “Reworks to Approval
Implementation Scope
Ratio”

Outcomes to be Audited Continuous Evolution of Hiring of New Resources &

by External & Internal Frameworks – Ownership Upscaling of Existing
Agencies with CQT Capability
Section # 2.05, 2.06 Project Schedule, Project Budget ( F&R )

Section 2.05 : Project Schedule

SECTION # 2.06 – Project Budget

Team submits budgets Quarterly Review

• Corporate initiates
budget exercise
• Timelines shared with
teams to share first draft
• Team creates budgets
• Create cost bridge with
justification
• Corporate reviews and
critically review every $
of ask • Actuals v/s Plan review
• Review changes and • Adjust and resubmit
approve

Yearly Budget Review and Feedback

Travel &
Engagement

Business case is created and

Tools and Quality Administrati submitted to CPO and Corporate
Trainings ve Expenses
Budget finance team for approval of
additional head count.

Primary Quality budget components

Hiring
Resources
Section 2.07 : Risk Assessment Matrix
SEVERITY

ACCEPTABLE TOLERABLE UNDESIRABLE INTOLERABLE

LITTLE TO NO EFFECT ON EVENT EFFECTS ARE FELT, BUT NOT SERIOUS IMPACT TO THE COURSE OF COULD RESULT IN DISASTER
CRITICAL TO OUTCOME ACTION AND OUTCOME

IMPROBABLE LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH

RISK IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR

➢ Lack of Adherence
LIKELIHOOD

POSSIBLE LOW MEDIUM HIGH EXTREME

RISK WILL LIKELY OCCUR

➢ Team’s Resistance to Change
➢ Process Overhead - Burnout

PROBABLE MEDIUM HIGH HIGH EXTREME

RISK WILL OCCUR

➢ Impact on Time to Market

** This assessment matrix is revisited monthly to detect/brainstorm around any probable risk that may likely be introduced.

LOW MEDIUM HIGH EXTREME

RISK 1 – ALARP (as low as 2 – GENERALLY
0 – ACCEPTABLE 3 – INTOLERABLE
RATING ––––––––––––––––––
reasonably practicable)
––––––––––––––––––
UNACCEPTABLE
–––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––
KEY OK TO PROCEED TAKE MITIGATION SEEK SUPPORT PLACE EVENT
EFFORTS ON HOLD
Section # 2.07 Risk Management ( major themes and high level mitigation plan )

TEAMS’ RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

• C-Level Buy In
01 • Providing Flexibility to Team on How-To’s around Practice Implementation
• Rolling out Frameworks in phases rather than in Big Bang rollouts

LACK OF ADHERENCE
02 •
•
Regular assessment and audits by Central Quality Group
Embed teams with Quality Evangelist
• Implementation of Hub & Spoke Governance Model

PROCESS OVERHEAD - BURNOUT

03 During Transition period include the quality practice incorporation overheads as part
of project planning and manage stakeholder expectations.

04
PRODUCT’S TIME TO MARKET
Introduction of all these new practices/frameworks could lead to slow adoption and
hence increased time to market for the product ( in product lifecycle ) – Mitigation
strategy put in place to address the risk via C-Level buy-ins, trainings and resource
additions/alignment.
 SECTION - 3
[ Project Stakeholders and the Project Team ]

Section 3.01 : Stakeholders and How Identified

Section 3.02 : Project Champion
Section 3.03 : Project Team Selection
Section 3.04 : Team Preparation
Section 3.05 : Team Routines
SECTION # 3.01 - Stakeholder and How Identified?
Stakeholder
H C- Level
H Quality Spoke
H Central Quality Team (CQT)
H Head of Development
Development Program Managers
Sales Marketing Team
Development Team
Accredited Test Facility
H Customers
Impact: H High
Who Role
• Drive strategic objectives
Sponsor • Review strategic initiatives
• Drive initiatives in functional teams
Quality Mentors/SME • Work closely with Central Quality team
• Owner of Global Quality
Champion • Driving and Tracking strategic goals
• Process Owners of functional teams
Development Heads • RCA, Specific Preventive Action , CAPA owners
• Planning, Monitoring & Control,
Program Managers Execution
Sales/Marketing Teams • Interface between Customers and teams
Team Members • Process Execution and adherence
External Stakeholders
QA & Approval Vendors Testing (QA and Compliance)
Casinos/Clubs Customer Feedback
SECTION # 3.01 - Stakeholder and How Identified?

3.01.1 - Stakeholder Analysis and Strategy

Support
Type of Impact
Group S P C Power Rank Key Rep. Strategy (Communication)
Stakeholder Degree
Have Need
Bi-weekly update through
C - Level Y High 1 Internal High CPO 5 5 metrics/dashboards; Monthly CEO
Report
Spoke in each Monthly hub and spoke meetings;
Functional Quality Spoke Y Y Y High 2 Internal High 4 5
function Skype calls; emails
Quality team
Central Quality team Y Y Y High 2 Internal High 5 5 Weekly staff/standup meetings
members
Bi-weekly update through
Heads of
Head of Development Y Y Y High 2 Internal High 3 5 metrics/dashboard; Regular
Functions
feedback on audit results
Development Program
Y Y Moderate 3 Internal
Managers
Sales/Marketing Team Y Moderate 3 Internal
Development Team Y Y Y Moderate 3 Internal
Accredited Test Facility Y None 4 External
Customers Y High 2 External High Casino Managers 5 5 Monthly meetings with sales team
SECTION # 3.01 - Stakeholder and How Identified?

3.01.2 - Stakeholder Prioritization

C-Level & Customers

Functional Quality Spoke

Central Quality Team

Head of Development

Development
Program Managers

Sales/Marketing &
Dev Team

Accredited
Test
Facility
SECTION # 3.02 – Project Champions

Roles, Expectations and Communication Plan from Project Team

Project Role Title and Team Expectations Communication Plan

• Monthly CPO Ops meeting

• Provide strategic vision
• Remove roadblocks
Sponsor C-Level • Program cost approvals
• Guarantee commitment
to team
• 1:1 with Sr. VP CQT
• Bi-weekly Reports/
dashboards/metrics
• Weekly field issue report
• External Audit findings

• Ensure alignment with

business • Weekly staff meeting
• Ensure resource • Bi-weekly project status
Champion Sr. VP and CQT allocation meetings
• Project cost approvals • Bi-weekly Reports/
dashboards/metrics
• Decision making

• Monthly meeting with CQT

Quality • Ensure process alignment
• Bi-weekly meetings on field
QE Head and and adherence
Mentors/S Functional teams • Collaboration with CQT
issues
• Bi-weekly Reports/
ME • Reporting and audit
dashboards/metrics
SECTION # 3.03 – Project Team Selection
Stakeholder
Group

Retrospect and
Project Team
review
Members
periodically

Identify & Bridge

Skill Mapping
gaps

Gaps
Project Team Group Stakeholder Group Required Skills Level of Knowledge
Identified
• Influence and leadership
Sponsor C-Level • Strategic Vision Adequate None
• Negotiation
• Decision Making
• Process Knowledge
Sr. VP Adequate None
• Strategic vision
• Influence and leadership
Champion • Quality Tools
• Process Knowledge There were areas where gaps
CQT team • Project Management were identified and addressed Yes
• Effective Communication in 3.04 section
• Product & System Knowledge
• Quality Tools
• Product & System Knowledge There were areas where gaps
Quality Mentors/SME Quality SPOKE • Effective Communication were identified and addressed Yes
• Innovative thinking in 3.04 section
• Project Management
SECTION # 3.03 – Project Team Selection – Hub/Spoke Organization

Dev
Team A
Fulfillment
Dev
Team B

Dev Hub and Spoke model

Class II
Team C Central Quality Team acts as a HUB and
every functional team and its sub teams
have a SPOKE as a representation of
Quality SPOKE

Sales/M Dev
arketing Team Z
CQT Advantages of the model
• Customer Focus
• Knowledge of internal processes
Tech • Consultant support for quick
Systems
Services
kickoff
• Supported and prioritized by
leadership

Manufac Platform,
turing Digital
HW
Supplier Engineer
ing

The Spoke highlighted are team

members for this project
SECTION # 3.04 – Team Preparation

3.04.1 - Before the project started, what was done to prepare team to work together as a single unit?

Virtual
weekly
Storming: Team voice their opinions, Hub and
work with each other and learn about
individual styles. Disagreements and Spoke
clashes are resolved. meetings
Leadership is important to manage
conflicts and assign tasks.

One Team
Phone Hub and
calls and Spoke
instant group on
messaging confluence

Forming: Team learns about

opportunities and challenges and then
Team agrees on goals.
Building Discussion on defining the scope of
work and how to approach it.
SECTION # 3.04 – Team Preparation

3.04.2 - Before the project started, what specific trainings was done?

Smart Goals and

Basic Quality tools Framework RCA Team Management
Change Management
• Training on • Internal training • Internal training on • External training • External Behavioral
identifying and session on Quality AW4SW/T (ASQ based pilot training on team
setting smart goals Action Request • Internal training on online) on dynamics
• Training on effective (QAR) Q-PLAN and Q-CERT conducting effective
and efficient change RCA (5 Why, 8D)
management and CAPA

2 Days 1 Day 2 Days 2 Days 2 Days

Norming: Team shares a common goal,

share responsibility and ambition to
work for the success of the team’s
goals.
SECTION # 3.04 – Team Preparation

3.04.3 - Team Formation

Structural Participants
Organization Core Responsibilities
Class II
Organization
Dev A
Dev B • Decentralized hybrid
QAR/RCA/CAPA structure
Dev C AW4SW/T • Monthly Hub & Spoke
connect sessions
Dev Z Quality Framework
• Share lessons learned &
Systems Q-Plan/Cert collaboration
Best Practices • Defined Roles and
Tech, Platform, Digital Responsibilities
In-house Initiatives
HW Engineering
Process adherence
Supplier
Manufacturing
Tech Services Actions
Commercial • Monthly Reviews & Key
issues
Fulfillment • Resource discussion(s)
• Generate KPO(s)
Hub and Spoke Discussion • Quality Initiatives/In-
house/CQT
SECTION # 3.05 – Communication Matrix / Team Routine

What Why When Whom How Type

Progress against MIS and

plan Steering Dashboard review
CPO Ops Review Monthly Two-way
Risks and help Committee on video
needed conference

CQT tracking and F2F standup or on

Project Review Champion and Two-way
Weekly video conference;
monitoring CQT team
emails; Slack

Tracking on
Hub and Spoke movement of Hub and Spoke Skype calls; Two-way
Monthly
Review initiatives and team emails; video cons
adherence

External Stakeholders
SLA review
In-person
Quality
Quarterly 3rd Party Testing meetings; video Two-way
improvements Quarterly
Business Review and CQT conference;
Continuous emails
improvement

Sales/Marketing Emails; in-person

Customer Voice Customer Voice Monthly Two-way
and Customers meetings
 SECTION - 4
[ Project Overview ]

Section 4.01 : Project Approach

Section 4.02 : Tools Used Throughout Project
Section 4.03 : Tool Output at Different Stages of Project
Section 4.04 : How Team Was Prepared to Use the Tools
Section 4.05 : Dealing with Project Risk
Section 4.06 : Encountering and Handling Resistance as a Risk
Section 4.07 : Stakeholder Involvement in Project
 Section 4.01 : Project Approach
Project Approach
Project used a typical multi-iterative PDCA methodology : Plan-Do-Check-Act

Each PDCA iteration outcome looks

something like this, coercively
constituting of a pre-decided set of
quality goals aligned to achieve their
respective objectives using
specifically designed tools and
methodologies
Section 4.01 : Five Step Strategic Planning & Execution Process

1 C 2 C 3 A P 4 D 5 D
Identify Evaluate Establish
the Internal Communicate Establish
Stage Lessons Strategic to Business Budget and
from Last and External Goals and
Environment Partners Structure
Year Objectives

Objective Document Create a current Based on the Communicate Align resources to

lessons learned snapshot of company’s Quality strategy to support
and key current Quality strategic goals, the organization. achievement of
objectives to performance and identify Quality strategy.
continue through opportunities. goals and
next year. objectives.

Activities ■ Review results ■ Evaluate ■ Work with key ■ Develop key ■ Set org structure
to date. industry stakeholders to messages and allocate
trends. develop linking strategic resources.
■ Identify critical goals and priorities and
successes, ■ Assess current ■ Communicate
objectives. business goals.
failures, and Quality priorities to
root causes. capabilities. ■ Evaluate risks ■ Communicate teams.
and opportunities priorities
■ Revisit functional ■ Collect
of potential goals to business
mission and company and/or and objectives. partners.
vision. business goals.

Source : CEB

P PLAN D DO C CHECK A ACT

 Section 4.02 : Tools Used Throughout Project

Methods / Tools Used WHY these Tools ?

Validated Brainstorming Sessions and Focused Brainstorming sessions and focused group workshops were chosen to align all
stakeholders and leadership in one direction and create an effective platform
Problem Areas Group Workshops for discussing and sharing of knowledge across the Quality Organization
( from section 1 & 2 )
Quality Summits held annually at one of our global locations sees the entire
Quality Summits quality Hub – Spoke come together to discuss and align quality improvement
• High Volume of efforts and goals in ONE direction and meet again with updates on results and
( Yearly Quality Leadership Conventions )
Field Issues learnings from previous seasons and respective initiatives
• Time to Market
vs More focused
Generation Surveys of various kinds were used as tools to measure the
quality approach of Possible Quality Surveys performance and acceptability of the current practices, any feedback
• Insufficient Solutions on proposed initiatives, identify gaps in what we do and more.
documentation
Quality champions and influencers were identified to fortify the hub spoke
for RCA’s & Quality Champions / Quality approach and penetrate deeper into each execution layer to strengthen the
Learnings communication gaps identified via other tools, bringing in empowerment &
• Inconsistent Influencers / 3rd Party Experts
ownership at all levels
software
Development and Benchmarked our product quality goals and practices to the best of
Testing practices Benchmarking what’s available in the market and competitors to align our efforts
• Lack of an Audit where they need to be focused.
framework and
benchmarking
mechanism Pilot projects of various kinds were run to determine effectiveness,
• Detection of Pilot Projects acceptability, scalability and robustness of proposed solutions and
critical defects alignment with our quality objectives.
late into delivery
cycles
• Employees not Pilot projects, SME workshops, extensive 2-way communication of progress
empowered and data, aligning of quality objectives with inclusive goals for all verticals and
enough to make
Selection Stakeholder Buy-in a comprehensive stakeholder engagement plans were used as means to align
& and get stakeholder buy in at all levels.
quality related
decisions Validation
• Customer of
experience not Solution Selection Workshops & Solutions architects and focused workshops were conducted with all SME’s from
Solutions required verticals to identify best way forward and align ownership as per guidelines
improving SME Consultations as outcomes of these workshops.
• Lack of a quality
gate / criteria
Solutions were also analyzed for their alignment with our organizational
Priorities & Product Timelines quality strategy and product delivery priorities to make the best of the efforts
and opportunities at hand.
 Section 4.03 : Tools Output at Each Phase / Level
FY2016 Quality Strategy
• SDLC Alignment - Undertake a review of the SDLC
processes across all software teams, identify common
best practices and learnings that can be propagated –
driving to common practices and metrics.
• Software D&D Process Standardization – Identified a
gap in intra organizational adherence and
understanding of software development – testing best
practices and definition of “DONE”
• Define Metrics - Agree and define the core quality
metrics that all software teams can agree and endorse.
Use this metric to trend and drive systemic
improvements, and where possible aligning with the
•
C3G data sets
Field Issue Reviews / RCA - Undertake a review of the
current RCA processes with the goal identifying process
changes to ensuring learnings from previous Field
issues are understood and fed back into our design /
development and test practices
• Quality in Requirements - Define with the teams
measures and processes that drive continual
improvements in the quality of requirements into the
teams.
• Culture of Quality – Identified gaps in intra
organisational understanding of quality and lack of a
cultural bent towards quality best practices
• Class 3 Steering Committee - Initiate a Class 3 cross
function body tasked to review and ratify quality and
strategy that is across functions
• Quality Org Review - undertake a review of the testing
organisations to understand capability and total
coverage
• Introduction of R2A Ratio Quality Metrics –
Introduction of the rework to approvals quality
performance measurement metrics and incentive
payout linkage, set measurement goals
++FY2017 Quality Strategy FY2018
• Introduction of AW4SW-T-Audit – Taking clue from the
need identified in 2016 Quality Summit& Surveys in 2016,
the steering committee created, reviewed and rolled out
AW4SW-T-Audit of “Aristocrat Way For Software
Development – Test – Audit Frameworks “ to standardize
software D&D practices organization wide framework and
benchmark practices.
• Quality Action Request ( QAR 1.0 ) Framework Introduced –
An inhouse tool based on SharePoint infrastructure
introduced to capture learnings and document RCA’s of all
field issues and Critical Internal issues and Publish
Learnings/Insights at regular intervals across verticals and
studios.
• Quality Governance/Audit Model Introduced – with
creation of Quality Task Force and Quality Advisory Council
Continued
•
using AW4Audit & other Tools.
CEB Quality Maturity Assessment – Undertook an
over the
organization wide survey to help us measure our quality
maturity ratings and benchmark our practices and capability
next slide
: CEB Ignition™ Diagnostic enables organizations to improve
functional performance by assessing their performance
across 28 functional activities across 8 functional objectives.
The diagnostic measures two primary dimensions: Maturity
and Importance.
• Introduction of Culture of Quality Framework – created a
org-wide task force, champions and quality Influencers to
drive and create a Culture of Quality and embark a evenly
spaced and self-driven functional quality improvement
program driven by strategic alignment to overall quality
objectives of Aristocrat.
• Tools & Best Practices Introduced across the verticals to
support change management and enable workforce to
deliver and adapt.
• Integrated quality planning, “shift left” – Introduction of
the shift left approach to way we plan our quality objectives
for each phase / product.
• Interop Testing – Fill gaps in our Interoperability dimensions
• RCA Framework Introduction – Benchmarking – Trainings
• Hardware Forecasting Methodologies Introduction
• Introduction of better Project / Program management tools
and practices.
• Quality Empowerment Program
• Maintain R2A Objectives & Push Boundaries Further –
Improve upon and maintain existing R2A trends and use
above tools to push existing boundaries/goals ( 25% Lesser )
Section 4.03 : Tools Output at Each Phase / Level

FY2018 Quality Strategy FY2019 Quality Strategy

• AW4SW-T-Audit 2.0 Rollout- Undertake a review of
the SDLC processes across all software teams,
identify common best practices and learnings that
can be propagated – driving to common practices
and metrics.
• QAR Tool 2.0 Rollout – Quality Action Request
framework 2.0 based on low code cloud rollout to
stakeholders across the organization.
• Q-Plan - Communicates quality goals to all
stakeholders
• Q-Cert - Validates and proves how Q-Plan objectives
were met
• QPi Dashboards – Introduction of a highly inclusive
and integrating Quality performance measuring
dashboard, published org-wide to showcase more

WIP
comprehensive and wholesome trends in all quality
dimensions.
• Improved Interoperability Strategy Rollout
• Decrease R2A Ratio Further – Push existing
boundaries in pursuit of excellence and measure

•
sustenance ( further down by 25% )
Maintain / Grow Culture of Quality – Sustain and ( Work in Progress )
further grow our culture of quality initiative via
quality influencers program being run across the
globe, TED talks on quality, trainings, focussed
workshops, certifications, L&OD initiatives.
Section 4.03 : Solutions Explained

QAR – Quality Action Requests

The QAR process is defined to address all kinds of field issues or quality improvements. This process was introduced in early 2016.
QAR are composed of analysing an issue to identify one or more Root Causes and determine associated Specific Preventive Actions
(SPA) to avoid its recurrences across the studios/teams. Gen 1.0 infrastructure being managed over MS SharePoint site.

Need for a tool - With the initiation of QAR process, there was a need of a tool to collate & manage QARs.
Nextgen QAR tool is currently being developed and used to capture all the QARs. Its a cloud-based system to manage Quality Action
Requests (QAR). The legacy tool was built on SharePoint & could be accessed only via Aristocrat network, more details below.

Legacy QAR NexGen QAR

• Tool based on SharePoint
• No Cloud support
• No inbuilt support to show
trends/insights/dashboards
• Migrated the legacy data.
• Legacy QAR will be available until
Global Launch.
• Cloud-based.
• Easy to use interface.
• Embedded reports and dashboards.
• Support for 8D with suppliers.
• Reporting Tab to help users look at
the trends on existing data so that
they can take informed decisions.

1 2 3
Today Soft Launch Global Launch
Soft launch with Systems Collect feedback and make Global launch and training
teams and 15 users. improvements. rollout by SQ18.
Section 4.03 : Solutions Explained

Q-Plan
– Meant to communicate quality goals to all stakeholders
– Produced/updated for each Major/Minor/New Release
– Owned and created by product stakeholders
– Reviewed formally and signed off by the Champions

Q-Cert
– Validates and proves how Q-Plan objectives were met
– Reported at key phases throughout development lifecycle
– Artifacts are stored and available for review and audit
– Supports go/no go decision

Next Steps
Rollout next generation of cloud based solution of Q-Plan & Q-Cert
Section 4.03 - Q-Plan Dimensions (Examples)

SAMPLE MEASURES

DIMENSION COMPONENT

Product Management
Engineering
Global Supply Chain
• Business case
• IP/Patent check
• Marketing requirement document
• EV/DV + T
• Process Failure Mode Effects Analysis
• New, Unique, Difficult, Different (NUDD)
• NUDD
• Supplier Quality
• First article inspection

• Gaming device implementation

Platform
What’s • Compliance

• Functionality
Measured ? Games • Design/Math
• Art
• Test plan review
User Experience (UX) • Persona assessment
• Usability

• Aristocrat
Compliance
• ATF

• CAD review
Tech Service • EV/EVT review
• Cabinet review
Section 4.03 - Q-Cert Assessment Methodology

▪ Self-assessments provided by owners/stakeholders

– Product Owner, Engineering, GSC, Games, Platform…
▪ Assessment based on 5 point scale
– Degree that capability/functionality meets stated metric
▪ Quality items can be weighted
– 3 point scale (high, med, low)
▪ Quality score = assessed score/total potential score
▪ Score used in trend analysis
▪ Teams focus on low score areas and drive for improvements

XXX* 73%

XXX* 68%

XXX* 65%

XXX* 62%
XXX* 58%
Section 4.03 : Solutions Explained

Quality Performance Index – Dashboard (QPi) - A single metric that the business can use to measure
and report our progress on Quality
Section 4.03 : Solutions Explained
AW4SW Maturity Map – 18 Modules
Maturity Framework for Software Development Practices
Level 1: Must Have
DM 1.1: Compiler Warnings
DM 1.2: Reliable & Repeatable
Builds
DM 1.3: Code Reviews
DM 1.4: Math Harness (Games
only)
AW4ST Maturity Map – 13 Modules
Maturity Framework for Software Testing Practices
Level 1: Must Have
TM 1.1: Test Strategy
TM 1.2: Test Planning
TM 1.3: Basic Test Design &
Execution
TM 1.4: Defect Management
Level 2: Low Hanging Fruit
DM 2.1: Static Analysis
DM 2.2: Memory Profiling
DM 2.3: Performance Profiling
DM 2.4: Change Management
Level 2: Test Coverage
TM 2.1: Regression Strategy
TM 2.2: Test Case Management
TM 2.3: Advanced Test Design &
Execution
TM 2.4: Test Automation Basics
Level 4: Advanced
DM 4.1: Safety-Oriented Coding
DM 4.2: Continuous Improvements
Level 3: Solid Core Metrics
DM 4.3: Documentation of Crucial
DM 3.1: Architecture + Reviews
Implementation
DM 3.2: Design + Reviews
DM 4.4: Continuous Delivery
DM 3.3: Continuous Integration
DM 4.5: Test Automation
DM 3.4: Define & Review
Requirements
DM 3.5: Structured Dev. Testing
Level 4: Automated
Level 3: Continuous Improvement TM 4.1: Test Automation Advanced
TM 4.2: Continuous Testing
TM 3.1: Test Retrospective
TM 3.2: Test Metrics
TM 3.3: Test Automation
Intermediate
Section 4.03 : AW4SW/T 2.0 Revisions – Rollout Plan

Implementation Approach
▪ Implementation will be a two-phase approach for both AW4SW & AW4ST
▪ Phase I objective is to achieve & validate AW4SW/T Level 1 & 2 maturity
▪ Phase II planning will start in 2019
▪ If Development teams want, they could start their journey towards achieving higher maturity at their own pace
▪ Teams do not have to wait until 2019 for higher level maturity implementation planning

Phase I: AW4SW Level 1-2 & AW4ST Level 1-2

6 Week – Level1 Q4-18  Level1
Quality Summit 2 Week 4 Week
12 Week – Level2 Q1-19  Level2
Publish & Buy-in Hub & Spoke Connect Self Assessment of L1 Audit Readiness Audit / Validation
& L2 by Each Group Reported
• Revised AW4SW/T • Socialized with H&S • Tier 1 Audit
standards & audit • Expectations • Self-assessment of • Standards successful
framework published understood applicability & gap implemented • Tier 2 Audit passed
• Received leadership • Awareness raised analysis completed • Audit readiness • Announcement of
buy-in for within Functional • Opt-in/out decision
rollout/audit groups
reported to CQT Level Maturity
• Self implementation
• Included in KPO’s achievement
plan proposed

Audit Operations Framework

Microsoft Team Archived for

Audit framework, Dedicated Space All audit artifacts,
(MT) as External Audits
questionnaire, & (structure) for Each records & reports
collaboration tool (KPMG, Deloitte,
guidelines defined Group on MT managed centrally
for Audits etc.)
Section 4.03 : Current Audit Workflow

AW4AUDIT is a formal framework to

validate AW4SW&ST adoption by
software teams.

It’s a 3 tiered approach wherein the audit

load is shared between teams and CQT.

Tier 1: Local Audit

• H&S Internal Audit
• 1 Dev & 1 Test per Quarter
• 2 Participants

Tier 2: Audit Validation

• CQT does regular checks
• 1 Dev & 1 Test per Quarter
• 1-2 Participants

Tier 3: Full Audit

• F2F Audit by external SME’s
• Risk based as needed
• 3-5 Participants
• Deeper assessment
Section 4.03 : Culture of Quality – Solutions

Local Mailers to Bring in Awareness

Specifically Designed Online Trainings

Quality Awards & Posters

SME Workshops
Survey Kiosks

Quality Centric Classroom

Trainings
Section 4.04 – How Teams were prepared to Use the Tools

• Utilized all previously described modes of

Trainings communication platforms to convey importance and
impact of tools & solutions identified
• Stakeholder training plans created to cater to knowledge
building
• SME Trainings – Workshops conducted at regular
intervals across the globe to empower and strengthen
the Quality Influencer network and capabilities

Workshops • Dedicated Collaboration Platforms and Infrastructure

introduced and made available to all employees to ask
questions, provide feedback, share practices and
experiences and reach out to Central Quality Team
• L&D department rolling out dedicated workshops,
external speakers, industry experts to speak about
quality and it’s importance, new age methodologies and
Collaboration •
more.
Annual Quality Summits where the entire hierarchy of

Platforms quality leaders and influencers across the organization

get together to discuss, debate, share their learnings and
experience with the existing quality strategy, current
initiatives & their progress. Also, create & design the way
forward and next years quality strategy and objectives

Quality via means of workshops and focused discussions during

the summit.

Influencers
Section 4.05 – Dealing with Project Risk

• Risk assessment made an implicit part of our

project approach
• Aligned to PLAN phase of each iteration of our
PDCA/A cycle, intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors
were identified, assessed, controlled and
revisited when applicable in all aforementioned
projects and solutions identified in previous
slides.
• Stakeholder buy-in’s were managed and
mitigated via workshops, trainings, culture of
quality initiatives i.e. Quality Influencers, Quality
Clinics, Quality Circles, Quality Focused talk
events etc.
• Functional quality recognition, introduced via
Quality-first Awards and subsequent
frameworks helped stakeholders own their
product quality more better and benchmark
their practices and outcomes with the best
teams in the business to attain recognition for
their work
• Quality results oriented incentive programs
Section 4.06 – Manage Stakeholder Resistance as a risk

2. Sub Process 3. List of 4. Stakeholders 5. Stakeholder 6. Resistance 7. Resistance

1. SIPOC Detection Interaction Matrix Detection Approach
Stakeholders

Stakeholder Analysis Approach

Source : PMI
Stakeholder Category Resistance Expected ?
Management Stakeholders

C—Level ( Leadership ) Manage Closely NO

Development Directors Manage Closely YES

Middle Management Keep Informed YES

Team Wise Stakeholders

Game Development Manage Closely YES

Commercial Sales Team Keep Satisfied NO

Product Marketing Manage Closely NO

Technology, Platform, Digital Manage Closely YES

ATFs Keep Informed NO

Tech Services Monitor YES

Customers / Players Keep Informed NO

Order Fulfillment Keep Satisfied YES

Section 4.06 – Manage Stakeholder Resistance as a risk
2. Sub Process 3. List of 4. Stakeholders 5. Stakeholder 6. Resistance 7. Resistance
1. SIPOC Detection Interaction Matrix Detection Approach
Stakeholders

Stakeholder Analysis Approach

Resistance
Stakeholder Anticipated ? Resistance Detected ? How we addressed it ! Evidence of success
YES – means more - Teams involved at each given solution planning cycle Each studio adopted the processes with much
Game Development
( All Included )
work/processes for YES - Buy-in’s documented & sought after ease, thanks to all the trainings, pilot projects,
them to adhere to. - Captured their concerns and ideas to resolve resistance workshops, work done by Quality Influencers.

YES – means more - Teams involved at each given solution planning cycle Each team adopted the processes with much
Systems work/processes for YES - Buy-in’s documented & sought after ease, thanks to all the trainings, pilot projects,
them to adhere to. - Captured their concerns and ideas to resolve resistance workshops, work done by Quality Influencers.

Hardware
Engineering
NO NO NA NA

YES – means more - Teams involved at each given solution planning cycle Each team adopted the processes with much
Technology,
Platform, Digital
processes & tedious YES - Buy-in’s documented & sought after ease, thanks to all the trainings, pilot projects,
review / audit process - Captured their concerns and ideas to resolve resistance workshops, work done by Quality Influencers.

3rd Party / Accredited

Test Facilities ( ATF’s )
NO NO NA NA

Order Fulfillment YES NO NA NA

Tech Services YES NO NA NA

YES - This was an unexpected resistance, Received ample amounts of positive feedback from
This was addressed by involving key stakeholders from commercial team customers and commercial sales to showcase the positive
Commercial Sales NO team was concerned about the increase in in few pilot projects with optimized PM plans in place to address their impact being brought in by the new processes
time to market and possible delays concerns regarding time to market. introduced. Backed by reduced field issues

Customer / Player NO NO NA NA

SAMPLE
Section 4.07 : Stakeholder Involvement in the Project

Stakeholder Represented By Involvement in Solution Planning Implementation Involvement

- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly - All technical leads and engineers participated actively in the
- Development Heads Quality Summits
Game Development implementation workshops
- Technical Leads - SME workshops, Trainings, Email engagements, Quality Newsletter
- Saw very healthy participation and early positive feedback
( All Included ) Updates.
- Directors - Involved with multiple Pilot Projects / Audit Rollouts / Loop Backs coming in during pilot projects, Audits, timely QAR’s

- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly - All technical leads and engineers participated actively in the
- Technical Leads Quality Summits
implementation workshops
Systems - Directors - SME workshops, Trainings, Email engagements, Quality Newsletter
- Saw very healthy participation and early positive feedback
Updates.
- Workstream Heads - Involved with multiple Pilot Projects / Audit Rollouts / Loop Backs coming in during pilot projects, Audits, timely QAR’s

Hardware Engineering
- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly
- Directors Quality Summits
- Process Leaders - Measure feedback and impact of hardware planning deliverables and
related timelines on product quality / software ( intrinsic or extrinsic )
- D&D Engineers - Establish open channel of communication with studios & others.
- Saw active support to studios for all pilot projects and accelerated help
extended during later stages of product development
- Conducted trainings related to hardware engineering subject for studio /
software technology teams to help them understand the underlying
hardware support better

Technology, Platform, Digital
- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly - All technical leads and engineers participated actively in the
- Technical Leads Quality Summits
implementation workshops
- Directors - SME workshops, Trainings, Email engagements, Quality Newsletter
- Saw very healthy participation and early positive feedback
Updates.
- Workstream Heads - Involved with multiple Pilot Projects / Audit Rollouts / Loop Backs coming in during pilot projects, Audits, timely QAR’s

3rd Party / Accredited Test
Facilities ( ATF’s )
- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly - ATF’s were involved with better test-delivery planning
- Key Account Managers ( Technical ) Quality Summits
- They acted as parallels while implementing new strategies and
- SME workshops, Trainings, Email engagements, Quality Newsletter
- Technical Leads Updates implemented their own versions of similar initiatives
- Knowledge sharing platforms created for timely information passing - Continuous engagement model rolled out to ATF’s

- Business Unit Heads
Order Fulfillment
- Middle Management
- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly - New communication channels created and saw more
Quality Summits
streamlined communication
- Involved with conducting and attending workshops to understand,
convey role of order fulfillment verticals in overall delivery of the - Timely updates between stakeholders
product to the customer and it’s impact. - Delivery Triages

- Technical Leads
Tech Services - Lead Field Service Rep’s
- Business Unit Heads
- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly
Quality Summits
- Involved with 2 way workshops and brainstorming sessions to improve
quality of services and internal support upstream.
- Regular Workshops conducted to train / get trained with new
resources, product releases
- Introduction of enhanced interoperability testing charter

- Regional Sales Heads
Commercial Sales
- Key Account Manager(s)
- Acted as a team member in solution generation workshops during yearly - Rolled out better engagement models for direct
Quality Summits
communication
- Involved with 2 way workshops and brainstorming sessions to improve
channel of communications with all required stakeholders and better - Regular trainings, SME workshops, travel opportunities,
insights into the technology side of challenges and processes. stakeholder meetings, etc.

- Act as a team member in some of the workshops relevant to them

- Game Enthusiasts ( Known Faces )
Customer / Players
- VIP Players / Consumers / Fans
- Capture Player feedback
- Established an open channel of communication to contact us for their
feedback, insights and help us to better understand player needs,
expectations, behaviors.
NA
 SECTION - 5
[ Project Walkthrough ]

Section 5.01 : Data-Driven Project Flow

Section 5.02 : Solution Validation
Section 5.03 : Solution Justification
Section 5.04 : Results
Section 5.05 : Maintaining the Gains / Continuous Improvement
Section 5.06 : Project Communication
SECTION # 5.01, 5.02, 5.04 Data Driven Project Flow | Solution Validation | Results

Software Quality Improvement - Trends

• Below visual represents the substantial improvements to the Reworks to Approval ratio trends starting April 2017 onwards ( timeline starting April 2016 )
• Overall reported field issues per quarter going down as per designed target ( 25% reduction ) starting April 2017 going up to June 2018 ( last audited )
• After achieving the targeted 25% R2A for 5 quarters in a row, we’re now headed swiftly towards the revised KPI of additional 25% reduction from current
average

~ 65% Improvement over

existing trends from Q2-
2016 to Q1-2017
SECTION # 5.01, 5.02, 5.04 Data Driven Project Flow | Solution Validation | Results
Monthly Field Issue Trends ( Class 3 + Class 2 )

This Funnel Chart showcases the

month-on-month field issue
reduction trends as our processes
matured and the introduced
solutions started yielding
meaningful results on our software
quality.

Implications on Results :
• Fewer Field Issues = Lesser Reworks
• Lesser Reworks = Optimized Cost of
Quality
• Lesser Reworks = Better Rework to
Approval (R2A) Ratios
• Happier Customers
• Portraits strengthened Culture of
Quality

Further analysis showed :

• A clear shift left pattern in the issues
reported
• Most issues reported early into test
cycles
• Development teams finding a lot
more issues while unit testing builds
• Steady decline in number of SIT & QA
test cycles
SECTION # 5.03 : Solution Justification | Data from Gaming Laboratories International

RV = Revokes Aristocrat Vs Competitor Benchmark

ATI

Source : Gaming Laboratories International

SECTION # 5.03 : Solution Justification | Validation

Year on Year Field Quality Issue Trends

23% Improvement
YTD
SECTION # 5.03 : Solution Justification | Validation

IMPROVED COST OF DEFECT CORRECTION TRENDS

50% Improvement
SECTION # 5.04 : Additional Benefits Realized in the Process

Additional Benefits Description Sources

• Amount saved was utilized in making

existing products feature rich. • Financial Reports
Smarter Investments • Invested further into strengthening • Cost of Defect Correction
business

• Shift left trends overall in the software

Reduced Cost of Defect function led to reduced cost of defect • CoDC Dashboards
Correction correction ( CoDC ) • CEO / CPO Ops Reports
• Fewer number of field issues also meant • Field Quality Dashboards
reduction in CoDC.

• Noticeable trend of decline in average

number of pre compliance cycles
Decrease in Average QA Cycles • ATF Reports
performed per game
( Better Cost Effectiveness ) • Project Lite Dashboards
• This means an optimized cost paid
towards ATF’s tests

• Increase in number of issues fixed in • Studio Reports

Increased # of Issues Fixed in Development phase demonstrated • Internal Quality Metrics
Dev Phase robustness of strengthened dev charter • Jira Reports
and Merit of AW4SW practices

• Decline in number of issues fixed in Test

• Studio Reports
Decreased # of Issues Fixed in phase demonstrated robustness of
• Internal Quality Metrics
Test Phase strengthened dev charter and Merit of
• Jira Reports
AW4SW & AW4ST practices
SECTION # 5.05 : Maintaining the Gains

ENHANCED HOW WE OPERATE

Changes Made Implications

Defined for adoption and adherence of designed frameworks (

Organization Level Quality KPO’s Defined
AW4SW-T-AUDIT, Q-Plan, Q-Cert, QAR etc. )

Stakeholders continued to adopt and provide positive feedback

Deeper Penetration of Q-Plan & Q-Cert Programs
towards a better and more robust Q-Plan & Q-Cert Programs.

Better engaged stakeholders who are now deeply invested in the

Continuously Enhanced Engagement Model
vetted ideas from the solution generation phases.

As mentioned before, rolled out next generations of existing

Evolution of Existing Programs ( GenNext )
solutions to tap their best possible outcomes.

Kept on evolving the hub-spoke connect established as a part of this

Strengthened Hub-Spoke Model
program and enhanced it’s potential further.

Created a Leadership Group of Quality Influencers across the teams

Emphasis on Strengthening Our Culture of
to ensure we build upon a positive base already established as a part
Quality
of our project.
SECTION # 5.06 : Project Communication

CONTINUOUS ENGAGEMENT
Description Frequency

Sharing of Quality Metrics with every

Bi-weekly
participating employee and group

CEO-CPO Ops Report | Deck Monthly

Quality Townhalls ( Showcase Trends ) Quarterly

Revised Product Quality Oriented Incentive

Quarterly
Payout Program

Meetings for building momentum around

continuous improvement of other benefits
Bi-monthly
realized during the project execution,
enhance results further.

Publishing QPi Dashboard Monthly

Quality Summits Annually

Scheduled Audits / Benchmarking Quarterly

Quality First Awards Monthly

END OF PRESENTATION