Best Direction from IT Steering Committee: Dealing with Unacceptable Levels of Defects in New Software Applications

D.

The best direction for the IT steering committee to take in response to the audit finding that new software applications are delivered on time but consistently have unacceptable levels of defects would be to evaluate the quality assurance (QA) process.

Option D, "Evaluate the quality assurance process," is the best direction for the committee because it directly addresses the root cause of the audit finding - that the software applications have unacceptable levels of defects. Quality assurance is a critical component of the software development lifecycle, and its purpose is to ensure that the software application meets the required standards and specifications.

By evaluating the QA process, the committee can identify the root causes of the defects and take corrective actions to prevent them from recurring. The evaluation can include examining the existing QA process to identify gaps, conducting a risk assessment to identify areas of improvement, and reviewing the testing methodologies and tools being used.

Option A, "Establish code peer reviews," is a good practice to improve the quality of code, but it may not directly address the root cause of the audit finding. Code peer reviews are a process of code inspection where developers review each other's code to identify defects and improve quality. While code peer reviews can be a valuable addition to the QA process, they may not be sufficient to address the audit finding in isolation.

Option B, "Evaluate the change management process," and option C, "Implement performance indicators," may also be important aspects of software development, but they may not directly address the root cause of the audit finding. Evaluating the change management process can help to ensure that changes to the software application are properly controlled and documented, but it may not directly improve the quality of the software. Similarly, implementing performance indicators can help to track progress and identify areas of improvement, but it may not address the root cause of the audit finding.

In summary, option D, "Evaluate the quality assurance process," is the best direction for the IT steering committee to take in response to the audit finding that new software applications are delivered on time but consistently have unacceptable levels of defects. By evaluating the QA process, the committee can identify the root causes of the defects and take corrective actions to prevent them from recurring.