This slightly provocative post examines the role of QA (a.k.a testing) in various view of a project lifecycle and considers how we might react to a QA team which reported no bugs.
For years Frank Carver has been paying attention to the strange world of convergent technology. During that time he has discussed and researched broad subject areas, come to some surprising conclusions, produced and distributed digital media, scattered ideas and opinions like sparks from a firework, and above all consulted for businesses both large and small to help develop and deploy successful systems, services, and products in this highly complex arena.
Steve Jones | October 3rd, 2008 at 09:23 #
The article more or less shows the traditional role of the test group versus the “user-centered-design” approach, which involves constant iteration and close contact between testers and developers in real time (i.e. during project execution).
We know the traditional method (like the waterfall method itself) can work because it has worked so often in the past. But it works in longer loops, and it may be less efficient. And it may fail quite a lot too!
In general, I would not put the onus to say that the product is OK to ship on the testers. The testers _just_ find as many bugs and problems as they can. The developers and product managers can judge that work – the testers just make it clear that the problems exist, then they get on with some other work. Don’t get involved with the politics of conclusions. Leaving a meeting early with the words “my work here is done” is one of the greatest pleasures of being in a “destructive” test group!
Steve
Steve Jones | October 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 #
PS: that sounds a bit harsh, but it’s only because the testers represent the users. Users don’t fix things nor argue about what they think. They simply tell the developers why the thingie doesn’t work well. If the developers choose to ignore that, then the firm will have a short span of life, but that’s not down to the testers.