Channels -> ISV
By: David Norfolk, Practice Leader - Development, Bloor Research
Published: 11th February 2013
Copyright Bloor Research © 2013
I recently blogged about the Qualitest Group and its third party testing services. I like the idea of using an external testing organisation because I believe that testers need a different mind-set to developers - a delight in breaking things and finding defects perhaps - and, in most organisations, such a mindset is career limiting. It's a question for an IT group to ask itself - do we like having people that regularly find our mistakes and publicise them to those around us? If not, perhaps it should be considering a third party testing organisation, that fully understands testing in all its aspects and employs people with the "testing mindset".
That choice raises further questions, however, which really concern the governance of the development process and its quality assurance. Does your external testing partner allow developers to unit-test their own code, for example? With old-style development practices, people probably shouldn't test their own code (the developers often have the wrong mindset and their test cases can embody the same misconception of the requirement as the code does); but developers unit-testing their own work is pretty fundamental to eXtreme Programming and Agile development. Agile, also, is generally becoming accepted as the way to go, both for productivity and quality. It's a question to ask your testing partners: "do you support agile development effectively without 'spoiling' the Agile culture we're trying to promote?".
Another thing I like about Qualitest is its results-based testing approach. However, this rather assumes that you have something to compare your results against and that the results you want are feasible. You can never claim 100% confidence that there are no bugs in a system, even a safety-critical system; and Qualitest would say that you can never say that "testing is finished".
Nevertheless, I would suggest that that's actually a matter of semantics, to a large extent. Should you discuss the semantics of a results-based testing SLA saying something like "Find at least 95% of the bugs" with your testing partner? There are ways of estimating the total bugs in a piece of code (here, for example) but does the SLA refer to these estimates or merely to finding 95% of the bugs actually reported by users? Does a design flaw count as a bug? What about the possibility of a systematic testing bias that puts the most business-critical bugs in the 5% that aren't found? And, what about latent bugs which haven't been found and perhaps can't ever be reached - with current workloads and data patterns? Are they worth wasting time on? Perhaps not; but latent bugs can represent a potential production disaster waiting to happen when workloads change or new data enters the system (perhaps you gain a significant Far East customer for the first time and its data looks different to what you've been processing before). So perhaps latent bugs are important (which is partly why static code analysis can be important).
I like results-based testing because it promises to give you a fair and equitable contract with your external testing partner. It can also, perhaps, give you a handle on the "is testing finished" issue - something else to question your testing partner about, I think.
"Is testing finished" is really another question of semantics. If you can place confidence limits on the number of bugs found relative to the number of bugs expected; if you can put numbers on the risk associated with "going live"; and if you can estimate, with confidence, the cost associated with the risk going live against the cost to the business of withholding the new automated service; then you have, in a real and practical (although limited) sense, "finished testing". Even if running some more tests (perhaps tests which you haven't thought of and which aren't in your test pack) might find some more defects.
Part of the value of employing an organisation like Qualitest is that it is a testing specialist and understands the testing process and its semantics, probably better than most developers do. However, although management can outsource responsibility for the execution of testing and quality assurance, it can't outsource responsibility for Quality. If, for example, one of the 5% of defects Qualitest hasn't found (while satisfying its testing by results SLA) results in confidential customer credit card details held by a company being splashed over the Internet, it'll be (potentially) the company's directors in the dock facing gaol, not Qualitest's directors.
So, the semantics of testing is probably important to the managers employing a firm like Qualitest. For example:
I just raise the questions and they don't invalidate my view that external testing by an organisation such as Qualitest may bring significant improvements to system quality. But the outsourcing of testing has consequences and raises governance issues which are often cultural and semantic as much as technical - but no less important for all that.
We have not received any comments against this entry. Why not be the first?
We automatically stop accepting comments 180 days after a post is published. If you would like to know more about this subject, please contact us and we'll try to help.
Published by: IT Analysis Communications Ltd.
T: +44 (0)190 888 0760 | F: +44 (0)190 888 0761