Only during the test phase does an application or product begin to take shape. I say this as a test professional, so I am sure my development colleagues would disagree. A healthy debate that I am sure will always continue.
The onset of digital and what it means for testing.
After 10 years involved in the sector, the general principles of testing remain unchanged. Minimising risk to the application and therefore the organisation as a result of changes to software or hardware. However, the environment continues to change constantly. With the onset of the digital age, software driven applications have been taking over. Where they started off as gimmicks to give an organisation a bit of an edge, they have evolved into being the primary revenue generator for many.
The whole concept of digital being just for technology companies no longer exists. It is now the case that all businesses are digital. Something still hard to take in for some industries. Testing therefore is more important now than ever before. A quality issue historically would have been a minor hindrance but now it can destroy a business, whether that be through reputation or financial impact.
Cutting corners: the implications.
With this in mind, the right people are critical to ensure an organisation minimises the risk and considers all possibilities before committing to deploy any changes. Quite often this is overlooked. Despite the increased importance of a high calibre test professional, we often see businesses filling the test role with offshore resource, business users or asking developers to test their own code, all with the perception of cutting costs. Not only does testing get squeezed for time, it also gets squeezed on skills and budget. It is not surprising therefore that we hear so often in the media of a new incident impacting yet another global organisation.
I don't recall ever hearing of a project manager or a product owner telling a developer how to code but you quite often see the test team being advised on what should and shouldn't be tested by unqualified individuals. After all, Testing is easy! Right?
A recent project I was involved with highlighted these issues throughout the whole project. System testing was conducted by a consultancy offshore having no prior experience in the business or systems. They were blindly working from requirements. This on paper was supposed to save money but ultimately generated higher costs than would have been the case with less resources, on site.
From a business perspective, a restructuring of the organisation during the project resulted in all the product owners and business users responsible for sign off having new roles, resulting in UAT becoming a painful exercise with no experience in what they were signing off. The on site test team, with the experience of the legacy system and business, had no part to play until delivery by the consultancy was delayed and showing signs of trouble.
To mitigate the offshore quality issues, a new team was set up on site to check the quality of the testers offshore. The on site testers with the legacy experience were drafted in to support the offshore testers all too late and delivery was delayed by more than 4 months with costs spiralling over budget.
Final thoughts: think long term.
The moral of the story is that trusting those with the experience and skills, whilst initially appearing to be a higher cost solution, ultimately will save time and money. As a resourcing company, we focus on getting the right resource for the role. We don't see testing as just another position to fill but the building of a relationship that enables knowledge retention and flexibility using only tried and tested individuals that have time and again proven their worth and ability to deliver.
