Managers, Hug your quality assurance analyst / tester / engineer the next time you see him / her
In the almost 3 years I have been in the role as a QA Analyst, I've come to understand that we are the first people that get blamed when things go wrong, and the last to get rewarded when they go right.
Quality Assurance Analysts / Testers / Engineers have to be as smart as Project Managers, as savy as Developers, and all the while imaginative and innovative in the testing process.
We have to deal with less-than-stellar documentation, often filling the blanks where they exist .. and they do exist. More often than not, we must be as attuned to the project as the Client, but often we are kept in the dark about specifics.
When bugs are found, its always the tester's fault. When they get missed, its always our fault. When the developers run late in coding, its test time that suffers and its our fault when testing is inadequate. But we do push back.
But if you don't think quality assurance is important, ask any one who has recently visited the healthcare.gov website and tried to sign up for affordable health care.
I can promise you, it wasn't tested. If it had been properly "QA'd", more people would have subscribed to their plans and Obama would be a national hero.
And guess who's fault that would be ;)
Til next time my QA bretheren .. keep up the good work!
QA demand more hug!
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, it's a common theme throughout the years. I've gone on 6-7 years of QA and it's the same mindset. We're replacable (read: outsourced for cheaper labor with 'get what you pay for' results) or thought to be expendable all together. I just don't understand how this mindset can be so widely viewed.
Good products = happy clients.
Happy Clients = More upsells and continued subscription
More upsells/Subscription = Good Reputation
Good Reputation = More clients
More clients = More money
More money = More self investment
More self investment = Growth
Growth = More clients handle-able
****Repeat the first bunch of steps here****
More Clients = More money.
As for the bugs... we are human. Humans make mistakes - but so do machines. To 'replace' a QA with computers (automation - without human interaction) with the assumption of 100% accuracy is an uneducated assumption.
I find that not enough management understands what the QA go through. The staleness that occurs after days of testing the same test over and over on different browsers (if web-testing), weeks of testing the same program/application/game (I used to be a game tester. The boredom was crushing). It's mind numbing and soul crushing.
When we don't get accurate information - which is something everywhere is plagued with - you're going to get the results equal to what we're given.
It's like the steps above.
Lots of clear information = QA understanding
QA Understanding = Lots of bugs caught
Lots of bugs caught = Less likely any will be found
Little to no bugs = Happy client
Happy Client = More money.
It starts somewhere - we're just at the bottom by the gateway - but everything gets trickled down on top of us. It has to come from somewhere. We're just the end of the line, and thereby easiest to point fingers at.
Also, if we as QA are soooo not important, then why is it so damn important that everything is perfect? The devs certainly aren't going to make it that way.
But we're the badguys.