As increasing numbers of UK-based organisations choose to update and upgrade their software applications to meet new sets of business targets, many are struggling to find specialist quality assurance and testing professionals capable of delivering high-level results. Why is this?
First of all, I don’t think there is any UK skills shortage in practical technology services. It is true however to say that, in some areas, standards are very low in terms of professionalism in test methodology. One contributing factor is that it seems that every failed developer becomes a tester; everyone who can’t find another entryway into IT becomes a tester; and even people with no professional knowledge of IT whatsoever can choose testing as a place to start their careers. This can breed a perception of a lack of truly insightful testers who understand that software development is actually a business issue, and not simply a technical issue that they should be trying to ‘fix’.
So how do these people get away with being inadequate testers? Well, they lower their day-rates for their clients rather than getting thrown off site, and remarkably some businesses simply accept that. In some cases, these businesses could be accused of just going through the motions of having their applications QA tested, rather than showing any genuine desire to work through problems with a professional testing team that has the integrity to identify risk and resolve business issues. But this is rare. It would be wrong to think that the majority of companies act in this way, and most are able to put testing in its correct perspective.
Learning past lessons
There are certainly historical excuses/reasons for some of these negative perceptions of the testing industry. In the mid-nineties, individuals within organisations with development responsibilities began shipping projects offshore for development work. Their thinking was that ‘a coder is a coder’ and often, on a one-on-one basis, a focused offshore developer could outstrip an onshore developer.
Problems began to arise though when development teams scaled up to ten or more. In those days onshore teams were already employing project management methodologies and policies, whereas the offshore facilities had yet to adopt those approaches fully and understand the impact. The cost of adding more people was less than the cost of process and training.
By 2001, offshore providers/facilities had fixed that issue. Offshore software development became much better generally, and those facilities ultimately won the war against onshore because they were cheaper.
Problems arose once more when businesses sending projects offshore failed to specify them to a high enough degree. Development teams without English as their first language needed client specifications and designs to be delivered in good shape, so that they could take them on and understand quickly and fully what was required. But the specification and design simply wasn’t being written comprehensively enough. Of course when this was finally realised, specification levels were mandated and the offshore facilities once again began winning on that front too. But this problem with specification taught professional testing houses an important lesson about the importance of balancing the skill-sets and advantages of both onshore and offshore testing facilities.
In-house QA teams continue to play a key role in maintaining good practice in testing. They work hand-in-hand with offshore partners, head and tailing the process. These teams have to be able to take the risk appetite of senior managers and translate that into a package that details the breadth, depth and scope of testing projects, and that explains why it is being done. They must also define the testing strategy: Is it end-to-end testing because it’s a consumer product? Is it risk-based testing particularly suited to financial products? Is it industrial testing because the project is testing 5,000 handsets on 2,000 applications? The QA teams need to understand the risk appetite and turn that into risk management, and then turn that into quality assurance.
Today, it’s perfectly possible for 100% onshore testing facilities to be competitive as long as they know what they’re doing, understand their market, know how to price their services, and deliver on their commitments. Onshore testing has a big future, but the brightest future lies with companies that are able to deliver a blend of onshore and offshore testing – something independent contractors and the smaller companies simply can’t do effectively. It’s just not possible for companies on that scale to run profitable testing facilities at home and abroad, and manage the client/business interaction and communication efficiently and smoothly enough. Any offshore facility needs to be substantial if it is to have any hope of harbouring sophisticated skills such as experience in SAP, Oracle, IBM, HP and more.
A Golden Age?
The final, crucial part of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), before firms go live with software, is of course the testing. I firmly believe that we are now coming into a ‘golden age’ when the light will be shone on the testing function and it will never again be regarded as an activity that can be conducted by whoever happens to be on the test bench, whoever is available, or whoever is deemed to be cost-effective. I believe businesses are finally taking this seriously, and are asking themselves important questions: Who really understands testing? Who are the thought leaders? Who are the people who are going to make this work for my business? Who can I trust to tell me when I can go live and what my risk levels are in doing so?
Recent economic trends have only served to accentuate this need for professional testing. In financial services in particular, the industry has actually experienced a growth in testing over the last twelve months. Companies that were already underway with projects needed to go live, and had to be sure, more than ever before, that they would work first time – they just couldn’t afford to risk any downtime at all.
Rewards for professional testing
So what are the major factors today that are driving businesses to ensure they have highly professional levels of quality testing, and not simply testing ‘at a price’? Well, if an organisation is spending hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds on a project, typically that is a significant proportion of capital budget across the business. For that reason it is essential to have a well-informed assessment of the chances of that project going live, when it is likely to go live, and what the risk will be once it does go live. That’s a big enough driving force to identify solid testing partners up front.
As well as the millions of pounds of risk exposure to business, there are day-to-day implications for those businesses of inadequately tested software applications. Thorough software testing is a means to an end. Businesses are rarely transparent in publishing results of testing for stakeholders to see and, in itself, testing is hardly ever used by businesses to differentiate themselves in the marketplace to win business. Rather, it is the lack of bugs and issues affecting productivity that become selling-points over less rigorous competitors. This situation is unlikely to change, because opening up further insights into testing practices would likely reveal vital information and set public baselines that would be detrimental to organisations and negate any business advantage. Instead stakeholders now simply anticipate that all applications will be bullet-proof, and they only shout if they discover otherwise.
Conclusion
If there isn’t a skills shortage as such, but a shortage in some areas of the levels of professionalism and quality in testing that responsible businesses deserve, then how do organisations make sure that they avoid inadequate testers altogether and use only experienced, quality QA partners?
Well the first step is always to look closely at the organisation that offers the services of professional testers. Big testing companies must protect their brand integrity and so are extremely unlikely to be duped into hiring ineffective testers. It is also perfectly acceptable to ask testers to demonstrate the level of certification they hold: Are they ISEB (Information Systems Examinations Board) certified, or ISTQB (International Software Testing Qualifications Board) certified? Are they trained in relevant toolsets and methodologies? And do their CVs prove continual and recent experience in the field?
Ultimately, a professional testing house will stand behind the portfolio of work that it has conducted for many companies over many years, and this is something that a less reputable/experienced independent contractor will be unable to demonstrate. The company you choose should be able to demonstrate its ability to understand you the coustomer, demonstrate its thought leadership but most of all show you how it can deliver real benefit to you both onshore and offshore.
Professionally trained quality assurance specialists are so beneficial to the daily operation and performance of any software-based business. Good testing companies understand how to take competent testing capability and put it into any environment. Quality testing is readily available in the UK - businesses just need to ensure that they partner with an experienced professional technology services company that can blend onshore and offshore facilities with a wide range of skills and years of specialist expertise.
