NVP Software Solutions

Tag: Quality Assurance

  • The Results of Software Tester Training

    Software tester training seems to be something that needs a lot more attention, given how many conversations we’ve had on this topic. A few weeks ago we talked about How We Train Software Testers? We get a surprising number of questions about software tester training and plans, and we now want to touch on the results of software tester training. (more…)

  • System Boundary Diagram

    System Boundary Diagrams sometimes come up in the context of a Use Case and sometimes in the context of Software Testing. Either way they are a useful in the effort expended when determining what to test. While the ‘normal’ System Boundary Diagram shows the boundaries of the system and thus the boundaries of the testing, we try to use it only as a starting point for other diagrams that may also aid in defining the testing effort and scope. (more…)

  • Testing Sources of Information

    Sources of information for testing tend to come from two extremes. In some cases you may have almost no information and find it difficult to start. In other cases you may have far too much information and not know what to do with it all or where to start or stop reading. The ‘happy medium’ or ‘just right’ amount is rarely the case when it comes to testing sources of information. (more…)

  • Why Test Training

    Test training is something that should be a ‘given’ and not something that a blog series should be devoted to. However, we get a surprising number of questions about test training and plans, that we thought we’d address a few of them here. So why train testers? You may recall that we defined three broad categories a couple of weeks ago in the blog. (more…)

  • Test Training

    Training seems like an obvious topic and not one to which a blog or two could be usefully devoted. However we get a surprising number of questions about training and plan to address a few of them here. The first one is what type of training is offered. We define three broad categories here:

    1. Training related to testing.
    2. Training related to a particular Test Tool.
    3. Application related Training.

    You only have to read the job advertisements to see the expectations related to open positions. You may see a long list of test tools with which the applicant is to be proficient. You will most likely see some reference to a Test Methodology or SDLC. Most job advertisements finish off with some soft skills.

    So how do our three categories relate to day-to-day work?

    Taking them in reverse order:

    Application related Training

    Clearly the more the person knows about the application for which the system was built, the easier it is to understand the risks, define the scope of testing and explain the results to the business. It is also easier to understand the business requirements and expectations.

    Training related to a particular Test Tool

    This type of training is usually supplied by a vendor and can range from an overview of the test tool allowing one to to use it without in-depth knowledge all the way to becoming a technical expert. The only comment is that every tool has been superceded by something else eventually so every tool or technical process will eventually become redundant.

    Training related to testing

    This type of training covers the rest of the requirements. It teaches about SDLC, Communication, Risk, Planning, and Testing to name only a few items.

    Discussion Questions

    1. Do you participate in Training for Testing?
    2. Was it beneficial to the project?
    3. What would you have done differently based on what you know now?

    Next Week: Sources of Information

  • Test Conditions

    Test Conditions is a term that has multiple definitions. For the sake of this blog, we are going to define them as the equivalent of (Low Level) Test Objectives and state that they are One-Line statements of what is going to be tested. (High level Test Objectives may relate to more system level objectives and some of them may be derived from the Project Charter or plan.)

    For example, the Test Conditions may read as follows:

    1. Test that the system calculates interest correctly.
    2. Verify that the design allows for 100 simultaneous connections.
    3. Validate that the user interface is accessible according to the corporate standards.

    The question that frequently arises is why bother to write these Test Conditions? It seems like an extra step with minimal return. Why not just go directly to the Test Cases?

    We use them for a number of reasons.

    1. They allow the tester to consider the entire system rather than getting into detailed test cases at the first step.
    2. They allow other stakeholders to review the test coverage without having to read through full test cases.
    3. They can identify coverage and omissions in coverage with limited effort.
    4. They allow for estimation of the number of test cases that will be needed before the testcases are written.
    5. They allow for estimation of the test effort early in the project.
    6. They can help identify the components of the test environment earlier allowing it to be specified and built before it is needed.
    7. They determine the required test data and allow it to be gathered and made ready before testing starts.

    We have found that the effort in building test conditions is more than paid back in early information and helpful triggers for what needs to be done.

    Discussion Questions

    1. Do you write Test Conditions or Test Objectives?
    2. Were they beneficial to the project?
    3. What would you have done differently based on what you know now?

    Next Week: Process Improvement – Deal with Results

  • Quality Assurance Process Improvement – Part 4

    Quality Assurance Process Improvement is the current topic for our NVP Blog. We completed a series of 4 blogs on Assessments because at the end of the Assessment process a lot of organizations won’t act on the Assessment results if they don’t have a plan for moving forward. This is particularly true if the Assessment has not been tailored to the particular company in question. A standard Assessment process generates standard recommendations which may not be applicable. Make sure you detail your expectations at the beginning of the Assessment so you get value from the process and your expenditure of time.

    Last blog focused on How to do Process Improvement and now we’ll address “Dealing with the results”.  Many people complete a process improvement assessment; discover a number of problems that need to be fixed but then drop the process without full solving the issues or taking advantage of all of the work that went into getting the results. This typically happens because of the following:

    • The work that needs to be done isn’t scalable or fun.
    • There’s no one to do the work.
    • There’s no budget for the implementation.
    • What was discovered is so unexpected that no one knows how to tackle it.

    These can all be addressed by the ‘divide and conquer’ methodology.

    Once the results of the assessment are known, they need to be organized into logical buckets. Each bucket is then assigned a set of tasks. Some people will tell you that we need to identify the synergies so that everything gets accomplished efficiently with minimal disruption. While that would be the optimal way of doing things; it is rare for anyone to be able to identify all the synergies simply by looking at the list of results of an assessment. We have to accept some redundancy and the fact that some items are going to have to be reversed when new ones are put in place.

    Now is the time to implement your results.

    Next Week: Scope of Testing

  • How interactive prototyping can improve QA in the SDLC

    It’s often said that quality must be built in, not added on. But when it comes to the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC), the reverse often happens: defects are identified late on in the Testing Phase, after coding is done. This means bugs are expensive to fix and solutions are found last-minute, putting quality at risk. Early Lifecycle QA, from requirements definition onward, results in a better software development experience and, hopefully, a better end product.

    But even when Early Lifecycle QA does happen, it’s not always plain sailing: business requirements documents are often scanty and don’t provide QA professionals with enough information; other stakeholders may be resistant to QA specialists coming in and “telling them their job” at the review stage; some requirements are untestable thanks to lack of clarity. And of course things change throughout any project, it’s a fact. Flexibility is a must.

    So how can QA professionals ensure that they can get involved and be effective from the outset of the SDLC and throughout it? Step up interactive prototyping. Using an interactive prototyping tool can facilitate early stage QA and avoid common pain points.

    Requirements definition and gathering

    QA specialists sometimes receive little information on which to base tests at this stage, thanks to paltry requirements or incomprehensible Business Requirements Documentation (BRD). Additionally, QAs are often sent the documentation too late, meaning there’s no time to set up adequate tests. By gathering, defining and gathering requirements using a prototyping tool – requirements can be imported or created directly in the prototype, and all invited stakeholders (including QAs) can add or comment upon those requirements in real-time. Once you have the baseline of requirements, a System Testing Plan can be finalized.

    Interactive requirements and iterative process

    Once the BRD and System Requirements Specification are agreed upon, the QA team can set about reviewing requirements in the prototype. Running user test cases with a designated User Proxy – someone who takes on the role of User – will allow QA to be approached from 3 angles: functional, structural and conformance. All QA team members can add to and edit the BRD in the prototype, ensuring that user and system needs are accurately represented at this early stage.

    Using a prototyping tool to facilitate this process reduces time and budget concerns for project managers, which means they are more likely to agree to incorporating QA teams early on.

    Design and QA

    With a version history of requirements accessible within the prototype, the design team has a clear map to work off. They can build an interactive prototype based on the validated requirements, linking each feature to its relevant requirement and thereby facilitating QA testing. Once the design team has produced a high fidelity prototype, activities such as verifying system architecture and carrying out system audits can be done on the prototype. Finding and fixing bugs through prototype testing is a lot cheaper than fixing them in the code.

    Coding and Deployment

    Later SDLC stages can now go ahead, with the QA team carrying out coding-related Quality Assurance activities such as verifying implementation of top requirements, and checking the quality of code with Product Quality Analyzer tools.

    Key Success Markers

    Early Lifecycle Quality Assurance requires collaboration between teams and a shared vision, factors supported by the inclusion of interactive prototyping in the SDLC. By prioritizing Early Lifecycle QA rework and costs are reduced, QA input is incorporated at every stage of the project, and time to market is optimized.

    Justinmind is a prototyping tool for web and mobile applications that allows you to visualize your software solution before starting development