| || |
Where should UAT group be managed?
We currently have a stand alone Ops User Group (UAT) for our Operations software projects that require User testing/acceptance. They perform the 'UAT' test on the behalf of the actual users and then show the real Users the test case results to ensure they are happy with the new functionality. This org structure has worked well over the last 4-5 years given the large projects that corporations were doing. Now that there are many less software projects, we are considering moving the UAT testers directly into the Ops departments and having them do Ops work part of the time and then doing the "UAT" when projects require User testing. This was the way User testing was done before Y2K and we believe it has various benfits (and some detriments). The IT group also has improved their white box testing over the last 4-5 years that provides for a higher quality software product when it comes time for UAT (i.e. less defects are being caught by the UAT group).
Has anyone experienced a recent change in the org structure that User testing is managed by? I would be interested to hear if it has been sucessful or not.
Re: Where should UAT group be managed?
I have been part of changes to test arrangements where: 1) testing moved from inhouse to outsource, 2) testing moved from outsource to inhouse, and 3) testers moved from one group to another.
In all cases, they worked or failed based on the commitment of management and the team to make it work. It helps if there is time taken to involve everyone in discussing and planning for the change. Otherwise the change can fail.
One issue when testers move to a different group and are expected to take on other responsibilities as well as testing, is that conflicting priorities and schedules from the two will occur. It's how these are managed and resolved that determine the overall effectiveness of the change.
That's my 2 cents worth
Independent Test Consultant