SPONSORS:






User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Your thoughts

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Your thoughts

    In the next 3 years, testing and Qa would be reaching a new level and the Qa personnel would have to be more mature in their acts and thoughts .
    Companies would expect a lot more from the personnel and just the knowledge of automation tools are the testing would not suffice.
    Testing should be now be started has thinking as an innovative process where new things are constantly adapted, result measured.
    Let me know your thoughts on this

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,798
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    Withrajeev - it has already happened where I am, in agile contexts, and with the majority of my clients, to be honest - in all bar a few rare cases (usually periods of intense IT activity, Y2K, Regulatory Changes) it has always been the case in my experience that more is required and thinking testers are need that are not just "tool users".
    ------
    Regards,
    Neill McCarthy
    Agile Testers of the World UNIT!

    For more contextual Musings visit http://www.testingreflections.com/ and now at http://www.sqablogs.com/neillmccarthy/
    ---

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    Yes, I have experienced the same thing during the last 10 years or so.
    In more mature companies it has become evident that testers, as an own proffesion, are needed and those people have to be skilled (preferably not only in the testing area).

    However, we can still see that small, not that mature, companies still struggles with ad-hoc-processes. But I guess that we have a task to make them get on track ;-)

    Best regards Björn

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    229
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    A funny thing, that: "ad hoc" means "to the purpose", or "for a particular purpose". The meaning has been corrupted to mean sloppy or slapdash. But in terms of its original meaning, processes should be ad hoc; if they weren't, we'd be doing things for no particular purpose.

    ---Michael B.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    Michael,
    personally I use "Ad Hoc" as a synonym for "on the hoof" and certainly do NOT think it is inherantly sloppy.
    The problem I have with it (which doesn't mean I either dismiss or find no value in it) is exactly that - "for a particular purpose".
    I like testing to have multiple purposes, which should include repeatability, audit trails, risk analysis etc etc etc.

  6. #6
    SQA Knight
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Elanora Heights, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    3,271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    withrajeev

    Depends where you want to head. Customers are becoming more detailed in their expectations which is often misguided as thinking they are getting more.

    There will always be UAT/BA type roles as many orgnisations have gone down the outsourcing path turning product development into vendor management. Then there are roles where you work for vendors where the work is based on product development. Then there are the multi-vendor projects where there is a miss-match of development/systems integration/UAT.

    I have worked in all of these styles of projects and I think the smarter organisations are starting to realise Testing/Quality people have to be very adpative and multi-skilled. Many still don't get it and choose to hire muppets and wonder why the testing is taking so long.
    Robert Tehve
    rtehve@bigpond.com

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    Originally posted by Michael Bolton:
    A funny thing, that: "ad hoc" means "to the purpose", or "for a particular purpose". The meaning has been corrupted to mean sloppy or slapdash. But in terms of its original meaning, processes should be ad hoc; if they weren't, we'd be doing things for no particular purpose.

    ---Michael B.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">That's funny, Michael - I didn't knew that!
    I don't know if it has been a corrupted meaning everywhere - but certainly here in Sweden.
    But then it is pretty strange to see that writers of testbooks are using it the same way as I do (i.e a lack of structure and goals).

    Best regards Björn

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Aurora, Ont., Canada
    Posts
    1,174
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    Bjorn,

    The use of "Ad Hoc" is indead "for a particular purpose" but in the context of a temporary need, rather than in the context of a specially focused on-going process. For example, the rescue and aid operations after the tsunami were "ad hoc" but in no way meaning "disorganized". Improvisation is a possibility in any project, including "ad hoc" projects, but that does not mean "ad hoc" is like improvised at all. It is probably best to think of it as non-permanent, which is a far cry from sloppy or slapdash that implies disorganized and poor work. If you purchase a testing tool it may require an ad-hoc selection team, because once it is purchased the need for that team no longer exists, but during its life the selection team is structured and it has specific goals. Projects by definition are ad-hoc, but people working on the projects may be members of permanent teams. But don't be too hard on yourself, Bjorn, if you are genuinely quizzing at that level your English is a hell of a lot better than my Swedish!
    Frits Bos, PMP
    frits_bos@hotmail.com

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    229
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    Originally posted by Bjorn:
    But then it is pretty strange to see that writers of testbooks are using it the same way as I do (i.e a lack of structure and goals).
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Writing a book doesn't require one to look up a word in the dictionary to see what it means. But it's also true that it only takes one person to begin to abuse a word; the people who parrot the advice in later works follow on.

    It might be interesting to see the evolution of "ad hoc" in testing literature to see when the idea of doing something to the purpose started to become a Bad Idea. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

    ---Michael B.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Your thoughts

    I still think that the terms "ad hoc" and "Exploratory" have been confused - both in meaning and in execution.
    Perhaps, like XP and agile, people tend to *******ise the approach to cut corners.
    Hence, "this is ad hoc, so need for any preparation, documentation, etc"...

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.36 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 8.57%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.4 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.8 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBNominate (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
BetaSoft Inc.
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:53 PM.

Copyright BetaSoft Inc.