How can software QA processes be implemented without stifling productivity?

Implement QA processes slowly over time. Use consensus to reach agreement on processes and adjust and experiment as an organization grows and matures. Productivity will be improved instead of stifled. Problem prevention will lessen the need for problem detection. Panics and burnout will decrease and there will be improved focus and less wasted effort. At the same time, attempts should be made to keep processes simple and efficient, minimize paperwork, promote computer-based processes and automated tracking and reporting, minimize time required in meetings and promote training as part of the QA process. However, no one, especially talented technical types, like bureaucracy and in the short run things may slow down a bit. A typical scenario would be that more days of planning and development will be needed, but less time will be required for late-night bug fixing and calming of irate customers.

What if the application has functionality that wasn't in the requirements?

It may take serious effort to determine if an application has significant unexpected or hidden functionality, which it would indicate deeper problems in the software development process. If the functionality isn't necessary to the purpose of the application, it should be removed, as it may have unknown impacts or dependencies that were not taken into account by the designer or the customer.
If not removed, design information will be needed to determine added testing needs or regression testing needs. Management should be made aware of any significant added risks as a result of the unexpected functionality. If the functionality only affects areas, such as minor improvements in the user interface, it may not be a significant risk.

What if the project isn't big enough to justify extensive testing?

Consider the impact of project errors, not the size of the project. However, if extensive testing is still not justified, risk analysis is again needed and the considerations listed under "What if there isn't enough time for thorough testing?" do apply. The test engineer then should do "ad hoc" testing, or write up a limited test plan based on the risk analysis.

AGILE – A NEW APPROACH

Iterative development, customer involvement, frequent delivery and other principles and values of the Agile Manifesto support the argument that agile is different from traditional heavyweight or plan-driven approaches. This section focuses on more detailed differences between agile methods and traditional approaches.

            Traditional approaches aim to make software development predictable. Therefore, they try to impose a defined process with a lot of planning. Agilists see that a defined process is suitable for predictable manufacturing domains. They believe that developing software is an unpredictable activity. Therefore, they try to focus on an adaptive process (Schwaber 1996). An adaptive process is a process that can give control over unpredictability. To survive in unpredictable world we need iterative and incremental development in order to control the unpredictable process.

            Agile methods promote working in an open plan area rather than separate offices, in order to increase communication between the team members (Larman 2004). In agile development, all team members are involved in a variety of different activities during the development process such as design, coding, and testing, where traditional methodologies try to give people separate tasks according to the lifecycle phases.

            Traditional approaches prefer formal, stable and complete requirements in advance, where in agile methods the requirements are adjustable, informal stories. These stories will be changed and prioritized through iterations, and this will be done collaboratively by the customers and developers (Boehm et al. 2003).

            Traditional approaches use documentation, contracts and review boards to communicate with the customer, where agile methods strongly emphasize having a dedicated customer who is involved in the development process (Boehm et al. 2003). Having a customer onsite is crucial in agile development (Deursen 2001).

            Generally, traditional approaches follow theory X in management (McGregor 2006), which assumes that the average human beings prefer to be directed, wish to avoid responsibility, lazy and will avoid work if they can. Therefore, most people must be controlled directed and threatened with punishment. Agile methods follow theory Y (McGregor 2006), which assumes that average human beings are not lazy, but able to learn under proper conditions. Moreover, work can be a source of satisfaction. In addition, external control and the threat of punishment are not the only means to force people to work. Instead, self-direction and self-control are more important and can be directed to achieve the organization’s objectives (McGregor 2006).

            Traditional approaches to quality assurance are paper based, heavyweight measured by conformance to plan (Fowler 2005). SW-CMM (Capability Maturity Model for Software) defines quality assurance as specification and process compliance, where Boehm stated that in agile methods quality is customer satisfaction (Boehm et al. 2003). Scott Ambler stated “quality is an inherent aspect of true agile software development” and this is as a result of practices such as iterative development, test driven development and refactoring (Ambler 2005).

            Under the umbrella of Agile term sit more specific approaches such as Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, Crystal Methods, Adaptive Software Development (ASD), Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM), Feature-Driven Development (FDD), and Lean Development. XP is the most widely recognized agile method (Boehm et al. 2003). Kent Beck developed this method during his experience with the C3 project (Comprehensive Compensation System). XP practices were originally intended for small, collocated teams. Although some practitioners like Kent Beck and Ron Jeffries may envision that XP can be extended to larger teams, they do not try to convince people that it can work for teams of 200 (Highsmith 2002). XP is based on four values, communication, simplicity, feedback, and courage. XP practices include pair programming, continuous integration, refactoring, test-first programming and user stories (Beck et al. 2004).

            Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland developed Scrum when they realized that software development is an unpredictable activity. Scrum, along with XP is one of the most widely used agile methods (Ambler 2006). This method defines a project management framework, managed by the Scrum master. Scrum is one of the few agile methods that has been scaled up to medium projects. In Scrum, the iteration length is 30 days and it is called a “sprint”. The sprint will be preceded by pre-sprint planning and will be followed by a post-sprint meeting. Scrum practices include the daily scrum meeting and product backlog (Schwaber et al. 2001).

How do you know when to stop testing?

This can be difficult to determine. Many modern software applications are so complex and run in such an interdependent environment, that complete testing can never be done. Common factors in deciding when to stop are...

· Deadlines, e.g. release deadlines, testing deadlines;

· Test cases completed with certain percentage passed;

· Test budget has been depleted;

· Coverage of code, functionality, or requirements reaches a specified point;

· Bug rate falls below a certain level; or

· Beta or alpha testing period ends.