8

Modern testing is all about how you assist to "Accelerate the Achievement of Shippable Quality". Do your reviews help with accelerating? What metrics do you use to create proof of that? Testing helps with reducing risks, but at what cost? What is the return on investment. Overall I think the project managers question seems a very valid one. Wonder ...


7

What do you mean by "reviews" in this context? Many development teams do peer-reviews of code and analysis because they find that reviews improve productivity and quality. Many teams also make end-user reviews part of their Definition of Done for work. This is something the whole team should have an opinion on, not something you need to discuss ...


7

This is a great question. Several years back I analysed the bugs reported in a team and found that over half of them came about as a result of misunderstanding of requirements. Some things that can help to reduce this problem include: Have the team (QA, devs, PM, etc.) jointly add details to a requirement, so that they share a common understanding Using an ...


6

I think it is a very fair question for the PM to ask. Evaluating the proposed effort against its benefits, costs, and risks is proper leadership and management. If you have a proposal for testing, you ought to be able to articulate value. If you cannot, then do you truly understand the work? Testing is risk mitigation, and PMs own the responsibility to ...


5

If there are two stakeholders who have different understandings of the requirement, then there may be more. What about how you interpret the requirement, from the perspective of a tester? Or how about the customer? Or even the end-users of the product? If the requirement is ambiguous to the point where two people who (in theory, anyway) are working closely ...


4

One approach you could try is to have the QA working ahead of the developers. It would work something like this: Back end devs write stubbed API calls that mimic the behaviour of the finished functionality UI devs create a boiler plate front-end that calls into the API (getting results returned from the stubs) At this stage there is no implementation code ...


3

I'm not sure that there is a good answer to the manager's question. In some contexts, having formal gate reviews may be beneficial. However, reviews tend to be after-the-fact inspections, which aren't the best way to build quality into a product. I'd recommend rethinking what you mean by "review". For example, the Three Amigos can help you during ...


3

For me, it wouldn't make any difference if you did all the testing, B did all the testing or if you shared the effort. Nor does it make a (big) difference if what you notice in production is a new problem, an incomplete fix or a regression. In all cases, you should follow the procedure for reporting and assessing a problem found in the production environment....


3

TLDR: Optimize for throughput and your people will become T-shaped. First of all, I should address Is this the right approach? To which my answer is "Don't ask strangers on the internet. Try it and see." Agile incorporates two concepts that are relevant here: Attempt-inspect-iterate cycles Self-managing Teams Regarding the first... try it and ...


2

Welcome to PMSE! It's very normal for people to have different understandings of a requirement but what is interesting is that you haven't mentioned the person whose opinion matters most of all: the customer. The way to deal with your situation is to collaborate closely and frequently with your customer (sponsor / product owner / end-users), deliver results ...


1

You need to define further what you mean by, "...is not being tested properly". Was the testing not proper because the tester improperly performed the test or was it improper because the test was inadequate? Without an answer to the root cause, you have no possible action. So to answer your question, your best approach is to uncover the root cause. ...


1

I am going to answer this question more generically because deconflicting stakeholder issues should not require different methods based on who the stakeholders are or what the tasks are. Different opinions, interpretations, and perceptions are a given on any complex project so the team should have a process by which these issues are escalated, examined, ...


1

Here's a strategy that works really well for me, as a project manager who also has a very long history in pure software development: "that there are two distinct manifestations of the idea of 'software testing.'" Even though the identical term is used, they are in fact disjoint activities. Each one is applied at a different time, for an equally ...


1

One possible technical solution here might consist of asking them to create a second version-control branch. When the developers believe that they've finished their work, they move into a "pending QA-testing" branch. Final merges into production take place only from that branch.


1

I think It depends on which kind of VCS do you use, the distributed one or the centralized VCS, and also on your organization's policies. "The main difference between the two classes is that Centralized VCSs keep the history of changes on a central server from which everyone requests the latest version of the work and pushes the latest changes (no one ...


1

If you use Version Control software there should not be a problem sharing code. You can easily see who changed what and when, and even why, if you insist they enter a comment when checking in. This makes code review - especially of changes - trivial. The version control software will also highlight conflicting changes to the same code, so that one fix doesn'...


1

Try to identify the cause of the problem first. I can suggest some possible causes: Sprints are too long. Five to ten working days is a good length for a sprint. The problem with sprints of longer duration is that estimation tends to be harder, the team is more likely to overcommit, do too much context switching and then hit unforeseen problems. Unexpected ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible