Project Smart ~ Exploring trends and developments in project management today

Calendar icon
Adobe PDF icon

The Top 5 Wrong Reasons For Not Hiring Testers

~ By Luc Richard

A computer programmer analysing his code

Considering whether or not your software company should hire a dedicated team of testers? Here are the Top 5 Wrong Reasons why you shouldn't.

We Have a Beta Program

Some people feel that the best way to debug a system is to ship it to your customers and wait for trouble tickets. I don't know how things work in your industry, but as far as I'm concerned, finding new customers is hard enough. I definitely don't want to make matters worse by shipping them buggy software.

I've spent the last five years in the telecommunications industry where the standard for reliability is 5-9. If I even suggested to my customers that my software was in its beta phase, they'd hang up on me immediately. I'm positive the same is true in any industry.

Imagine if I published articles that were not only full of grammatical errors but also missed a complete sentence here and there. Would you bother sending me an email to inform me that my articles are defective? Would you recommend my newsletter to your peers? I didn't think so! So imagine how your customers feel when mission critical software breaks and crashes on them.

Developers Will Get Lazy

Some managers feel that developers will get lazy if they know someone else is responsible for testing their code. Developers are either lazy or they're not. Someone who takes pride in his work will rigorously test his code regardless of whether or not you have a dedicated team of testers.

If your developers are lazy, don't blame your testers. Blame the developers! Not hiring a team of dedicated testers won't improve the situation. It'll actually make the problem worse because your sloppy developer's code will find itself in your customer's hand instead of your testers' lab.

We Can't Afford Testers

If you can afford testing, then you can afford testers. Basic economics - and common sense - prove that it's more economical and efficient to hire specialists than generalists, as long as you can keep the specialists busy.

If it takes you 50 person-months to develop software, you will (statistically speaking) spend 25 person-months testing and validating it. Which do you think is more economical? Assigning 25 person-months of testing to developers or testers?

As explained in quality is job #1, one of my previous articles which lists reasons why software companies should hire a dedicated team of testers, professional QA people are more efficient at verifying software than developers are. It's their job! Keep the 1:3 ratio in mind and hire one tester for every three developers, even if it means getting rid of your bottom-of-the-barrel developers to maintain a balanced human capital budget.

Testers Find Too Many Bugs

This excuse sounds more absurd than it actually is. I agree that in some cases testers report bugs that are valueless. Enter non-ASCII characters in one field, ASCII in another, stick a screwdriver in your DVD drive, do the hokey pokey and hit the enter key, and the system will return an error. Who cares? No customer will ever come across this scenario in a live deployment. (Actually, if I showed you some of the defects our customers are entering in our trouble ticketing system, you'd be surprised!)

If you think your testers are really finding too many insignificant bugs, give them guidance. Don't ridicule their effort or disregard their problem reports. Explain the use cases you're trying to satisfy and the known (and acceptable) limitations of the system.

We Can't Find and Keep Any Good Testers

I truly sympathise with those who bring up this point because it's true. Good testers are really hard to find and the first-class ones often apply to transfer to your product development team. Still, this is not a reason to give up on hiring a dedicated team of testers.

Here are three suggestions to keep your testers on your QA team for as long as possible:

  • When hiring testers, look for people who have previously held a QA role for at least a year. Beware of new graduates and others who will accept any position to get a foot your organisation's door. Chances are more likely that they will ask for a transfer as soon as their probation period is over.
  • Offer your testers a competitive salary. Some companies tend to pay their testers way less than their developers. As a result, testers request a transfer simply because they'd like to earn more money, and you can't blame them. Level your pay scales and you'll give them one more reason to stay on your QA team.
  • Allow testers to develop their technical skills. Give them the opportunity to write automated test scripts, install and configure test networks, and take design/development courses. Providing these extra benefits will entice your testers to stay in their role for a longer period. And when they do decide they want to move to your development team, they're going to be better prepared.

Conclusion

After reading dozens of opinions on the subject, I'm still convinced that having a dedicated team of testers is well worth the investment. You can disagree with me, but if you do, make sure it's for the right reasons.


Luc Richard holds an MBA with a major in high technology. For the past ten years, he's been managing the development of software applications.


Comments

Be the first to comment on this article.

Add a comment



(never displayed)



 
2000
Is it true or false that red is a number?
Notify me of new comments via email.
Remember my form inputs on this computer.

10 Golden Rules of Project Risk Management

Three red dice reading: Manage your risk

The benefits of risk management in projects are huge. You can gain a lot of money if you deal with uncertain project events in a proactive manner.

Work Breakdown Structure 101

Hierarchy icons on a white background

Work Breakdown Structure is a tool project managers use to break projects down into manageable pieces. Here's why you need one and how to create your own.

How to Build a High-Performance Project Team

Business people and bar graph going upwards

What makes a winning project team? Why do some teams achieve greatness while others struggle? Let's look at the factors present on winning project teams.

Introduction to Scrum

Rugby scrum in a big push

Scrum is one of the simplest agile methodologies and is proven to be highly effective for software development and more general product development.

PROJECT SMART is the project management resource that helps managers at all levels improve their performance. We provide an important knowledge base for those involved in managing projects of all kinds. With weekly exclusive updates, we keep you in touch with the latest project management thinking.

WE ARE CONNECTED ~ Follow us on social media to get regular updates and opinion on what's happening in the world of project management.


Latest Comments

Adama Bakayoko commented on…
The Role of the Project Manager
- Mon 10 December 9:36am

Aahana Laghari commented on…
Project Planning a Step by Step Guide
- Thu 29 November 9:47am

Prakash commented on…
10 Golden Rules of Project Risk Management
- Mon 26 November 10:52pm

Latest tweets

General Project Management • Re: Project Resource Capacity Planning https://t.co/Cz06NsMGI4 about 5 days ago

General Project Management • Re: Identification System for Project Management Methodology https://t.co/y27Ga6roUt about 9 days ago

General Project Management • Re: Software Project Management Effectiveness Survey https://t.co/DcdCpuliLN about 12 days ago