How uTest will destroy your Quality Assurance

I just read on TechCrunch  an article by Roi Carthy that UTest will allow "Crowd Sourced" QA solutions, where companies pay per bug and get QA done by many anonymous QA people around the web.  I'm not sure what scares me more.

let's begin with one comment on this article that reads:

"who would give their unfinished product to strangers before it rolls out ?

do they have hte business knowledge to do so?"

 

Great question indeed. to which some QA person responded in the comments(bolded by me):

"It happens all the time. QA is not a very high priority in most companies. I work for a company that does outsourced QA for other companies. Most companies provide us with no knowledge about how their product is supposed to work except for the product itself. We do the best we can and help them make a better product, ideally they would provide us with more information, but they don’t want to spend the time and money so we make do with the situation. We test a few hundred software apps a year like this for various companies and are located in the US. Most of the apps are not programmed in the US and have silly errors that you would not have, were they written by an American or someone working on site with the company with the program idea."

So, this is chaos all over again. Not only will uTest not benefit the sate of software quality by lowering the bar for low quality quality assurance, but they will let companies think that this is a good thing!

The problem is most companies think QA is such a problem that can't be solved anyway, they may as well spend even less money on it instead of changing the way they work.

Problems that won't be solved:

 

  • QA will only find minute and superficial bugs.
  • Repeating test cases will still be a problem since it will not be automated.
  • automation will be a problem because there is no model of "pay per automation" or better yet "pay per bug reproduction automatically"
  • Like smoking "lite" cigarettes, companies will find that re-teaching the product to new anonymous QAs every time will actually cost them more instead of getting one solid QA team that knows it
  • Communication is something which cannot be thrown away.  If it is, companies will find that the product quality level will actually be lower, while quality expectation will be higher.

Note: I have sent a membership request to uTest so that I can explore the things I could do as a company wanting testers, so I can get a fuller picture..

The problem isn't uTest. They will make lots of money of the backs of companies who think testing is something you do at the end of development and costs less than development. The problem is the reality is perpetuates - a reality where testing is shoved aside. Can you imagine a company doing the same anonymous type of outsourcing to its development process? Oh wait, this happens too. The results are quite distressing.

What can you do?

  • Get a proper serious QA team (people that also know programming)
  • have them be part of the development team (tester per team at least)
  • Automate as much as possible
  • Every penny you save on your QA is a dollar you lose on quality later on.
  • Get some serious Consulting to help you.
Published Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:47 PM by RoyOsherove
Filed under:

Comments

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:53 AM by Jeff Brown

# re: How uTest will destroy your Quality Assurance

It's hard to find people to build a serious QA team with.

The ones that can do it well often want to be in Engineering.

The ones that want to be in QA often can't do it well.

*sigh*

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:01 AM by Jon

# re: How uTest will destroy your Quality Assurance

Funny about this article.  I just finished my first independent test contract (I have 4.5 years of professional experience at Intel and other places before that).  The guy I did it for is a private developer who has never had a tester and only used me for the project to see what it would benefit him for a change.  After setting up a Flyspray bug tracking server and finding about 30 bugs in 8 hours, plus numerous suggestions, he not only now believes in having a tester but he's already asked me to help with another client's project at a minimum of 5 times the hours he booked me for the current one.  It's nice to be wanted.

As to the whole issue about anonymous testers, that's why I have a resume and references, to show credibility.  Also, I think any 'skilled' or 'experienced' tester has, or should have, the ability to NOT need much hand holding in order to understand a new product depending on the level of complexity.  Oh, and another thing, I think a lot of devs would generally benefit just from having a tester (anonymous or not) evaluate their product on the basis of the 'user experience'.  Useful information is often gotten that way.  The tester does not have to be 'the ultimate tester' to do this.

I think the bigger issues an anonymous tester would end up getting dinged for is not being a good communicator.  I know many technical guys who can't describe an issue to save their life.  Several guys I've worked with in the past (working qa engineers) also have this problem and don't understand that communication is a big part of the job.

Boy, that was longer than I intended.

Merry Christmas all!!

Jon

Monday, December 24, 2007 9:33 AM by Mayank

# re: How uTest will destroy your Quality Assurance

I could not agree with more with the commentary on uTest.

Software QA is serious business and it appears that uTest looks is aimed at software vendors not willing to invest in creating a quality product. The use case seems to be the following:

a) Think of a product

b) Write some code

c) Hope it will work — oops! it does not

d) Get it QA-ed (uTest, tryBeta!)

e) Fix or patch bugs that get discovered — ones that don’t lie along to bite the customers later

I think this is not the way Software QA and Software Engineering ought to be.

For a serious QA team — please visit http://www.atishae.net/. We will help you deliver a better product, faster!

Monday, February 04, 2008 7:54 PM by tod johnson

# re: How uTest will destroy your Quality Assurance

Will it destroy your Q&A?

Maybe, maybe not.

There is no harm in trying something new.

It could be better for some things and worse for others.  

That's the beauty of evidence based management.... why not try everything and compare the outcomes?