Test Management Blog

A large part of any new test management system implementation is training. Delivery of effective training is key to the uptake and correct usage of any system you put in place. There are several options or approaches to training that should be considered. Each approach having it’s own advantages and disadvantages.

Training Mentors
Typically delivered internally this type of training is usually based in the real world. It involves having your trainer work side by side with the students in a live environment. The aim is to have the mentor(s) help staff by walking them through the system as they work normally. The big advantage here is that the students learning is reinforced by working in a familiar environment. The down side is that the effective mentor to student ratio needs to be quite low (e.g. one mentor to 1 or 2 students) for this to be effective. This of course can add to the cost or time scales if you have the recommended low ratio. Alternativley if you have many students to one mentor the teaching tends to get diluted.

Training Delivered Internally
Here the company implementing the test management system uses their own internal trainers to teach the students. The big advantage of this is that the internal trainer usually knows the companies internal processes and systems very well. In this way he or she can help cover scenarios that are important to company with depth and authority.

Usually to implement this approach an external trainer will train the internal trainer. The down side to this tends to be that many companies don’t have a dedicated internal training team. So they pass the job onto someone in the organisation that has little experience training. It also relies on the internal trainer understanding the test management tools well.

Training Delivered Externally
In this scenario the vendor supplying the test management tool offers a training package along side the purchase of the software. Here you can expect the vendor to have experienced trainers that understand the product inside out. Conversely they are unlikely to understand all of the companies internal processes and systems. As such they are restricted in the extent to which they can relate the training to the companies real business practices.

Remote Training
Many enterprise level solutions these days will come with some sort of computer based training package. This may be standalone video tutorials or training guides. Clearly the down side to this is that it relies on the student putting aside time to study and learn. Difficult when you have a day job demanding your time.

A good compromise on the remote training front can be delivery of training remotely by an external trainer. This type of training is usually carried out with tools like Go To Meeting or WebEx. Here the external trainer can share their desk top and talk directly with the students over a conference call. This approach means students have to dedicate time to the training. Of course they also get a specialist training who’s very familiar with the product. Without face to face interaction it’s unwise to allow each session to go over 2 hours. Students’ attention soon starts to drift without that direct interaction with the trainer.

Summary
There are many training options available beyond the usual “get an external instructor” solution. All of them have their benefits and disadvantages. So the option you choose will usually be dictated by a number of factors. Firstly do you have the resources in-house to undertake the training to a decent standard. Secondly how crucial is it for the students to learn about the test management system in “your” business context. If you have little resources and the context isn’t important then remote web based training may be the best solution. If you have the resources and context is important then your own internal trainer may be the way to go. Whichever option you go for it’s extremely important that you never underestimate the importance training has on the uptake of you test management system.

It’s always interesting taking a look back over the year to examine some of the significant software failures. Whilst companies rarely allude to the causes behind these failures it’s easy to argue that poor software testing is likely to contribute significantly. The trouble with blaming this on software testing is that it usually means the QA team takes the wrap. And in taking the wrap we’re pushed into blaming it on poor process (e.g. test management process), lack of resources or even poor requirements. Naturally the QA team feel aggrieved that they are being singled out. And rightly so. Product quality is the responsibility of the whole product team not just the QA team.

So when we see failures, like the three examples that follow, it’s difficult not to feel a large degree of empathy for the some of the software testers. These people are likely to be bearing the brunt of the failure. I’ve worked in financial companies where failures cost millions in lost revenue. I’ve seen testers fired on the spot in the witch hunt that follows. I’ve seen, miraculously, testing budgets doubled after such a failure. I’ve seen boards of companies suddenly understand why testing is so important. No doubt these three companies are currently following that same cycle.

1. US financial conglomerate fined millions for covering up bug

A fund that used computer models to work out its trading approach was found to have a significant bug. A bug that resulted in investors loosing millions of dollars. When questioning these losses investors were fobbed off with explanations around market volatility. The real reason was a software defect in the trading algorithm. Whilst it is alleged that employees found the issue and acted to resolve it the company alleges that they tried to hide the issue. What ever the background the company was fined heavily by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).

2. System issues result in ATM downtime for one of Japans largest bank

Issues on the ATM network for one of Japans largest banks resulted in a complete outage of the network. With thousands of machines out of action for nearly a day customers were left having to withdraw from branches only. This was compounded with failures to make salary payments and a million unprocessed payments. In conjunction Internet banking facilities were offline for three days.

3. Australian ATM defect gives customers extra money

With 40 ATMs giving out significant sums of money by mistake this Australian bank’s customers thought they had hit the jackpot. Apparently with the machines operating in a standby mode customers could withdraw funds without being prevented by any account limits. With this issue lasting more than 5 hours large queues formed with customers withdrawing funds well past limits set on their accounts.

There’s a predictable pattern when high profile failures like this happen. Blame the test team. They blame poor process (like the test management systems in place), lack of resources and poor requirement definition. Senior management wake up to the importance of the QA function. Budgets double to ensure it doesn’t happen again. When the dust settles budgets get cut as part of a company wide efficiency drive. Failures happen due to lack of resources/commitment to the QA process. The cycle starts all over again.

If these examples highlight one thing it’s the complexity of integrated systems. No longer are we testing a single system in isolation but we need to be testing massively integrated systems that all rely on this interconnectedness to function correctly. Some may argue that this complexity is going beyond our ability to comprehend and test effectively. Perhaps we’re at a point where no amount of well thought out test management process and software testing skill is going to prevent these types of failures?