Home » Tech » Defect Management Tools from a Critical Perspective

Defect Management Tools from a Critical Perspective

As a technical writer, I’ve spent years in the QA industry researching and writing about different aspects of software testing. It’s because of my passion for writing and technology that has kept me content with what I do. Throughout my career, I’ve been part of different organizations and being a writer, one thing that comes naturally to me is observation. I critically observe work environments and look for weaknesses to point them out for management. I would say that my success rate of convincing the management regarding the issues has been 50%. But for me, it’s enough.

In this article, I’ll be touching upon the topic of defect management tools. It will be a general view of mine and not something that you have to agree with. But my argument will be based on my years’ worth of experience and observation. I’ll be discussing some points in layman terms.

Let’s start with this: Defect management tools are important? Yes. But are they the only solution to your problems? No.

Tools are always there to be used and assist you in getting your tasks done. Whether they are mechanical tools or software tools. But relying completely on them is a mistake. The tool would not do the task itself. That’s the role of your testers, developers, or concerned employee for that matter. Acquiring the tool is the job half done. For the other half, you need to spend resources on your developers and testers to make the most out of the tools. I’ve often observed the QA team’s frustration when they’re provided the tool they don’t like or understand. Tools that don’t integrate with existing tools and complicate team collaboration are often cheaper as compared to the competition and sometimes, that’s what management only considers.

This is why choosing the right software testing tools for your team is very important and that’s my second point. Yes, good tools may cost more. But in the long-run, they will prove to be cost-efficient. Think of it this way, if your testers are unsatisfied and unable to work with a tool, you’re essentially compromising on your quality. Therefore, always let your teams have a say before acquiring a tool because, in the end, it’s them who’ll get the work done.

Last but most important point: even if you get everything right, you can never make a product 100% free of bugs.

This is something most QA companies seem to not understand. These high expectations usually backfire. The goal of 100% can add more pressure to the testers who are required to complete their work in a very limited amount of time. Plus, putting effort into making changes in code can often go wasted as it can lead to more bugs in the application. This approach can adversely affect the overall efficiency and productivity of the project. Therefore, it’s better to leave some bugs for the post-release updates.

About

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.