Software is risky because it’s so difficult. For those outside the business, it’s hard to comprehend how difficult it is – computers are our information slaves, right? Tell them what to do, and they do it. Yes, and although the tools are getting better with time, computers are profoundly stupid. They will very rapidly, decisively, and often irreversibly do the dumb thing if you don’t very carefully tell them not to, and this in turn takes immense attention to detail.
It takes human intelligence to make computers solve a business problem, and humans make mistakes: they overlook stuff, make typos, make assumptions that aren’t always correct, and run into trouble communicating to others.
If a “bug” is an actionable item about the quality of the software, then people who tell computers what to do create bugs constantly, mostly un-characterized and un-measured bugs that will likely haunt the software project at some point in the future.
Teams need testers on the product early on: people who measure the quality of the product in a repeatable way and can report on issues found, and people who focus on the quality of the product rather than on getting the product to do stuff.
Software development is so difficult, it’s become a highly specialized and focused skill. Developers are focused on getting the product to work and meeting deadlines, because they have to be. Asking devs to focus on quality is like asking a race car driver to drive without a riding mechanic in the 1911 Gran Prix auto race. (Keeping a race car of that era running well took a lot of attention to the fuel mix etc.)
If you’re writing a phone game or a perpetual “beta” app, you can do like Google and outsource quality to the end-users, but if you’re doing something other than selling advertising, that won’t work. See this post: http://metaautomation.blogspot.com/2011/10/no-you-cant-outsource-quality-detour.html.
The quality of what a company ships is very important to a company’s reputation and goodwill. Just guessing from the typical software product lifetime, this is good for 5-10 years, meaning that quality issues have very significant impact on a business.
The solution is simple. To manage risk and protect company value, it’s a good investment to have software testers on board. Manual testers are important but not sufficient by themselves due to time and human error; a project needs regular, frequent, and highly repeatable measures of quality with highly actionable artifacts… you guessed it, once again I’m linking back to here to accentuate the increased value that non-GUI automation can bring to a company. http://metaautomation.blogspot.com/2011/10/automate-business-logic-first.html.
If the goal is to ship quality software on-time, a good software quality person helps by providing measures of quality and risk for components of the product and the product as a whole, minimizing schedule risk by finding quality issues early or heading them off with good bugs, and creating better data on the work backlog e.g. necessary refactorings and bug fixes. Smart testers can find business-logic issues, characterize them, and even suggest fixes. This saves the devs time and help them stay focused on the larger picture of implementing the product, which in turn helps ship on time.
Software quality has tremendous value to an organization. Companies can’t afford to short themselves here.
