| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.programming.software-in-process |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Hi Bill,
I would be immediately suspicious of a large back-end testing
requirement, especially one which has limited capacity. I agree,
the organization probably has no idea what this is costing them.
Standard queueing theory would tell you that running a testing
facility at or near capacity will create the same gridlock highways
experience at rush hour. A back-end testing capability run near
capacity can give you an order of magnitude delay in cycle time -
this is text book stuff. How to fix it? Send small batches into the
testing facility at a regular rate not to exceed the capacity of the
testing facility. Also text book stuff. Banks, airport security
check points, even grocery stores understand how to set up efficient
queues.
I tend to think that the best way to deal with software development
problems is to INCREASE FEEDBACK. In this case that would mean
finding a way to interleave the testing with the development cycle,
to give developers immediate feedback on any defects. Not doing
providing rapid feedback is almost certainly behind the load of
defects they experience. I'd guess the heavy back-end testing is
costing this company tons of money - you just have to get someone to
understand....
Mary
--- In [email protected], "Bill Wake > I would like
to think that the 3-to-4-week "burn-in" is overkill, but
> I don't know. I don't have the impression that they're having huge
> quality problems, but rather that there is great care on the
> customer's part. This is a high-volume site. If it's down, people
> start calling.
>
> I know they have constraints on the testing environment. There are
> several groups that share it, so you have to schedule windows for
> testing. (In the stability test portion, they want to make sure it
> stays up for a long time without leaks, locks, & other bad stuff.)
> *In the current way of doing things* this means you can't just
> count on "develop a month, test a month" as there are other groups
> in the same environment.
>
> My suspicion is that they don't know the tradeoffs of how much
> this limited environment costs them. (On the other hand, this sort
> of test environment is hugely expensive too.)
>
> Another possibility they've thought of is letting a bunch of
> development streams go, then picking up whatever's ready for test
> when the window opens.
>
> Where I think the challenge is that they currently tend to
> be "phasist." They've built a lot of their management tracking
> around that. It would be a real shift (but with real benefits) to
> get into a more iterative mindset.
>
> --Bill
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Flexible Keyboard is the ideal accessory for PDA users that are on the move.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dCBVZC/WnCFAA/xGHJAA/NhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/