Lutz Prechelt
Holger Schmeisky
Franz Zieris
ABSTRACT
Context: While successful conventional software development regularly employs separate testing staff, there are successful agile teams with as well as without separate testers. Question: How does successful agile development work without separate testers? What are advantages and disadvantages? Method: A case study, based on Grounded Theory evaluation of interviews and direct observation of three agile teams; one having separate testers, two without. All teams perform long-term development of parts of e-business web portals. Results: Teams without testers use a quality experience work mode centered around a tight field-use feedback loop, driven by a feeling of responsibility, supported by test automation, resulting in frequent deployments. Conclusion: In the given domain, hand-overs to separate testers appear to hamper the feedback loop more than they contribute to quality, so working without testers is preferred. However, Quality Experience is achievable only with modular architectures and in suitable domains.
- Manifesto for Agile Software Development. http://www.agilemanifesto.org, 2001.Google Scholar
- D. J. Anderson. Kanban: Successful Evolutionary Change for Your Technology Business. Blue Hole Press, 2010.Google Scholar
- K. Beck and C. Andres. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Second Edition. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Boeg. Priming Kanban. InfoQ/Trifork, 2nd edition, 2012.Google Scholar
- P. Bourque and R. E. Fairley, editors. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBoK V3.0). IEEE Computer Society, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Crispin and J. Gregory. Agile testing: A practical guide for testers and agile teams. Pearson Education, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Feitelson, E. Frachtenberg, and K. Beck. Development and Deployment at Facebook. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(4):8--17, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. J. Guo, T. Zimmermann, N. Nagappan, and B. Murphy. Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: An empirical study of Microsoft Windows. In Proc. 32nd ACM/IEEE Int'l. Conf. on Software Engineering, volume 1 of ISCE '10, pages 495--504, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Humble and D. Farley. Continuous Delivery. Addison-Wesley, 2011.Google Scholar
- M. Hüttermann. DevOps for Developers. Apress, 2012. Google ScholarCross Ref
- IEEE Computer Society. 7th IEEE Int'l. Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), 2014.Google Scholar
- Int'l. Software Testing Qualifications Board (ISTQB). Advanced level in a nutshell. Available online: http://www.istqb.org/certification-path-root/advanced-level/advanced-level-in-a-nutshell.html, 2014.Google Scholar
- J. of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability. Wiley, 2015.Google Scholar
- V. Kettunen, J. Kasurinen, O. Taipale, and K. Smolander. A study on agility and testing processes in software organizations. In Proc. 19th Int'l. Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA '10, pages 231--240, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Larsen and J. Shore. Your Path through Agile Fluency. Available online: http://martinfowler.com/articles/agileFluency.html, 2012.Google Scholar
- M. V. Mäntylä, J. Itkonen, and J. Iivonen. Who tested my software? Testing as an organizationally cross-cutting activity. Software Quality Journal, 20(1):145--172, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. H. Olsson, J. Bosch, and H. Alahyari. Towards R&D as innovation experiment systems: A framework for moving beyond agile software development. In IASTED Multiconferences - Proc. of the IASTED Int'l. Conf. on Software Engineering, SE 2013, pages 798--805. ACTA Press, 2013.Google Scholar
- M. Poppendieck and T. Poppendieck. Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Runeson and M. Höst. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2):131--164, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Salinger, L. Plonka, and L. Prechelt. A coding scheme development methodology using grounded theory for qualitative analysis of pair programming. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 4(1):9--25, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Schwaber and J. Sutherland. The Scrum guide. Technical report, scrum.org, July 2013.Google Scholar
- J. Shanteau. Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 53(2):252--266, 1992.Google Scholar
- A. L. Strauss and J. M. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. SAGE, 1990.Google Scholar
- D. Talby, O. Hazzan, Y. Dubinsky, and A. Keren. Agile software testing in a large-scale project. IEEE Software, 23(4):30--37, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Whittaker, J. Arbon, and J. Carollo. How Google Tests Software. Addison-Wesley, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Williams, E. M. Maximilien, and M. Vouk. Test-driven development as a defect-reduction practice. In Proc. 14th Int'l. Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE '03, pages 34--45, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. K. Yin. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, 2003.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Quality experience: a grounded theory of successful agile projects without dedicated testers
Recommendations
A study on agility and testing processes in software organizations
ISSTA '10: Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on Software testing and analysisIn this paper, we studied the differences in testing activities between software organizations which apply agile development methods and organizations which take the traditional plan-driven approach. Our focus was on the concepts which allow the ...
A multi-case study of agile requirements engineering and the use of test cases as requirements
ContextIt is an enigma that agile projects can succeed 'without requirements' when weak requirements engineering is a known cause for project failures. While agile development projects often manage well without extensive requirements test cases are ...
Best managerial practices in agile development
ACM SE '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Southeast Regional ConferenceAgile development has been gaining momentum over the year. It practices are perceived by some to be the best for software development. This work investigates agile best development and managerial practices, specially the benefits for optimizing the ...
Comments