The sense of mutual cooperation among the team members is emphasized from the weekly meeting and under the pressure of the owners (two stories)

Scenario:

During the weekly meeting of a project in the first two weeks, when the project manager said that the monthly development function failed to pass the test, the deployment goal in 24th day of last month was not met, and the customer was questioned.

1. The customer first questioned the development efficiency. At that time, the Project Manager explained that development was slightly delayed, but we did not pass the test by ourselves.
2. The customer was not transferred to the target by our explanation, and then complained about the low efficiency of the test. At that time, the project manager did not have the actual data to indicate the number of functional points to be sent to the test, and the number of defect results returned by the test.
3. The Project Manager explained that the project team had returned to the company for development, and it took a lot of time to prepare the test environment. In the past, there were differences between the use of different application servers in the test environment and production environment, therefore, the problem was detected only when the deployment was launched. Therefore, it took a week to establish the test environment and use the same application server as the production environment after the company team up.
4. The customer still did not let it go. It took a week to question why the test environment was created.

At that time, the project manager had defended several times and was aware that the subsequent explanations would be questioned. Instead of asking the contact person of the owner to ask questions, we can ask questions by ourselves. The QA who went to the spot check conducted the following conversation with the project manager:

QA: "Well, we have created several environments"

PM: "A development environment and a test environment have been created"

QA: "We know how to install every environment, from installing the operating system, to deploying supporting software such as Weblogic and Oracle, to configuring our applications, and restoring testing and developing databases, finally, we need to check whether there are any problems with the deployment environment. It takes a lot of time to complete these aspects. How many people have invested in this area?"

PM: "only one resource is invested. During the environment restoration process, we found that some data we backed up was missing. This time, due to the inconsistency between the test environment and the production environment, we also have consistency with databases and production systems. "(Note: This system produces a large amount of data and requires confidentiality)

QA: "Oh, from the manager's point of view, we understand that you have been working on a serial task for a week, and the time is a little longer. But this time we can accept this explanation, like the owner, I hope that you can improve the performance of the next improvement!"

 

Comments:

1. Building trust is not easy. if the customer does not trust it, your explanations may be further questioned..
2. This time, QA can help guide the process to understand the truth and help customers understand the facts. If our qa did not let the owners feel that QA is independent and supervised, it is also impossible to trust others.
3. QA is also using his credit to guarantee this time. If there is another time, can he guarantee it again?
4. Most of the time, things have happened and can be recovered only by understanding the cause, which will be improved later.. In fact, as the owner contact of the manager, you can also understand this point. The key is not to cheat him/her, but not to cheat him/her next time.

 

Scenario:

I went to attend a weekly meeting on Monday and heard the project manager talk with the contact person of the owner about the work last week. When talking about the test work, the project manager has improved the method and used data to explain the problem, for example, this test shows how many defect items are found and the percentage is analyzed by category. In the end, the user is informed that the test has taken 1.5 person-months this week, and there are still areas to be improved.

When talking about the content, the contact person of the owner interrupted and told the project manager that the content was too detailed.

Several colleagues attended the meeting on the spot. Only the QA and project managers insisted: "The data is very important. We must inform the owner about the current test, it is not equal to the fact that no online task has been deployed, so we do not need to pay attention to the test. We hope to continuously improve the process test and quality. Otherwise, after the launch, complaints are raised due to quality, which is the benefit of both parties."

 

Comments:

1. Compared with the previous two weeks, it should be said that the credit level of the project manager in the customer's mind has been improved, but adhering to the principle is necessary and can only be done in this way, because it is not a time to wait for quality, I remember there was a "Test Engineer" who didn't care about the customer. We had to educate him about it at ordinary times. What's more, we had to let him know about the test workload!
2. On the principle issue, the team members should improve their awareness of mutual cooperation. If QA is not present, the other two colleagues will be able to stand on the same principle as we do, dare to express our views?
3. If the project team members are not deliberately trained, they will not be around when you need it. These cooperative stories are not pre-defined in advance, and there is no chance of rehearsal in advance. They rely on consciousness.
4. It is easy to say that it is beautiful, whether it can achieve good quality, the real test is in the end, and the monthly deployment in March is the real test whether you can say it is done!