We have seen while outsourcing software testing, there are two major existing models. The cooperative or extension model, and the manufactory model. In the collaborative or cooperative testing model, a company affiances with a testing partner, leveraging the partner's key strengths although retaining substantial insight and responsibility for the testing effort.
For example, Test Manager at ABC Company, were engaged in a collaborative test effort with Accenture India. They accepted a lot of test engineers working in India, executing test cases. Test engineers in India were connecting to the IT network thru VPN (virtual private network) and they were executing cases as were guided. They'd have every day group discussion calls (some of the times more frequently) to track and manage process on the test effort. There would have regular communication, and the testing vendor got significant direction from the Test Manager and his team, as well as from on-site Accenture team. These high degree of interaction illustrates the outsourcing software testing cooperative/collaborative model.
In a test manufactory model, the solution is a great deal more turn-key. As a whole, a product is built in-house and then "thrown across the fence" to a factory-model testing-vendor. Seldom does this happen in V1 products, and it also does not often happen without development also being handed to the vendor. The vendor sets a price, and the customer and vendor agree on a final date. Lastly, the customer establishes a clear bar for acceptation -- i.e., Guidelines for saying when the vendor is done. The vendor accepts the released code, acceptation tests to show they can exhaustively validate it, and then they carry through the pre-determined testing. This attempt is characterised by being independent from the customer -- very brief interaction between vendor and client happens. On the project windup date, the vendor comes back to the customer with feedback -- broadly in the form of defect reports and so forth.
Advantages and Disadvantages:
All models have its benefits and its drawbacks. The cooperative/collaborative model allows the client with a great deal of insight into the project -- it has status, challenges and risks. It also costs a lot in terms of management budget items. In a collaborative projects frequently validate leads would spend up to 60% of their time assisting vendors. Even so, for a risky project, or a project with important change, this is often the most beneficial model. The collaborative model is a must for organizations appraising vendors for potential long-run relationships because it brings out to the buyer how the vendor approaches IT challenges, decision making and so forth. In a low-trust environment, such as a vendor testing a new technology, it's also very advantageous.
On the other hand, the manufactory model is fantastic in that it's turn-key. It is as if leaving your home for the weekend and coming back to a new kitchen without going through the dust, noise, or pain caused by the work. In a high-trust situation, this solution works out well for each party. The client can leave it and forget it. The vendor can execute testing with their own methods. It moves with efficiency. This example is marvellous for testing projects like compatibility or regression validation. It also works well for benchmark testing or for independent validation testing. The disadvantages, however, are many. Because the testing methods carried out by the test factory vendor are black box, as a manager you would all of the time have that bad feeling at the back of your mind. Whenever the project is complex or hard to understand, it could ultimately cost significantly a lot than expected -- both in terms of schedule as well as (unplanned) resources the customer has to dedicate. Even with regular status updates, there is a danger that the vendor is down schedule yet hides it till the very last moment.
Conclusion:
You accept to pick the right model based on the situation you are in -- what are your schedules, what are the features of the project, what form of historic relationship do you have with the vendor, etc. Whenever you evaluate that input cautiously, you should be able to reach the right conclusion and finish up with the most efficient and effective approach to your outsourcing relationship.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
