Developers and testers "role conflicts"
The company has held a discussion on software quality. At the end of the test group leaders and some members complained that the development group "did not cooperate" attitude, and the members of the development group were not named, as if "let you blow the rain, I Self n't move. " I don't have anything wrong with it (not a project), but I always think that it is wrong, but I have been thinking, but I have not formed a clear idea. I finally prompted that I wrote this article is the later experience, sitting next to me (I and him is not a project) by the two testers' peasant questions, in which he put forward very convincing reasons ( At least in my opinion), I still can't let the testers go away, because whenever the test person seems to be a mountain poor water, the reason why the words are poor, they will move out the "reasons" that doing trial: But the user will not think so ... .
This time, I finally figured out where the problem is.
When the teacher is known as the "Engineer of Human Soul", in 2004, there has been the largest irony, and it has been introduced in a certain manner - "strictly prohibits rape girl"; when the doctor is known as "white angel", the patient has to accept the red envelope phenomenon and The harsh service attitude; when civil servants are known as "public servants of the people", the people see is a pair of high-top faces. In fact, the more you have to landscape, the sacrifice of the profession, the more the behavior of the professional ethics, the more it is, the more it is difficult to forget. Today, this attempt has once again emerged, and the tester is known as the "Software Guardian God", and "Spiritors of User Interests."
The sacredness is inappropriate, it is also very dangerous. For a tester, the strength is the root cause of the software quality guardian god or the user's interest spokesperson. In such context, the role is nothing to do. Test staff are often asked to "stand on the user's position", this sentence is correct, but it is entirely understanding. If anyone thinks, it has the ability to "stand on the user's position", it is only an attitude, then you are wrong. A poor test person is not only unable to ensure the quality of the software, but it is the maximum source of resources, which is the maximum violation of user interests. When the developer and one (or some), the essence of the problem is not as good as the test personnel, "We have to stand on the user's position" test person, and the conflict is in the difficulty. Another sentence that testers often taught is probably "regarding the user as an idiot." For some universal software, maybe due to the user's horizontal, even if the literal understanding is not wrong, but for the system software, the user's level is not problematic, and the idiot is impossible to find such a job. I think this sentence should not make simple things, or if it is easy to operate, the user is even willing to sacrifice some other factors. It does not only look at the discourse or action of the discovery of the copy of the copy, not only lack of creativity, but also lacks insight.
Conflicts are not only caused by insufficient ability, and unsupervised agent relationships are also an important reason. Many testers are responsible for the user's spokesperson to the user. This behavior is generally referred to as a proxy, however, in the absence of supervision, the agent may hue to seek their own interests by the name of the agent. There is no more professional ethics that do not have the priority and even fabricating demand for the user's full exchange.
In fact, there is inconsistency where the opinions are inconsistent, even if it is also a red ear, it is often a red ear, but few people think this is a problem. The "role conflict" between developers and testers often causes the fierce reaction of people because many people will imagine the relationship between the two imagine the body and take a while. Based on such hypothetics, it is difficult to quote the proposal of the test personnel, and the developer is difficult to play its greatest potential in an untrusted environment. I am more willing to think that the relationship between the two and the relationship between the forward and defenders is similar, dividing labor is completely tactical, no one wants to lose the game. Of course, not all issues come from testers, and our group has a very good QA. Everyone is very harmonious, and his strength has won the respect of everyone. It is said that after the test position is injecting too much emotional factors, it is always impossible to reasonably look at the rationality of its behavior, which is not normal. Perhaps, it is inappropriate to divide others into development and testing itself, this classification is based on a culture that is full of distrust. In XP, the test has a very important position, but there are few (at least I have not seen) the speech about the test role, I think XP is probably a distinct cultural, is a kind of people-oriented culture.
