Rant : Inflicting poor quality systems and processes on customers

[Protagoras]

I decided to apply for a currency card with a start-up bank.

I installed the mobile phone app and the process went like this ...

• Enter user details, including title; I selected ‘Mr’ given the limited options
• Upload a photo ID; I uploaded my driving licence. It happens to have Eur.Ing. as my title, not Mr.
• System asks for proof of address
• Council Tax bill – rejected
• Bank Statement – rejected
• HMRC coding notice – rejected

And all because the system seemed to have decided that my first name was now “Eur Ing” and not "Mr" (having presumably scanned that from my driving licence).

Yep, I got a series of emails starting with “Hi Eur Ing,” explaining that I had failed to meet their 'verification requirements' because none of other documents matched for name.

Oh, the irony! A firm with such poor quality systems and processes that can’t differentiate between names and titles doesn’t get my business. There was, of course, no option in the App to allow interaction with a human.

I'd not realised that there was such a shortage of good BAs and Test Managers these days - must be the 'off-payroll' rules impacting contractor availability.

[jmo21]

Reminds me of this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7899171.stm

[northernladuk]

Isn't that just bad Ux and Service Design? Can't expect a tester to pick up this up. They will have a script which they followed to the letter and it passed.

[Protagoras]

Isn't that just bad Ux and Service Design? .

That, and poor test definition in my view. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think that a test case might be needed for this scenario.

[ladymuck]

Poor requirements gathering as well

[cojak]

But, but , aren’t BA’s a redundant species these days? What about those Product Owners who knew what they want without the bureaucracy of ToRs and requirement management?

[northernladuk]

That, and poor test definition in my view. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think that a test case might be needed for this scenario.

I must admit I don't know much about testing and definition but on the last two big progammes of work in the retail space I've been very surprised to find in both cases testing is signed off yet a couple of weeks in to hypercare both programmes had a list of defects the length of your arm. It struck me that they are testing against how it is supposed to work and (maybe I didn't have visibility of it) not doing much about what might happen if you did this and that. Every massive defect that comes up they said ah we couldn't test it due to volumes, it shouldn't be used like that, or other excuses. I did think testing was supposed to cover all eventualities.

I guess this is pretty normal on big programmes and operations being exasperated at the number of defects that hit in hypercare and grumbling about testing is just how it is. Keeps me in contract while hypercare/ElS extends and extends due to defects though to be fair so as you were.

[cojak]

I guess this is pretty normal on big programmes and operations being exasperated at the number of defects that hit in hypercare and grumbling about testing is just how it is. Keeps me in contract while hypercare/ElS extends and extends due to defects though to be fair so as you were.

That tells me that Devs, not matter what method they’re using, are just throwing code over the fence because they don’t have to maintain it or manage angry users.

But as you say…. KERCHING!

[Protagoras]

It struck me that they are testing against how it is supposed to work and (maybe I didn't have visibility of it) not doing much about what might happen if you did this and that. Every massive defect that comes up they said ah we couldn't test it due to volumes, it shouldn't be used like that, or other excuses. I did think testing was supposed to cover all eventualities.

That's a sorry tale.

So to the question; what is the purpose of testing? I've come across many who would say it's to show that the software works as expected. I, and hopefully others who have worked in test management, reject that philosophy and would always state that the purpose of testing is to find defects. And it's to find the defects as early as possible in the lifecycle.

Testing is a risk based activity; it's costly and time consuming to test all eventualities so in most cases coverage is limited but should be aligned with impact of failure. There will be safety critical software where test coverage is expected to be comprehensive, of course.

We know that it's cheaper not to code the defects in the first place. That requires BAs with the ability to imagine how a system might be used (as opposed to is expected to be used) and to define requirements accordingly - and then for the requirements to be tested.

[I am tired TIRED]

Good old Static Testing should have picked this up!!

https://testsigma.com/blog/static-te...Static_Testing

OR in the Agile space - A three Amigos meeting:

https://www.wrike.com/agile-guide/fa...-three-amigos/