This guest blog post is part of an Atlassian blog series raising awareness about testing innovation within the QA community. You can find the other posts in this series under the QA Innovation tag.

The post is written by Paul Gerrard, a Principal of Gerrard Consulting Limited and is the host of the UK Test Management Forum. It is Part 1 of a two-part blog series on the future of QA testing.

Recently, there has been a spate of predictions of doom and gloom in our business.  Conference talks have had titles such as ‘Test is Dead’ and ‘Death to the Testing Phase’. ‘Testing has contributed little to quality improvement in the last ten years’, and even being a tester is a ‘bad thing’ – are all keynote themes that circulated at conferences, blogs and YouTube in late 2011.

My own company has been predicting the demise of the ‘plain old functional tester’ for years and we’ve predicted both good and bad outcomes of the technology and economic change that is going on right now. In July, I posted a blog, ‘Testing is in a Mess’, where I suggested that there’s complacency, self-delusion and over capacity in the testing business; there is too little agreement about what testing is, what it’s for or how it should be done.

There are some significant forces at play in the IT industry and I think the testing community, at least the testers in what might be called the more developed ‘testing nations’ will be coming under extreme pressure.

The Forces and Factors that will Squeeze Testers

The growth of testing as a career

Over the last twenty years or so there has been a dramatic growth in the number of people who test and call themselves testers and test managers. When I started in the testing business in 1992 in the UK, few people called themselves a tester, let alone thought of themselves as having a career in testing. Now, there are tens of thousands in the UK alone. Twenty years ago, there were perhaps five companies offering testing services. There must be ten times that number now and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of freelancers who specialise and make a living in testing. Beyond this of course, the large system integration and outsourcing firms have significant testing practices with hundreds or even thousands of staff, many offshored of course.

It’s not that more testing happens. I think it’s because the people who do it are now recruited into teams, having managers who plan, resource and control sizable budgets in software projects to perform project test stages. Many ‘career testers’ have never done anything else.

Lack of advance in the discipline

The sources and sheer volume of testing knowledge have exploded. There are countless papers, articles, blogs and books available now, and there are many conferences, forums, meet-ups and training courses available too. But, even though the volume of information is huge, most of it is not new. As a frequent conference goer over 20 years, it depresses me that the innovation one sees in conferences, for example,  tends to be focused on the testers’ struggle to keep pace with and test new technologies rather than insights and inventions that move the tester’s discipline forward.

Nowadays, much more attention is paid to the management of testing, testers and stakeholders expectations and decision-making. But if you consider the argument that perhaps test management is a non-discipline, that is  there is no such thing as test management, there’s just management, and you take the management away – what’s left? Mostly challenges in test logistics – or just logistics – another management discipline?

Advances(?) in Automation

What about the fantastic advances in automation? Let’s look at the two biggest types ot test automation.

Test execution robots are still, well, just robots. The advances in these have traced the increased complexity of the products used to build and deliver functionality. From green-screen to client/server to GUI to Web, to SOA, the test automation engineer of 1970 (once they got over the shock of reincarnation) would quickly recognise the patterns of test automation used today. Of course, the automation frameworks are helping to make test automation somewhat more productive, but one could argue that people have been building their own custom frameworks for years and years and they should have been mainstream many years ago.

The test management tools that are out there are fantastic. Integrated test case management, scheduling, logging and incident management and reporting. Except that the fundamental purpose of these tools is basic record-keeping and collaboration. Big deal. The number of companies who continue to use Excel as their prime test management tools shows just how limited the test management tools are in what they do. Most organisations get away without test management products altogether because these products support the clerical test activities and logistics, but do little or nothing to support the intellectual effort of testers.

The Emergence/Dominance of Certification

The test certification schemes have gone global it seems. Dorothy Graham and I had an idea for a ‘Foundation’ certification in 1997 and we presented a one page syllabus proposal to an ad-hoc meeting at the Star WEST conference in San Jose to gauge interest. There wasn’t much. So we came back to the UK, engaged with ISEB (not part of BCS in those days) and I became the founding Chair of the initial ISEB Testing Board. About ten or so UK folk kicked off the development of the Foundation scheme which had its first outing in late 1998.

As Dorothy says on her blog, the Foundation met its main objective of “removing the bottom layer of ignorance” about software testing. Fourteen years and 150,000 certificate awards later, it does the same. Except that for many people it’s all they need (and may ever need) to get a job in the industry.

The Agile Juggernaut

Agile is here to stay. Increasingly, developers seem to take test, Test-Driven and Behaviour-Driven Development and Specification by Example more seriously. Continuous Integration and Delivery is the heartbeat, test, life-support and early warning system. The demands for better testing in development are being met. A growing number of developers have known no other way.

It seems likely that if this trend continues, we’ll get better, stable software sooner and much of the checking done late by system testers will not be required. Will this reduce the need for system testers? You bet.

Some Agile projects don’t use testers – the testers perform a ‘test assurance’ role instead. The demand for unskilled testers reduces and the need for a smaller number of smarter testers with an involvement spread over multiple projects increases.

What is the Squeeze?

The forces above are squeezing testers from the ‘low-value’ unskilled, downstream role to upstream, business-savvy, workflow-oriented, UX (user experience)-aware testing specialists with new tools. Developers are absorbing a lot of checking that is automated. Some business analysts are taking their chance and absorbing test disciplines into analysis and are taking over the acceptance process.

If a 3 day certification is all you need to be a professional tester, no wonder employers think testing is a commodity, so will outsource it when they can.

Stakeholders know that avoiding defects is better than finding them. Old-style testing is effective but happens at the end. Stakeholders will say, “Let’s take requirements more seriously; force developers to test and outsource the paperwork”.

Smart testers need to understand they are in the information business, that testing is being re-distributed in projects and if they are not alert, agile even, they will be squeezed out. Needless to say, the under-skilled testers, relying on clerical skills to get by will be squeezed out.

A Methodological Shift

There seems to be a methodological shift from staged, structured projects to iterative and Agile and now, towards ‘continuous delivery’. Just as companies seem to be coming to terms with Agile – it’s all going to change again. They are now being invited to consider continuous ‘Specification by Example’ approaches. Specification by example promotes a continual process of specification, exampling, test-first, and continuous integration.

But where does the tester fit in this environment?

I’ll make some suggestions on what might happen and what you might do about it in the second part of this article.

Paul Gerrard is a consultant, teacher, author, webmaster, programmer, tester, conference speaker, rowing coach and most recently a publisher. He has conducted consulting assignments in all aspects of software testing and quality assurance, specialising in test assurance. He has presented keynote talks and tutorials at testing conferences across Europe, the USA, Australia, South Africa and occasionally won awards for them. Find him on Twitter at @paul_gerrard or his site, Gerrard Consulting.

(Guest blog) On the Redistribution of Testing – ...