As has long been the case in the software and technology industry, immigration is an important source for accessing Quality Assurance people.
Part of the reason is that, as per usual, QA isn’t always a job that attracts US-based developers. The US job market is already competitive for developers and moving developers on your team to quality assurance is often undesirable for a number of reasons. The result is that relocating QA developers to the USA is in many cases the most satisfactory solution for the industry.
Unfortunately, barriers to immigration continue to drive-up demand for qualified QA, which only further exacerbates the shortage of people with an appropriate development background already in the US.
Quality Assurance is not Optional
Compounding the problems experienced by a physical shortage of qualified developers for QA is the fact that some decision makers continue to consider QA an “optional” line item in their budget. Unfortunately for them, QA and the surrounding processes are anything, but “optional” and a good quality assurance engineer is a key player on any team.
In companies where QA is an accepted need, it is still often considered more of a necessary evil than a definite benefit. QA is too easily blamed when a project that’s been on schedule suddenly gets hung up in testing. Another common problem appears when development teams pick up speed after implementing workflow changes, only to discover that QA is still a bottleneck keeping them from delivering a product to their customer.
A Look at the Current Situation
As we’ve seen, numerous factors contribute to the myths surrounding Quality Assurance that contribute to this questionable climate that makes some engineers shy away from the moniker or even the field. Moreover, we are experiencing an actual shortage of qualified engineers, which means that QA in many instances ends up being not an afterthought, but rather a luxury.
Immigration and work status has been hot-topics for the last few years. And regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, if you work in software, you’ve likely experienced first hand the effect on the jobs market.
For those of you that have been lucky enough to hire engineers, many of you may have also been unlucky enough to discover that said engineer has to go back to India (or wherever his or her country of origin might be). And what started out as a short trip, quickly devolves into a lengthy, even a 6-month long, process to renew or regularize an H-1B visa, following changes made to the requirements in 2017.
Whether your experience with the dwindling QA applicant pool is first hand or anecdotal, here are some statistics for you to munch on:
The US Bureau of Labor and Statistics expects the market for software developers to blow-up by 24% from 2016 to 2026. That means a need for approximately 294,000 additional software developers in an already tight market. If you think it’s hard to convince an engineer to join your QA team now, just wait and see what it will be like in 2026.
We can’t know for sure the number of H-1B visas currently held up due to changes in requirements, but this article does a decent job of discussing the demand and actual need for H-1B Visa’s in for the USA with a focus on the State of Massachusetts. If you’d like to know more, I’d suggest taking a look; however, for our purposes, I don’t think importing QA staff is necessarily the answer.
So, you need to have QA, but you can’t hire qualified staff to take care of the work. What can you do?
The Foundations of Quality Assurance
Before I answer this question, let’s take a look at why Quality Assurance exists in the first place. From a business perspective, there are a few things that pretty much every customer expects from a software product. The following three expectations are the crucial reasons to the story behind why quality assurance is not optional::
- Customers expect that the programs will work as requested and designed, and within the specified environments;
- They hope that software will be user-friendly;
- And, they assume that software will have been successfully debugged: meaning that QA must deliver a product that is at the least free of the bugs that would result in numbers 1 or 2 becoming false.
Historically, software teams were small, but since the early 80s, due to the need to scale quickly and keep up with changing requirements and other advances in technology and globalization, we’ve experienced rapid growth in the size of development teams and companies. This growth has led to implementing a wide variety of tactics from workflow solutions, think Waterfall or Agile, to different methods of increasing productivity and efficiencies, such as offshore teams and microservices.
Take a look at this simple chart approximating the increase in development team size from the original release of Super Mario Brothers in 1985 to Super Mario World in 1990 and Super Mario 64 in 1996. (Noting that in the credits, by 1996 the occasionally thank entire teams, not just individuals, so actual number is likely even higher).
© Possum Labs 2018
Where we haven’t (at least in the USA) been able to keep up is in the training of new software engineers. QA departments, regardless of size, are challenged to carry-out all the different required processes to follow software through the development lifecycle to delivery and maintenance (updates), while also keeping abreast of changes to technology and integrations.
A misfortunate result of this shortage of QA engineers is that the point in the development cycle where most companies fall short is in testing. And, yet, the ability to provide useful and meaningful testing is crucial to the successful delivery of quality assurance to one’s client, whether building an in-house product, such as for a financial institution, or a commercial product for the public market.
While offshore teams may be a solution for some companies, many companies are too small to make offshore building teams practical or cost-effective.
What’s more is that many engineers tend to be good at one thing — development — they may not have a good sense of your organization’s business goals or even an understanding of what makes a good customer experience. And while your high paid development staff might excel at building clever solutions, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they also excel at testing their own goods. And do you really want to pay them to do your testing, when their time could be better invested in innovations and features? At Possum Labs we’ve determined that it is often most efficient to design workflows and teams to adjust to the people you have.
This disconnect between development requirements and a full understanding of business goals is in fact often the culprit in a pervasive disconnect between testing and business outcomes. What do I mean by disconnect? Let’s consider the four following statements and then talk about some real-life examples:
- Users prefer seamless interfaces, intuitive commands, and technology that makes them feel smart, not dumb.
- Businesses prefer software that assures their business goals are met and that technology allows their employees to work smarter with greater efficiency thus promoting growth and profit.
- Today the average person is adequately adept and familiar with technology to know when your software exhibits even moderately lousy UX. And companies can also experience public shaming via social media when they make a particularly dumb or inopportune mistake.
- And then there are the security risks.
In 2017 we saw several major security snafus experienced by large corporations that from the few details publicized were the direct result of inaction on the part of the decision-makers, despite being notified by engineering.
One might think that the decision makers, while moderately acknowledging the risk, may have simply gambled that nothing would come of the risks while taking steps to protect themselves.
I would like to go a step further. I’d wager that everyone involved fell victim to a set of common testing pitfalls.
Indeed, one of the most challenging aspects of testing is figuring out not only how to effectively and efficiently create and run tests, but most importantly to figure out how to confidently deliver meaningful results to the decision makers. Whether you are a software business or a business that uses software, successful quality assurance is crucial to the long-term health and success of your business.
Let’s do a quick recap of what we’ve covered so far:
- There is a shortage of qualified test engineers.
- Users want products they can rely on and that are friendly to use.
- Companies want products they can trust that improve efficiencies, their bottom line and that, of course, make their clients happy.
- It is difficult to create tests that deliver meaningful results when the testing is done by engineers that don’t necessarily understand the businesses end goals.
- Decision makers don’t want to understand the tests; they want to have meaningful results so that they can make effective decisions.
So what if we could solve all of these problems at once?
This type of solution is what Possum Labs achieves through the clever use of solutions and tools that integrate with your existing systems, processes, and people. We build out quality assurance so that anyone who understands the business goals can successfully carry-out testing and efficiently uses the results.
Not only does this solve problems 1 to 5 above, but it is also, in fact, a super solution in that it prevents most companies from having to hire or train new developers. Instead, you need to hire for people who with a keen understanding of your business and that can be trained to work with your tools. Possum Labs methods allow you to implement and upgrade your quality assurance — sometimes even reducing your staffing load — while delivering better and more meaningful results, so that your end of service recipients get better services or better products than before.
How does Possum Labs do this?
Each of our solutions varies a bit from company to company, but in general, we use several tools, including proxies and modules (think Lego) to make it so existing tests can be modified and new tests written with simply reorganizations of the “bricks.” This focus on custom solutions allows a non-technical individual with a solid understanding of business goals to generate tests and result that deliver meaningful results with confidence for him or her to share with decision makers.
The result is that testing bottlenecks open up allowing for a more efficient flow of information and better feedback through all channels. Products are delivered faster. Information flows smoothly. Better decisions are made, and efficiencies are gained. Developers can focus on development and decision makers in achieving their strategic goals. Meanwhile, you’ve got happy customers, and everyone can get a good night’s rest.