Date: 2005-02-14 Category: News
Software Testing Survey Shows Big Spend Brings Little Comfort
A survey done by The Original Software Group suggests that most companies are uncomfortable with the quality or level of testing done on new and revised software prior to releasing it to users - despite spending an average of over 600,000 a year on the activity.
In October 2004, Original Software, developer of market leading automated software testing solutions, commissioned an independent study of the software testing methodologies and procedures used by a range of companies. The results of the survey indicated clearly that the threat of software failure is being taken no more seriously now than it was four years ago when a similar study was conducted, despite testing practices that cost the average company over 600,000 per annum.
This study surveyed 130 companies based in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. A link to an online survey was emailed out to 2,000 IT professionals from a list provided by an independent market research organisation. Most of the respondents were management level and team leader level people involved in development and quality control.
The data produced by this survey showed that everyone from software developers to IT Directors believe they are expected to produce more with less: develop faster, go live sooner, and yet improve quality to minimise risk and exposure - all with fewer resources. The study also revealed that IT teams average 18 developers, five Quality Analysts and four User Acceptance Testing staffers, and that IT departments spend an average 33 of their time on software testing activities developers 33, QA 36 and UAT 29. At 13 hrs per person per week, and with a staff cost to companies averaging 34 per hour, that is 23,264 per person per year. Hence, the total average expenditure related to software testing for the companies that were surveyed is 628,143 per year.
Despite spending intended to stave off damage to profitability and credibility caused by software glitches, Original’s survey illustrates that only 13.5 of the sample group feels that their testing methodologies are highly efficient. 86.5 of respondents confessed to having at least some room for improvement in their existing processes. Only 19.4 of respondents said they used some type of automated testing tool, the remainder relying upon manual testing methods. The prevailing reasons given for not automating test processes were: Time 35; cost 33; script/data maintenance 26; and complexity 18, thus reflecting the pressure on allocation of resources.
George Wilson, Operations Director for Original Software, explains that as the demand on available man-hours increases, the need for effective testing strategies to reduce numbers of defects and cut development time is ever more pertinent. "It should be encouraging that companies are devoting so much effort and money to software testing, but the continuing levels of exposure, the lack of test automation and the available levels of improvement all seem to indicate that the time and money is not being spent efficiently. This inefficiency is a distinct concern. It means that bugs are not being caught early enough, that testing is not being conducted thoroughly, and that too many flaws are still reaching the live environment. Test automation, which, if done properly, enables companies to do more testing and catch bugs earlier in the cycle and in less time. This drives down development and testing costs and improves overall productivity."
Wilson says Original Software’s TestBench suite can save a company a minimum of 30 of the time and resource they are spending on testing. That amounts to over 160,000 per year for the average company. He adds that actual savings based on documented cases are more like 80 or 90. "Savings of this magnitude are made through the development of testing resources that are easy to use and maintain, and through the creation of faster, better, reusable testing processes," he says.
Among the group of survey respondents, 46.1 said the companies they work for are currently mitigating a corporate reporting compliance mandate. The most common of these are: Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability 19.3 FDA food & drugs regulations 9.2 Basel II corporate financial health 7.6 Evolving corporate accountability legislation is forcing organisations to support all of their business practices with corroborating documentation. Automated software testing enables these organisations to demonstrate the integrity of their business applications with detailed documentation and scripts that have been run against core software applications, thus satisfying government requirements.
Gus Kenyon, Original Software’s head of marketing, says the results of the Original Software survey reveal that inadequate software testing seems to be the default in IT departments. This is largely caused by a misunderstanding of what automated software testing is and what benefits it offers, and is in spite of numerous reports in the press of disasters caused by poor software quality. "The risks that companies are exposed to, coupled with increasingly aggressive productivity expectations, are driving the mandate for better software quality and efficiency in all facets of development and testing," says Kenyon.
Find out more about the survey and Original Software at http://www.origsoft.com
