A Quality Advocate isn't / shouldn't be about auditing the work of your fellow testers. The work of a Quality Advocate should be to check the current testing procedures vis-a-vis the product/prototype under test. When you have testers testing under you / for you, the supervisor's role is not to check if the tester tested the product properly. Because the tester has already been coached to be critical-thinking, and exploratory -- so assuming his/her evaluative report shows exactly that -- then rather the sup's job is to see if there's an expanded way to model the product under test, to give a more justified evaluation. What if we find there is nothing more to expand? Then either (a) you, as a supervisor, have failed in your task; or (b) your test team is above par excellent. note: 'justified' : General Context: In a general sense, "justified" can mean that something is reasonable, logical, or well-founded. For example, "Her concerns were...
Comments
Post a Comment