Your team is divided on bug severity in QA testing. How do you ensure everyone sees eye to eye?
When your Quality Assurance (QA) team is divided on the severity of bugs during testing, it can lead to inconsistent product quality and team friction. It's crucial to establish a common understanding and approach to categorizing and prioritizing bugs to ensure that everyone sees eye to eye. This article will guide you through the steps to achieve consensus within your team and streamline your QA process.
To align your team, start by clearly defining bug severity levels. Severity is the measure of impact a bug has on the system's functionality, and it generally ranges from 'critical' to 'low'. Critical bugs may cause system crashes or data loss, while low-severity bugs might be minor visual issues that don't affect functionality. Ensure that every team member understands these definitions and the criteria for each level. This common language will minimize subjective interpretations and discrepancies in bug reporting.
-
Amrit Pritam Nath
🏆Passionate Quality Management Professional | Driving Excellence and Continuous Improvement | 🔆Linkedin Top Voice | Assistant Manager QA/QC (MR) at Commercial Syn Bags Limited.
To ensure alignment on bug severity, establish clear, objective criteria for categorizing bugs (e.g., critical, major, minor) based on impact, reproducibility, and affected functionality. Conduct training sessions to ensure everyone understands these criteria. Facilitate open discussions to review and agree on severity levels for contentious bugs. Document and share examples of different severities for reference. Foster a collaborative environment where team members can voice opinions and reach consensus.
-
Rajesh Patel
CEO at Meltron Technology | Delivering Precision Machined Components
To ensure alignment on bug severity in QA testing, establish clear, objective criteria for each severity level and ensure the entire team is trained on these standards. Facilitate regular meetings to review and discuss discrepancies, promoting open communication and understanding of different perspectives. Use examples of past bugs to illustrate the criteria and encourage collaboration, fostering a shared commitment to quality and consistency.
-
Pedro Cano
Gerencia de riesgos | RC | Crédito | Daños | Previsión Social Empresarial | Fiscalidad de seguros | Jubilación | Ahorro | Previsión | Inversión |Emprendedor inquieto y apasionado por mi trabajo.
Me he dado cuenta que no todo el mundo ve con la misma intensidad un error. He aprendido que definir claramente la gravedad de los errores es importante para asegurar que todo el equipo esté alineado en sus prioridades: •Establezco una escala de gravedad clara y comprensible. •Describo ejemplos específicos para cada nivel de gravedad. •Aseguro que todos entiendan el impacto de cada tipo de error. Esto proporciona una base común que ayuda a todos a evaluar los errores de manera uniforme para poner el foco de la misma forma.
-
Jack Lodge
Quality Assurance | VR QA Specialist @ Niorun Studios
Severity should be very clear in definition, there should be a graded system, (say 0 - 5) with 0 being show-stoppers and 5 being extremely minor with examples of bugs of each severity to help train new QA Analysts coming onto the project. To keep aligned on bugs there should be a dashboard on stuff like Jira that track number of issues, old issues, fixed issues, severity, etc. Alongside this there should be meetings each week ideally to discuss any repetitive bugs if you have a large team. It is vital to have a dashboard set up for something like this in my opinion, as it gives the developers a great idea of what needs fixing most, from P0 issues to P5 issues, as well as gives them an idea of the workload, allowing better planning.
Implementing a severity rubric can be a game-changer. A rubric is a scoring guide used to evaluate the quality of work, and in this case, it helps to assess bug severity consistently. Your rubric should include specific criteria for each severity level, such as the bug's impact on users, frequency of occurrence, and whether it affects critical features. By using this tool, your team can rate bugs objectively, reducing disagreements and helping everyone to understand the rationale behind each severity assignment.
-
Pedro Cano
Gerencia de riesgos | RC | Crédito | Daños | Previsión Social Empresarial | Fiscalidad de seguros | Jubilación | Ahorro | Previsión | Inversión |Emprendedor inquieto y apasionado por mi trabajo.
Una rúbrica detallada es una herramienta invaluable en la que todos podemos tener una puntucion exacta de la gravedad con lo que te proporciona una visión matemática que está fuera de interpretaciones: Lo que hago para que la rubrica funcione es: •Creo una rúbrica que incluye criterios específicos para evaluar la gravedad de los errores. •Comparto la rúbrica con todo el equipo y la uso como referencia constante. •Actualizo la rúbrica regularmente para reflejar cualquier cambio en las prioridades o en el producto. Esto garantiza que todos estén evaluando los errores con los mismos parámetros. Ademas uso una herramienta compartida (Smarsheet) en la que todos tenemos acceso y trabajamos a tiempo real con cuadros de mando.
-
Shrushrita Sharma
Quality Assurance | Agile | Digital Transformation | Biomedical Engineer | Career Mentor | Top Software Testing Voice
First and foremost in maintaining standard in the bug severity is defining the severity. The procedure should completely describe th3 severity, usually a scoring guide in form of a rubric. A rubric entails all the complete assessment how to assign to a bug and complete numerical perspective for the assignment.
-
Faissal Mouhandes
Project Manager bei adesso SE
There's multiple criteria which can be used to create a scoring guide and assess the severity of a bug, such as impact on function, reproducability, impact on scope, workarounds, user experience, security, and performance. Of course, this all ties to the stage at hand: a bug might be important, but not urgent, i.e. while it's in the development stage, whereas the same bug might be incredibly urgent while in production. Reaching a common understanding with key stakeholders, which criteria are to be prioritized, and which are secondary, helps build a scoring guide that can be relied upon by all team members.
Organizing workshops can be an effective way to calibrate your team's understanding of bug severity. In these sessions, present various bug scenarios and facilitate discussions on how they should be classified. Encourage team members to share their perspectives and reasoning. This collaborative approach not only fosters a shared understanding but also promotes team bonding. Over time, these workshops will help in developing a consistent mindset towards bug evaluation.
Regular review sessions are essential for maintaining consensus on bug severity. During these meetings, evaluate recently discovered bugs and discuss their assigned severities. This practice ensures that everyone remains on the same page and any deviations from the established criteria are addressed promptly. It's an opportunity for continuous learning and adjustment, as unique bugs may challenge existing definitions and require the team to refine their severity rubric.
-
Darshit Shah
Senior Lead QA Engineer with 13+ years of experience | PSM I Certified | ISTQB® Agile Certified | ISTQB® CTFL Certified | Manual Functional Testing | API Testing | Selenium | TestNG | BDD - Cucumber | Robot Framework
Regularly reviewing processes, practices, and outcomes is crucial for any team or project to maintain effectiveness and adapt to changes. It involves systematically assessing how well tasks are being performed, identifying areas for improvement, and making necessary adjustments to optimize performance. By reviewing regularly, teams can catch and address issues early, refine strategies based on lessons learned, and ensure alignment with goals and objectives. This ongoing evaluation fosters a culture of continuous improvement, encourages innovation, and enhances overall efficiency and effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes.
-
Pedro Cano
Gerencia de riesgos | RC | Crédito | Daños | Previsión Social Empresarial | Fiscalidad de seguros | Jubilación | Ahorro | Previsión | Inversión |Emprendedor inquieto y apasionado por mi trabajo.
Revisar la evaluación de errores regularmente es clave para mantener la coherencia y lo consigo de la siguiente forma: •Programo reuniones periódicas para revisar y discutir los errores recientes. •Comparo cómo cada miembro del equipo ha evaluado la gravedad de los errores. •Ajusto y realineo las evaluaciones según sea necesario. Estas revisiones regulares ayudan a identificar y corregir cualquier discrepancia en la evaluación de la gravedad y se nota muchísimo cuando después de varias reuniones del equipo se unifican criterios.
-
Jack Lodge
Quality Assurance | VR QA Specialist @ Niorun Studios
Regular reviews for bugs are vital as without those reviews you *will* lose track of bugs and forget about them, even if they are in your bug tracking software. During these meetings which should probably be held fortnightly everyone on the team should be aligned with what issues have appeared, what the worst ones are, and what the next steps are in resolving these issues or investigating further. If your QA team isn't reviewing your bug database then you will have an extraordinarily poorly performing QA department. It is one of the most vital things in QA in my opinion.
Open dialogue is the cornerstone of any collaborative effort. Encourage your team members to voice their opinions and concerns about bug severity without fear of judgment. When there's a difference in opinion, discuss it openly and refer back to your established criteria to guide the conversation. This transparent communication builds trust and ensures that all voices are heard, which is vital for reaching a consensus.
-
Pedro Cano
Gerencia de riesgos | RC | Crédito | Daños | Previsión Social Empresarial | Fiscalidad de seguros | Jubilación | Ahorro | Previsión | Inversión |Emprendedor inquieto y apasionado por mi trabajo.
Un diálogo abierto y honesto es imprescindible para resolver diferencias y en mi empresa lo tengo claro: •Animo a todos los miembros del equipo a expresar sus opiniones y preocupaciones. •Intento crear un ambiente seguro donde todos se sientan cómodos compartiendo sus puntos de vista. •Facilito debates constructivos para llegar a un consenso sobre la gravedad de los errores. Fomentar este tipo de comunicación abierta ayuda a asegurar que todos estén en la misma página y trabajen juntos de manera.
-
Jack Lodge
Quality Assurance | VR QA Specialist @ Niorun Studios
Without open dialouge you do not have a functioning QA department, at all. If testers are afraid of reporting issues or if developers are afraid of recieving them then there is a major problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. Open dialouge is the cornerstone of QA even more so, it keeps you in the loop constantly with your fellow QA members, builds friendships and trust, and makes sure that no mistakes slip through from a single person making a mistake. Without it you simply have to wing it and hope for the best, which is not a good idea for proper QA work as you need to be methodical and precise.
Lastly, leverage bug tracking tools to facilitate a unified approach to bug severity. These tools allow you to log bugs, assign severity, and track their resolution progress. They often come with features that enable customization of severity levels to match your team's criteria. By using a shared platform, your team can easily visualize the distribution of bugs across different severities and ensure that everyone is aligned in their understanding and approach.
-
Anantha Raman (ICP-ACC/A-CSM Certified)
QA Manager at Vitech Inc (ICP-ACC/A-CSM Certified)
Ensuring everyone sees eye to eye on bug severity in QA testing involves establishing clear guidelines, fostering open communication, using collaborative tools, implementing review processes, providing training, encouraging a data-driven approach, and promoting a collaborative culture. By following these steps, you can create a structured and transparent process that minimizes disagreements and enhances the overall quality of your software.
Rate this article
More relevant reading
-
Quality AssuranceHow can you differentiate between bugs and issues in QA engineering?
-
Quality ManagementYou’re a QA manager and your team is falling behind on testing. How can you get them back on track?
-
Quality AssuranceYou're drowning in QA tasks. How can you prioritize effectively and stay on top of your game?
-
Quality AssuranceYour team is hesitant about embracing new QA tools. How can you inspire them to adapt and excel?