What do you do if your team is divided on software testing and bug fixing approaches?

By following the points given below, we can derive some solutions: 1. Discussion 2. Common Goals 3. Follow Best Practices 4. Continuous Improvement

To resolve disagreements on software testing and bug fixing approaches, foster open dialogue and understand the root cause of the disagreement. Consider getting an unbiased perspective from an external expert, and collaboratively define strategies through workshops or brainstorming sessions. Experiment with different approaches to see what works best for your team. The goal is to ensure high-quality software through a solution that benefits the entire team.

First thing to do is hear out all the ideas and figure out what areas need changing. Make others understand why things need to be done differently. Then implement those changes. Be insightful, willing to change and learn.

I punish them. All team members must obey my person and my orders. To have a successful and winning team, one needs to rule with strong hand, which builds authority. There is no place for different views, everyone follows the leader.

A divided team in software testing and bug fixing can be a hurdle, but it's also an opportunity to find a more well-rounded approach. Here's how to navigate this situation: Understand the Disagreement: Facilitate a discussion to clearly understand the different testing/fixing approaches proposed by each side. Ask clarifying questions to uncover the reasoning behind each approach. Evaluate the Options: Consider the pros and cons of each approach. Analyze how well they fit the project's needs, timeline, and resource constraints. If possible, explore research or data on the effectiveness of each method in similar situations. Seek Common Ground: See if there's a way to combine the strengths of both approaches.

TL;DR: Requirement document is king. In my experience, details in the requirement document can serve as the source of truth, and every team member should go through this document thoroughly at least once. This also serves as a good document to refer back to if feature creep is an issue in your team or organization. I think the testing and bug fixing should be per this requirements document.

Define clear and measurable goals for software testing and bug fixing. This provides a common direction for the team to work towards and minimizes ambiguity.

depending on your level of authority, one of leadership's roles is to not only set goals, but to define processes and boundaries. The downside of "measurable goals" is that you get what you measure and reward. Focusing on code coverage or bug counts will cause behaviours that often have adverse consequences. What you really need to do is to define wholistically what a "quality product" looks like. Then put processes in place that move in that direction

Setting clear goals is like planting a flag on the summit of a mountain. It gives everyone a point to aim for. In my point of view, the lead should guide, ensuring the team's compass aligns with these goals. I feel quality of the tests matter more than the quantity. Mentoring the team to come up with clear and more relevant test scenarios not only sets a tangible goal, but also helps them to chart the course, measure progress, and keep the team focused on the climb.

Encouraging new solutions and approaches is a good idea, as long as the efforts to discover them are time-boxed in a reasonable timeframe. A good way to decide the 'reasonable' timeframe is to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the problem at hand and take a call accordingly. For example: Reducing the latency of API calls on your app's homepage at ~20 seconds should be a priority, but a ~3-second response time may or may not be at the top of your team's priority list, and can be timeboxed accordingly.

Flexibility is not the issue. Buy in is. Yes a divided team needs to have a session that airs out all the views and perspectives. It is important that everyone feel they got adequately heard or represented. then, at the end of that, a decision needs to be made. Again as I wrote before, the flexibility available varies amongst product domains. One thing to remember is that under USA Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) law, ultimately the processes do roll up literally onto the heads of the CEO, CTO, CIO and CFO. They can go to jail if things are not properly followed. Thus the level of flexibility in ANY corporate enviroment is limited

Acknowledge that there may be different valid approaches to testing and bug fixing. Encourage openness to experimentation and adaptation based on the specific context of each project.

Documenting approaches to solving problems is a good way to improve communication. If it is fruitful, you have a solution to the problem at hand, and if it isn't, it's still a lesson your team can learn from. Documenting high-level testing approaches is a good way to ensure the testing is documented as well as the application architecture.

Encourage open and respectful communication among team members. Create an environment where everyone feels comfortable expressing their perspectives and concerns. Regular team meetings and discussions can help facilitate this communication.

I think that a COMUNICATION between both teams is the most important point, which will resolver a lot of problems in the future.

In my experience, Software testing is a process of evaluating software to identify the defects or errors whereas bug fixing is investigating errors, identifying the root causes and implement solutions to resolve those. So both are essential components those work together to deliver high-quality software products.Protocols like Unified goal setting,cross-training activities bridge the gap and promote collaboration. Having agreed benchmarks and targets will help measure the teams their effectiveness in progressing forward together. Another effective step is to have frequent Review & Retrospectives sessions in a set interval. This will not only help team members to identify the challenges but also quickly pivot to the better approaches.

Establish standardized protocols or guidelines for software testing and bug fixing. While allowing for flexibility, having clear protocols in place can help streamline processes and minimize confusion.

Regular review sessions are essential for evaluating the effectiveness of testing and bug fixing approaches. Analyzing outcomes, addressing issues, and gathering feedback from team members fosters continuous improvement and keeps the team responsive to project needs and insights. It's an iterative process that ensures alignment and quality in the testing process.

Schedule regular reviews of the testing and bug fixing processes to evaluate their effectiveness. Use these reviews as opportunities to gather feedback from team members and make adjustments as needed.

A valuable approach to regular review involves conducting effective defect triage meetings with the team. During these sessions, the team aligns on the issues and bugs that require prioritization. However, it’s essential to include business stakeholders in these discussions to ensure that criticality isn’t solely defined by the project team. By involving stakeholders, you create a holistic view that considers both technical impact and business implications.

Early Testing: Shift testing activities left in the development process. Begin testing as soon as possible—ideally during code writing or immediately after. Static Code Analysis: Use tools to analyze code statically. Detect issues like code smells, security vulnerabilities, and potential bugs early on. Peer Reviews: Encourage peer code reviews during development. Desk Checks: Informal Reviews: Conduct informal desk checks within the team. Developers review each other’s code at their desks Quick Feedback: Desk checks provide quick feedback, allowing developers to address issues promptly. Remember, a proactive approach to quality pays off in the long run. By combining shift left practices and desk checks

The first 6 options are somewhat obvious and TBH a little cliche. Yes, we all hope and expect to reach consensus through collaboration and evidence based reasoning. Sadly, this is often not what happens and maybe that’s not all bad ? In many parts of the world you come across a ‘show me’ imperative. It is the assertion that ‘talk is cheap’, or at least less effective than a tangible demonstration. So, if your weight of argument isn’t working, build enough of your preferred approach to make it self evident that it has merit beyond the over simplified dismissals from those with a different agenda. I am tempted to trot out the ‘ask for forgiveness …’ line … perhaps we all should stop tiptoeing around each other and act like ‘grown ups’ ?

The code author knows it’s better than anyone so the unit tests MUST be covered by authors. Unit tests describe how this sub-system should work. Separated testing team is needed for complex integration tests. Those tests cover describe how sub-systems must communicate. I want to share solution from Bright Data company I worked. There was no dedicated testing team, but every single programmer was included in tests development. Every error occurred needs to be added as failed test case and fixed. Health server metrics help to monitor problems occurrence for rapid bug fixing. So best way solution - unify testing/developing teams to do their work together. Instant communication and same context

Introduce elements of gamification (Gamified Testing) into your testing protocols. Set up challenges, leaderboards, and rewards for identifying and fixing bugs. This will boost engagement and make the mundane task of bug hunting more exciting. This is just a simple process change with all the existing tools and frameworks intact.