Everyone wants lower costs, shorter schedules, and higher quality in software testing and QA—but you can’t have it all. Upper management wants cost and schedule savings, but you can’t just sacrifice quality, either. Could Risk-Based Testing be the ideal compromise?
How can we be more effective in our relationships? Jeff Van Fleet, Lighthouse’s CEO, thinks we should all take a lesson from Aesop’s Golden Goose…
When things go wrong, it’s easy to dwell on missed opportunities or previous mistakes. But instead of getting stuck in the past, what if we used our negative experiences as an opportunity to improve?
Software is never 100% defect free, so how far should responsible testers go before wading into the murky seas of cost overruns and diminishing returns—and what methods should they use to draw the line?
Everyone fails at one point or another, but what sets the truly great apart is how they learn from it and improve. In the IT world, almost everyone’s dealt with software project failures; but identifying their root causes can be difficult, making improvement impossible—at least until now, that is.
Caught between those who want empowerment and those who want to cut costs, how can middle management avoid getting caught in some nasty crosshairs? Jeff Van Fleet, Lighthouse’s President and CEO, has a few ideas.
In today’s world, software testing is increasingly seen as a commodity. But as companies’ reputations become increasingly dependent on their digital presence, is poor quality really acceptable anymore? And if so, isn’t it worth finding a high-quality outsourcing partner to protect it?
Let’s face it: business applications aren’t getting any less complex, and customers aren’t going to lower their digital expectations any time soon. There’s a new king in the IT world—quality.
Leaders are often fast-paced thinkers, but that can sometimes mean we leave others struggling to keep up. Does active listening hold the key to better leadership? Jeff Van Fleet, Lighthouse’s CEO, thinks so.
If there’s one common concern our clients share, it’s their initial worry that we’re not familiar enough with their customized software systems to test them effectively. That’s why we go to such great lengths to ensure our testers are effortlessly adaptable to all sorts of digital terrain.
