Reviews (1-13 of 13)
- Easy to track defects within our Agile release cycle passing them from developers to project managers to the testing team
- Gives us visibility into previous release cycles and plan our future iterations
- Should give us the ability to make regression testing easier
- Since all of our teams use HP Quality Center we're forced to use fields and page layouts that don't make any sense to our team. It feels very jerry-rigged sometimes and we don't have flexibility to add our own fields since there's no user permissions/roles to control what different groups of people should see.
- Our contractors don't have licenses to use HP Quality Center and the cost makes it a prohibitive option so we have to duplicate enter all of our items into SharePoint so our contractors can see.
- The design is rather dated and its clunky to navigate. On newer systems the resolution is extremely small and you have to force IE into legacy mode. This product could really use a new coat of paint.
- It does particularly well to track defects and generate customized reports
- Test scripts upload and requirement mapping can be done on this platform. This helps the developer understand exactly where the requirement is for a defect.
- It has a role based model that lets developers do certain actions, and testers can play their own.
- You can use it in the cloud
- Quality Center has a lot of room for improvement for reporting and analysis. Because it does not provide crystal clear reports by itself, we have a separate team that creates dashboards from Quality Center data. Some basic business and analytic reports should be available by default that can be published on the intranet so that anyone can view them. The software mandates a user to login and create reports, which is not practical for anyone in senior management.
- Quality Center is run as a web based EXE tool. It is appreciable how it has been implemented, but there is a little lag because of this.
- It does not let a user save a defect template. This results in tremendous redundancy of work. In a large scale organization, we are creating tools to minimize these efforts. A shortcut to save multiple defect templates helps testers avoid redundancy and focus on their own business functions.
- Defect lifecycle/tracking.
- Script execution uniquely by projects.
- Ability to integrate with Microsoft Excel and email clients.
- Dashboard/reporting/SQL services.
- Reporting - there is no network-based easy to use reporting process in QC. We had to build an internal website for this.
- Bug analysis - having an AI to understand bug patterns/similar bugs would be very helpful.
- Inherit queries like getting and reporting bugs that were logged the same day or fixed on a given day would help.
It is less appropriate for Agile methodology as requirements are done in the form of user-stories. So, in that case, we would not be able to use this tool at all. Some reporting features require refinement and major changes. No bug learning/AI features. QC has a few bugs in itself when it comes to caps ON/OFF when searching for defects. That small improvement would help.
- It is an excellent tool to manage defects - and lets us see all the defects logged for that application.
- It has provisions to enter detailed test scenarios that can be listed to be run on the test labs.
- It has various metrics and reports that enable the entire team to keep an eye on the various stages of the defect lifecycle.
- It is also synced to another project planning tool of this organization called the RTC.
- It could have better dashboard views of defects.
- The reverse sync between RTC and Quality Center could be a new area to explore.
- A new functionality to add the incidents and other walk-up tickets that are raised during the building of an application.
- HP QC is not fancy - it takes seconds to load - it is fast and immediate. If I am on a call with a business client and if I need to find something on QC - it does not waste seconds over a call.
- The filters are great - plus there are exports for pivots on Excel.
- I like the fact that everything about a defect is compacted on one screen - the summary, the descriptions, and comments. I don't need to scroll unless the comments and summary are too long (which is NOT normally the case).
- I am not able to filter by word, so If I want to search for the word "Tier" in all the defects - I can't find it.
- I have to export, and filter it via Excel.
- I want to be able to hit the"Tab" button on the keyboard to go to the next field. I don't think this works effectively today.
- Also I want to be able to choose what fields should be required (or not required) when creating a new defect.
HP Quality center is well suited for a traditional, waterfall methodology. It is also useful for large implementations where many applications and teams need to be involved. The requirements traceability feature works well, in conjunction with the reporting capabilities, to ensure testing is complete and successful.
HP Quality Center works well with SAP Solution Manager to help streamline testing efforts. It includes requirements traceability, change analysis and semi-automatic test set creation.
- It works well with Automated Unit testing. Test scripts can be written once and executed multiple times. This saves a lot of time otherwise spent in manual testing.
- HP Quality center provides a concise way to write the requirements, create test cases, link them to requirements, create test sets and execute the tests, create defects and link them back to test cases and eventually to requirements, linking all the test assets (test cases, requirements and defects) on multiple levels to Releases and cycles.
- It is possible to associate requirements with more than one release. This was particularly handy when we needed to move the requirement to another release or have to split the requirements across multiple releases.
- Task tracking was a challenge, especially with the development community and integration with the development tool was difficult.
- If we are creating a large number of test scripts, and storing it in QC, and using QC to kick off tests, then it's overkill and probably not worth the license fee.
- HP QC defines relational database as supporting the relationship between test and test sets. These are primarily undocumented tables. The tests are not stored in a database, though, and so there is no rollback if Quality Center or QTP has problems. Cleanup is manual and depends on your knowledge of the disk directory structure and the database layout and table relationships.
- Great tool for project management and handling everything in one tool.
- Great tool for reporting, documenting business requirement documents, managing test cases, and converting them for daily continuous integration.
- Great tool for defect tracking alongside of project management and reporting makes it easier to handle one tool for everything.
- Some more user friendly server navigation process and reporting can an area of improvement.
- Easily create database for test cases.
- Easily breaks down large tests into steps for better documentation and to easily reproduce tests from team member to team member.
- Look/feel of tool was old - not sure what version was used in company, however, it had what seemed to be older Windows 98 type panels, icons, etc.
- Test reports difficult to create.
- Difficult to sort database by tester, owner, etc., - would be beneficial for scheduling/planning purposes.
- Test Plan Management
- Test Case/ Script Management
- Test Execution for automation and manual test cases
- Defect Management
- Traceability of test assets
- Test Reporting
- Remote access to HP QC is slow and can be looked at
- Open architecture is a good feature but not very user friendly.
As Royal Caribbean is a very large company with many verticals running simultaneously, it provided QA leads, managers, project managers and business stakeholders a one stop shop in understanding the progress being made of any of the projects happening that were in the QA cycle. Less time was used generating manual reports in spreadsheets and disseminating them via email by implementing the Dashboard module and making the dashboards available to all stakeholders so that they could at any time, at a glance, understand the status of any given project in QA.
- One of the most important aspects of QA/ALM is the total trace-ability that it can perform: Test Case to Requirement, Requirement to Release, Cycle to Release. May products try to to this and in some cases accomplish it, but its usually at the standard level; Test Script to Requirement. They don't trace back to specific releases, or cycles within that release.
- Multiple variations on a single test script: At RCL you don't just test a function one time. You need to test it multiple times to take into consideration different brands, locations and agency types. QC allows the user to write a single scripts, but add in variations that will, when imported into the Test Lab, creates multiple versions of that script that needs to be run, with each having its own variation and results, while only having to maintain a single when requirements or functions change.
- Reporting is very flexible and allows the user to query just about anything they need to, which is very important when generating the dashboards for stakeholders. Different Stakeholders want to see different things, and this platform allows that to be done much easier the with spreadsheets of other products that are available in the marketplace.
- Licenses: The license structure can be very confusing and very expensive if you don't understand your usage needs. They are also not very flexible so take extra time upfront understanding your needs as you will be stuck with that for the next year.
- Support: I have used QC in some form or fashion since it was owned by Mercury, and over time the call in support has gotten worse and harder to use. 1st, the skill level of the different support specialists varies greatly. You may have to call back a few times before you get someone who really understand the problem and can assist you. It was not like this when it was still Mercury. Also, because the support is tied to your licenses again it makes it difficult to get help quickly, unless you want to spend LOTS of money. Again when it was Mercury I could call in, give them my company specifics and start getting support right away.
- Easy to use for defect creation and tracking from opening to close.
- Easy to create test plans and test cases within the software.
- Easy to pull status reports.
- Easy to import and export test cases from Excel.
- Clients running on IE will crash randomly.
- No easy way to export cases from HP Quality Center Test Lab.
- HP Quality Center runs slowly at times.
Quality Center Scorecard Summary
Feature Scorecard Summary
About Quality Center
Quality Center Technical Details