Quality Center - Core of Defect tracking
October 17, 2018
Quality Center - Core of Defect tracking
Score 7 out of 10
Overall Satisfaction with Quality Center (formerly HP Quality Center)
Quality Center has been used by our organization for years for software testing. It is used by different departments, but not all, as different software requirements cater to different needs. Some of our projects follow Agile while some follow a waterfall strategy. Quality Center is not fully suitable with Agile. It is still being used as it is our primary tool. Quality Center is more useful when there is a standard waterfall practice. It helps to keep defect count, defect analysis, reporting, Tests bed management and acts as a primary tool for software certification.
- 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.
- Quality Center has greatly helped and done its own job in evaluating and reporting defects. It has helped in tracking some of the oldest issues logged and continued to keep track of them. This is an excellent feature and has great database capabilities. This has helped us reduce defects and spend any invaluable efforts in duplicate work.
- It has had a negative impact when it comes to logging defects in quantity. It does not have a mechanism to save defect templates. This takes a lot of time of testers and they tend to lose focus. It sometimes gets frustrating and the team tends to sit on defects and log them at the end of the day. This may cause them to forget some of the issues.
- Quality center does a great job for automation tests. It can be used in integration with QTP and SEE Test to run the tests.
- Micro Focus LoadRunner (formerly HP LoadRunner), JIRA Software, Rallybound, Bugzilla and Umantis
Quality Center does a great job on its own and is still a very competitive tool. However, with newer methodologies coming and most of the companies moving towards Agile, it requires an upgrade - without which, it will not survive. It has done a great job so far for years together. But Rally and other software are more aligned with Agile. There are features missing in Rally - which is where Quality already has a base. With a few tweaks and design changes, It can easily dominate. Quality Center also cannot do any load testing or stress testing. This area can also be improved.
I would recommend Quality Center to track defects for anyone who wants to do a waterfall project and requires a very detailed defect /test analysis to be completed. It is less appropriate when someone is using Agile technology or an iterative model. For Agile, we have user stories and templates that are only suitable with other software like Rally. Unit testing is done at every level and requires a quick and ease with which defects can be logged. Quality center can take forever to achieve this. It is also less appropriate for a mobile project. The reason is that mobile projects require a totally different structure to log defects. There is also no AI that tells the user of any duplicate defects. Although this might sound very advanced, AI is becoming available slowly.