Few months back, in one of our team meeting, we tried to devise a learning system for an Organization/Individual, our program manager really gave his valuable thoughts and shared his wisdom, we summarized the proposed learning system at the end of the meeting as follows: 1. Decide what to learn? i. What is easy for me to learn and easy for me to do? It depends upon on the natural talent of any individual and one should choose his learning domain according to his natural ability and aptitude. ii. What is hard for others to do? We can select a field that can act as a competitive advantage for us. iii. What is in demand and people are willing to pay for it? We have to find the target market for the selected domain after market research. 2. Find, search, and collect the resources to learn. i. Make directory structure for all your industry and organizational knowledge. 3. Formulate the learning material that suits your learning style. 4. Explore the material using your 7 multiple intelligences and 5 human senses. 5. Memorize the most important elements of the subject to master. 6. Use your knowledge in day to day activities at work; Test yourself by getting globally recognized certifications, and teaching. 7. Review your learning process to see how you will do it better next time.
There is an interesting presentation "Turning Quality on its Head" by "James Whittaker-Test Director at google", in which he did a comparison regarding where to spend money in order to improve the application quality, you can read the summary of his talk below:
Where to spend our budget ? As per google, you do manual testing only when screwed up in the early development phases, and it is quite important to involve testers in the begining by helping the developers to write better lines of code in the early phases of projects. Quality is important to the world so the important question is to where we need to spend our budget, whether towards Testers side or Developers(developer oriented testing).
Argument to spend towards Developers side 1-You can not build the product and paint quality on it, so if you want to build the right product, you got to take the right start from the begining. 2-Cost of a fixing bug is 0$ while writting code, and it gets higher as we move along the phases like System testing, integration testing, crowdsource testing till dogfood process.
Argument to spend towards Testers side 1-If we want to involve testing right from the begining, we need to have dev like testers, that can help dev people to write code, and every line of code is a best possible line of code. 2-The most important bugs rises when we got the whole product ready, these are the bugs that can be faced by the users.and developers can not find these kind of bugs and testers add their value at this important stage when entire application gets ready.
Eating your own dog food, also called dogfooding, is when a company uses its own products. In 1988, Microsoft manager Paul Maritz sent Brian Valentine, test manager for Microsoft LAN Manager, an email titled "Eating our own Dogfood", challenging him to increase internal usage of the company's product. From there, the usage of the term spread through the company. Dogfooding can be a way for a company to demonstrate confidence in its own products, and hence a kind of testimonial advertising. For example, Microsoft and Google emphasize the internal use of their own software products.
The idea behind "eating your own dog food" is that if you expect customers to buy your products, you should also be willing to use them. Read more
I have been in software industry for almost 8 years, I got the opportunity of developing web/desktop applications in start of my career mainly based on Microsoft framework,I have also worked in Enterprise Business applications in Micrsoft biztalk server , I have keen interest in the field of Software quality and automation.I enjoy Session based testing/Explorator testing a lot.
I believe that software quality is one of the integral part of the software development, that demands good coding practices, timely reviews and verification right from the beginning. One can not 'paint' quality over the product after its development.