Linda Hayes

In her recent StickyMinds.com column, "Fool Me Once," Linda Hayes took a look at the difficulties encountered by those who dove into automated testing early on, only to be bitten by the record/replay shark. In this follow-up column, she offers some solutions to those who still struggle with making test automation successful.

In the StickyMinds.com column, "May I Take Your Temperature?" by Linda Hayes, you were asked to rate the state of the testing industry and your current level of satisfaction as a tester. Many of you responded to Linda's survey, and the results surprised her. Linda shares a revision of her state of the industry, as reported by you!

This column isn't for you; it's about you. Linda Hayes wants to find out what it takes to be successful in the testing profession these days—if such a thing is really possible. Too many good ideas, such as incentive and recognition plans, have backfired. Linda feels there are a few good practices out there, but she needs your help to find them.

Offshore resources have proved useful, and companies continue to try and cash in on the cost savings. But those savings might not be what you or your company expected. In this column, Linda Hayes warns that outsourcing has some pitfalls we should always look out for.

While anyone who has automated her testing knows you can't create repeatable automated tests from unstable data, it did not dawn on this week's columnist—self-proclaimed automation lobbyist Linda Hayes—that this issue cripples manual testing as well. Read on to share her epiphany.

One of the most valuable services a QA group provides is preventing failure. Ironically if the group succeeds at this, QA might find themselves unpopular or out of a job. Linda Hayes reveals how typical methods of measuring success can actually cause failure. Especially if success is achieved at the loser's expense.

Test data has long been a challenge for testing; privacy legislation, identify theft, and the continued trend towards outsourcing has made it even worse. Just establishing and maintaining a comprehensive test environment can take half or more of all testing time and effort. In this column, Linda Hayes adds in the new and expanding privacy laws that inevitably limit your testing options. Yet from the quagmire of laws and company standards, better testing can emerge.

IT budget cuts always seem to affect testers first. If we don't think we are being valued, then maybe it's time to speak up—not just at budget time, but all the time. In this column, Linda Hayes says to make yourself visible, make yourself heard, and make sure your value is communicated and understood. Realize that you are, in effect, raising money from your company to pay for the time and people you need.

Can a pan create an award-winning meal without the chef? Can a scalpel perform surgery without a skilled surgeon to lead it? Can a paintbrush create a work of art without the artist? These tools and test automation are only as good as those who use them. In this column, Linda Hayes debunks the popular idea that streamlining through test automation will mean certain termination for employees. Linda explains that test automation can actually equate to becoming an indispensable team member.

Everyone should know by now that a problem caught early is cheaper to fix. But how many companies behave as if this is really true? In this column, Linda Hayes explains why protecting management from the truth about project problems may not be the wisest course of action.

Heraclitus once said, "It is impossible to step into the same river twice." This is true for software, too. Software is constantly changing, and there are several theories on how these changes are introduced into production. Linda Hayes describes some of the theories and offers ways to navigate the seas of change.

Software Quality Assurance goes head-to-head with Business Process Assurance in this column. Linda Hayes explains the differences between the two processes and tells us why she thinks BPA may be the wave of the software-testing future.

When errors are not detected during testing, somewhere down the line someone has to take responsibility. In this column, Linda Hayes shows you when and how to do so—and you might even be able to turn the situation to your advantage.

It's frightening how many companies are on their second, third, or even greater attempt to automate their testing—each time junking months or years of effort and work product. Here, test automation advisor Linda Hayes shows the way to avoid having to bury your automation project.

Here are articles originally published in Datamation Magazine. Titles include "To Win at Software Development, Change the Game," "Maximizing Customer Coverage," "Management-Friendly Test Data," "The Pain of Platform Possibilities," "The Problem with Problem Tracking," "How to Achieve Effective Test Automation," "Coder's Conundrum," "The Data Dilemma: Test, Don't Experiment," "Adopt a Winning Strategy," "Fractional People," "The Irrational Ratio," "Testability Standards for Automation," "Checkpoint Charlie: The Hand-Off from Development to Test," "Don't Take Anything for Granted in Component Development," "Time-Boxing Your Way to a Better Product," "The Confidence Game," "When to Automate," "The Big Lie," "Process or Perish," "The High Cost of Low Investment," "The Three Faces of Testing," "Forget about 'Quality,'" "Don't Let Your Business Process Regress," "Testing: No Easy Way Out," "Boost Your Test Team's Value," "The Truth about Automated Test Tools," "The Tyranny of the Schedule," and "The Year 2000 and the S&L Crisis."