||Even though software testing takes more than 40% of the total development cost, especially the massive amount of devoted efforts and resources, software testing is nevertheless the least respectable part in many software projects when comparing to design and development. The challenge becomes bigger as the software becomes more complicated. This has been further compounded by lacking of appropriate attention and suitable resource allocation. As a result, it becomes a global concern and issue on how software testing can be more effective to guard the software quality control.|
Software testing techniques have evolved for decades and almost reached the maturity level. Why software testing is not successful is mostly related to lacking of enough respect by management. Therefore, creating a software testing institution is necessary to put enough control on the process and to establish a regulation for implementation.
This research employs software testing theory standards, institutional theory and control theory to come out with an ideal software testing institution. A case study is used to validate the ideal software testing institution. Software testing theories are to create a software testing process, which can be divided into planning, design and execution phases. Institutional theory is to create a regulation and as a basis for implementation. Control theory is to empower control mechanisms on testing to ensure the progress comply with the final goals.
The ideal software testing institution provided by this research is appropriate for joint-development outsourcing project. When both customer and vendor are involved in testing, it’s recommended to define separate test plans with consistent schedule to prevent from resource idle or inconsistency between software and documentation. Since both parties will produce software source code and documentation, it’s also recommended to define the working model and version control rules as a basis for cooperation. Finally, Employing configuration management can avoid unnecessary conflicts and confusion.