1> Intuitive GUI: Fairly easy to use and follow. For using QC, deep knowledge of
the tool is not required.
2> For each test case, a test script with detailed steps can be created. This makes it easier to run the test script.
3> Provides interface with other test management systems like JIRA.
4> Excellent reporting process including customizable reports and charts. This is very useful for monitoring the progress of QA cycles and communicating the same to the higher management.
5> It stores test cases, test scripts, and requirements in a modular fashion, which can be easily copied and modified to create new test cases.
6> An extremely useful feature of QC is that it allows linking defects with higher level artifacts e.g., a defect can be associated both with a failed test script and the unmet high level requirement. It allows traceability of a defect with varying granularity of information.
7> No extra form required to perform searches on the defect list. Search is available for each field right on top of the list.
Room for Improvement:
1> High licensing cost.
2> QC lacks a "watch" feature thus disallowing independent actors, such as
managers / leads, to track the progress of issues. For example, for each defect, only the assigner and the assigned receive any updates / notifications. Everybody else has to employ external means e.g., e-mail to get these updates / notifications, thus introducing humans in the loop.
I have used HP Quality Center (QC) for over 3 years in an industrial setup. QC is a versatile Quality management tool that offers test case and defect management
capabilities along with a customizable reporting process. It also integrates with other defect and requirement tracking tools, making it a good fit in multi-team environments, as well as integrated application environments. QC does have an involved initial setup, but once it's done, it is fairly easy to use by testing and defect management teams. However, as QC comes with a high license and maintenance cost, it is more suitable for large projects in terms of cost.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Jun 24 2012