What is most valuable?
You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system. Later, go back to check the coverage you are missing, so you can plan ahead and maybe reuse the same set as next time. Sort of like creating templates and reusing them over and over.
How has it helped my organization?
We use the quality engineering testing tool plus the defect tracking to make our reports, projects, and quality better. Once we had the evidence to approve all the testing and all the coverage, the reporting went better. Usually, the products make it much easier to identify the issues we have.
What needs improvement?
It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup.
It's not flexible enough. The formatting is also an issue. For example, the project manager doesn't like the use it, even for requirements, because it's not easy for them to change it. If they make a mistake and go back, it is hard to change the formatting to make it good. So, they have to share or use another one that try to upload. But, after the upload, you cannot change it because the IDs are identified. It's hard for them to work somewhere in-between, adding something in there, then keep the rest of them record is still linked well.
It's difficult to change it. Let's say you set up the requirement, if you change the requirement, by adding any on bottom which won't cause an issue, but I want to add it in central somewhere, then you mess up all the linkage for the test plan and test lab.
This requirement piece is what I think is the biggest disadvantage for the Quality Center. I do know Micro Focus does have a bunch of the new tools, but that depends if a customer wants to change it, use a new tool or stay on an older tool.
Reporting is a bit complicated. They have a standard report, but if I don't want to use that, I have to use the Excel reporter.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have used it for the start of the implementation at our organization using Quality Center versions: 8, 9, 10, and now, we're on 11.5.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
We host it in-house, so basically we don't have any bad downtime. It runs mostly 24/7, so Quality Center is pretty good with stability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
So far, it hasn't been an issue.
How is customer service and technical support?
I would give them a high score as they do a pretty good job.
Which solutions did we use previously?
In the Quality Center, there's a tool, which we started with, QuickTest Pro. From there, we started to use QuickTest Pro, later we introduced and evaluated it. It looked like the situation we needed.
However, we wanted tracking. We started with QuickTest Pro, but now we're doing this, which includes a lot of the different areas, like it handles the workflow and/or agile and involving many necessary departments.
How was the initial setup?
I was involved in the initial setup. I installed configure, manager, and the patch providing user access, though now we have a team.
The setup is straightforward. It's not hard to set up. We even used the multi-complicated one because we didn't want have the database alone.
What other advice do I have?
To someone looking at Quality Center, I would tell them: It's a good tool to use and the support is good. However, if you want a fancy and modernized tool with a fancy outlook, then Quality Center is not a good tool for you.
Most important criteria when choosing a vendor: personal style. I want to know who will be continually knowledgeable.
- They know what they are selling.
- They respond back quickly with accurate information.
If someone talks to me, and I try a few times, but I cannot get clear information from them, I may disqualify this vendor completely.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Sep 20 2017