Quality Center Room for Improvement

Paul Grossman
Sr. Test Automation Engineer at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention. View full review »
Don Ingerson
QA Automation Engineer at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
When a particular version of Quality Center has reached end of life, the customer is forced to upgrade to the newer version to be eligible to get technical support. The upgrade process can be time intensive and requires a lot of planning. Quality Center seems to originally designed for a Waterfall process. However, the newer versions of ALM are more adaptable to Agile testing methodology. The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT. ALM/QC supports IE but does not support Chrome which a lot of users like/want to use. History of Quality Center including other names and versions: On September 1, 2017 the HPE testing tools officially became Micro Focus. It is too early to see how the transition to Micro Focus will change things. I am keeping an optimistic view that Micro Focus will continue to invest in R&D and place a priority on customer support. I believe a lot of long-time customers would like to see things run like they were back in the Mercury Interactive days, which was one of the most innovative software companies of its time. If Micro Focus develops the right strategy, they could become a dominant player in the software testing market. It is beneficial for the reader to understand the history of Quality Center since it has gone through several name changes and versions, so I have listed the chronological events below: * Mercury Interactive originally came out with TestDirector that included versions 1.52 to 8.0. * Mercury renamed the product TestDirector to Quality Center in version 8.0. * HP acquired Mercury and rebranded all Mercury products to HP. Therefore, Mercury Quality Center became HP Quality Center. * HP released version 11.00 and renamed it to HP ALM (Application Lifecycle Management). * In June 2016, HP released ALM Octane. So essentially, the tool at one time or another has had the names TestDirector, Quality Center, ALM, and ALM Octane. Essentially, with each version and name change there has been added functionality. View full review »
VpLeadSoa761
VP lead software engineering at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
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. View full review »
Sanjeev Ranjan
Subject Matter Expert at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Dashboard * Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in * Availability of built-in report related to Defect Removal efficiency * Availability of built-in report for calculating Defect Density * Availability of built-in report for end-to-end traceability * Availability of reports specific to Automation projects. Management- Libraries * Ability to include Test Set data in Libraries so that Test Set execution can be transferred to other projects using Library functionality Test Lab * Ability to upload Test Execution results from Excel to HPE ALM Test Plan * Ability to maintain Manual and Automation projects in single HPE ALM project * Composite execution of manual and automated scripts would be helpful Defects * SLA-related ability for defect module where ALM would send automail to stakeholders for the defects which have not been updated in a long time View full review »
it_user570888
Business Systems Consultant at Wells Fargo
I'd like to see an easier way to upgrade and install. I'd like to see it less required to have a client. I know that Octane doesn't require a client, but Octane is not mature enough for our organization. I'd like to see some of the good points from that integrated into it. I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations. View full review »
it_user79980
QA Expert at a tech consulting company with 51-200 employees
The Active-X technology requires client-side installations that are difficult to manage in environments where the tester's PCs are locked down to prevent installs. Test management is too rigidly dedicated to older ways of testing with scripted test cases. More support for newer approaches, such as exploratory testing or behavior driven testing would make QC more relevant to the way testing is done in many current contexts. ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers. As far as the test structure goes, you are limited to to a step-by-step test case with description, expected result, and actual result for each step by default. This makes it difficult to support an exploratory testing approach with ALM. Of course, much of this part of the tool can be customized, but it still pales in comparison to something like the Test and Feedback tool that Microsoft provides for exploratory testing. My understanding is that the newer Agile Manager product is more friendly to exploratory approaches, but I have not used this product yet. View full review »
it_user197508
Performance Test Architect and HP ALM Expert at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Licensing model: HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models. It is an extremely heavy system application. The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years! I am guessing they are doing this to maintain the same look and feel so that they do not have to get their customers familiar with a new UI. When you compare this system's heavy UI with JIRA or TFS, the difference is evident! View full review »
Abin K. Raj
OATS Engineer-Onsite Consultant at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I've faced a couple of bugs in the product whereby we were not able to open attachments on a particular ticket. The session timeout time also needs to be longer in my opinion. View full review »
Principa88b6
Principal engineer at a media company with 10,001+ employees
The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac. There's not any solution to any platform or browser. That's been a problem and people have been going to other tools because of it. View full review »
QAexpert226
QA Expert at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Its performance is horrible, and it's unnecessarily complex, which means the local site administrators set it up to be used in very unproductive ways. View full review »
ITManage0264
IT Manager at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Definitely ease the complexity of the tool: the upgrading part of the tool. It needs to be easier. Also, it needs easier integrations. I know one of the big reasons we did upgrades to the ALM upgrade license was because you could use Octane, which Tasktop is giving free for a year. That helps integrate with some of our other tools. I think as our organization, one of our biggest challenges is, we have all of these different tools, and getting them to talk to each other. To really have a whole encompassing pipeline, that is our challenge. View full review »
it_user133815
Service Manager at a tech company with 501-1,000 employees
The product could do with more native integration for agile projects, a greatly reduced cost model and closer integration with products that are non-HP. View full review »
Gourav Dogra
Sr Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
I would like to see a bit of improvement in its look and feel. View full review »
it_user178353
Director of Quality Assurance with 501-1,000 employees
Its pricing does need to improve. As I recall, when I was working at my previous company, we paid over $100,000 a year plus maintenance. At that time, I could have purchased a RadView selection for that much and reduced the annual maintenance to around $15,000. View full review »
reviewer552447
Test Manager
At the time, the dashboard never really worked. View full review »
Mark Anthony Masikip
Senior Technical Test Analyst at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Probably more fields to customize. View full review »
Oluseye Oyede
Software Quality Assurance & Testing Specialist, MTN Nigeria Ltd at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
The product creates a database per project and this results in poor disk space management, as well as frequent backup and restore. This should be improved upon. View full review »
TestAnalc24f
Test analyst in behalf of Alten at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
To add test cases from the test plan in test lab, the filtering function is not very user-friendly. Comparing the functionality with the querying/filtering functionality from TFS, which is much more user-friendly, it is clearer and the default screen is almost full-sized, View full review »
Srinivasa Chamarty
Project Manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Auto-generation of automation scripts. Integration into the UTF (earlier QTP) has little more scope to improve. View full review »
Nimmagadda Sudhir
Team Lead at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
It needs a feature for scheduling of automation scripts to run automatically. This feature would be very useful. View full review »
Avantika Dayama
Project Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
* Easy integration with open source tools. * It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily. View full review »
JewettaDobson
Quality Assurance Manager with 1,001-5,000 employees
* I would love to see QC update and use metric dashboards at the individual and project level. * The UI also needs some updating with a fresh new look and feel. View full review »

Sign Up with Email