The software industry historically has been plagued with an inability to release products that are adequately tested. Examples of poor quality in the software consumer market abound. From applications that can only be considered fully functional after a half-dozen "upgrades," to the frequent reports of damaging software viruses that reflect poorly on software security and stability, the software industry is consistently indicted for quality lapses. Put bluntly, much of the software in the consumer market isn't worth the cost of shrink-wrapping. This article serves as a rallying cry to bridge the gap between software quality efforts and other industry quality efforts.

There seemed to be a disjoint between development and test groups. There were four things that became very obvious to me, that were necessary to get better organized:

1. To have a common set of ground rules on the test progress, defect reporting, and verification.
2. Be able to convey how is testing going on a frequent basis.
3. Be able to determine what do I need to test and stand behind the reasons why.
4. Maintain good communication with the technical leaders to help move the product through the development phases by being proactive rather than reactive.

In what ways should software be like a house? In a recent issue of STQE magazine, Technical Editor Brian Marick's musings about the concept of "tinkerable software" generated some interesting discussion about the very nature of software design. This week's column runs a portion of that piece so that our Sticky-minded readers can sink their thoughts into the concept.

Have you ever noticed how many professional activities don't utilize a separate testing phase? Veteran tester and instructor Lee Copeland has. And it got him thinking about our industry and the role a tester plays. In this week's column, you may be surprised by his conclusions.