Is testing for girly-CIOs?
Interesting discussion caused by an article in the WSJ about the decision of ASU's chief technology officer to forgo full testing in an ERP implementation. How did he do that? Well, he just took a page book out of all the Web 2.0 startups and released the software in beta (That's a polite way of saying the product/service is not fully finished/tested.).
So who tests the application? Well, the poor users of course. And this is what has caused a firestorm. There have been cases of employees not getting paid, or in some cases overpaid. The CTO's justification for not fully testing? He's apparently managed to save over half the original $70m estimated price tag and reduced the time taken to bring the application to its users. Very impressive. But is this a strategy that other CIOs should follow?
I think not. While releasing a photo sharing program or email software such as Gmail in Beta can be justfied, doing this for software that going to matierally impact people lives can not.
- How would you feel if you tried to book a ticket from Phoenix to Chicago but ended up getting a ticket from Phoenix to San Diego? Right.
- What if you tried to order a shipment of 1000 pens for your company using your procurement system, but instead got a shipment of 1m pens? Oops.
- What if your mortgage company's loan origination system mishandled your closing date so that you couldn't close on your home? Hmm.
What's really shocking is that one would skimp on testing. Of all the items that one can offshore, testing and documentation of software are probably the items that are the least risky to offshore. Why for say $2m, the CIO could have got a team of say 65-70 testers testing the crap out of the system for say 6 months. Surely a wise investment given the $30m price tag.
What do you think? When is not testing software justified?


