Well! Many of us rather think about this question at the time of appraisal or skip level meetings... and ofcourse most of us "assume" and live in the world of blissfullness that we are doing best to the team and nobody else could not have imagined doing these many things to keep the team happy. Or rather under the opinion that if company is paying good they are happy otherwise none of my business to involve in it... afterall I am underpaid too, whom should I go and report to?
But as many say and agree to the fact that the first level thought of quitting the company arises only if anybody is not happy with their immediate boss. Don't really know how many would agree but I am 100% for it. If a team member quits the first responsible person would be the team lead (let us not talk about other levels as I am not aware of levels beyond me :) ). Doesnt matter if you are expecting him/her to leave (atleast for me) but if he is from the working lot, then you might have to retrospect your activities and do a DP (Defect Prevention) activity to set yourself right. I strongly think getting your immediate manager's opinion would be of better help rather than posting a query in the team meeting to give feedback (which has minimal turnout in my experience). Again I leave this post open for you to post your opinions and suggestions... May be some of us could be heading towards the same armegeddon...
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Yes! Would be an obvious answers from most (if not all) when asked "Is it really important be hands on the application and intricacies as a Test Lead?". True, neverthless everyone accepts and realizes the importance, equally would accept the hindrances and challenges that come in between total hands on. Smaller projects with experienced testers would generally give ample time for the leads to take proper care of all the activities. But otherwise, be it daily deliverables or status reporting, normal process chores or ad hoc requests from Test Manager or people issues or whatever that creep during the mid of execution would mean a lot to obstruct the core concentration on the technicalities. Given this situation a troublesome onsite coordinator could add a lot of pressure to the offshore leads to cope up with these and at times resemble a juggler in circus when imagine the tasks normal offshore leads handle. This I feel as an Offshore coordinator for almost 3 years as the major concern that would leave the leads to either choose to sarifice personal time or depend on the reliable testers for information and my experience has shown the latter category to be more even though many might not accept the fact.So, whatever said and done, it is the primary responsibility of the test leads to be hands on in order to maintain the project not to spill over to risk zones. The forum is open for all to add more suggestions and share their experiences over this. I totally agree the solution would be situation dependent, but strongly believe that atleast some of us could be sailing in the same boat. I will come with my experiences on this next time... till then keep thinking and please your inputs.