Blog

Test Environment Management (TEM) is one of the most overlooked aspects of software delivery. Yet poor environment management leads to costly delays, production bugs, and wasted resources. In this blog, we explore common challenges and how TEM solves them through real-world scenarios and practical insights.

“We Can’t Test Today”

The Real-World Struggles That Make Test Environment Management Essential

It’s 9:00 AM on a Monday. The QA team logs in, ready to begin regression testing for a critical release. But the staging environment is down. DevOps is already investigating, but they’re also deploying a hotfix for another team. Meanwhile, the business analyst is chasing test data refreshes, and the project manager is trying to reschedule timelines.

Sound familiar?

This is the daily reality for many organisations. Despite best intentions, test environments often become the silent saboteurs of software delivery. Let’s walk through some real-world scenarios that highlight why Test Environment Management (TEM) isn’t just a technical process—it’s a strategic necessity.

The “Who’s Using What?” Chaos

Imagine a shared environment used by three teams. One is load testing, another is preparing for UAT, and the third is deploying a new build. No one knows who booked what, and conflicts erupt.

DevOps Lead’s Perspective: “We deployed a patch, but it broke someone else’s test. We didn’t know they were using the same environment.”

Project Manager’s Frustration: “We lost two days because of environment clashes. Our release window is shrinking.”

TEM Insight: A centralised booking system with visibility into environment usage could have prevented this. With TEM, teams collaborate, not collide.

The “It Worked in Test, But Failed in Prod” Mystery

A release goes live. Within hours, users report issues. The root cause? The test environment was running an outdated version of a microservice.

QA Engineer’s Dilemma: “We tested thoroughly, but the environment wasn’t aligned with production.”

Business Stakeholder’s Concern: “Why are we finding bugs in production that weren’t caught in testing?”

TEM Insight: Version control and environment configuration tracking are core to TEM. It ensures test environments mirror production, reducing post-release surprises.

Want to prevent environment conflicts and production bugs? Discover how structured Test Environment Management can help. Learn more about TEM best practices

The “Can You Refresh the Data?” Loop

Testers need fresh data. The business team needs anonymised data. DevOps needs to mask sensitive fields. Everyone’s waiting, and no one owns the process.

Tester’s Pain Point: “We spend hours chasing the right data. It delays our test cycles.”

Security Analyst’s Worry: “We can’t risk exposing real customer data in test environments.”

TEM Insight: Automated data refreshes and masking routines, scheduled and tracked through TEM, streamline this process and ensure compliance.

The “We Need Another Environment” Spiral

A new project kicks off. The team requests a new test environment. IT spins up one—but it’s underutilised. Meanwhile, other teams are struggling with resource shortages.

Finance Manager’s Observation: “We’re spending on environments that aren’t even used.”

Release Manager’s Challenge: “We don’t have enough environments for parallel testing.”

TEM Insight: TEM helps track utilisation, identify idle resources, and optimise environment provisioning. It’s not just about availability—it’s about smart allocation.

The “Manual Setup Every Time” Grind

Every test cycle begins with manual setup—configuring servers, deploying builds, setting up data. It’s repetitive, error-prone, and time-consuming.

Engineer’s Complaint: “We waste half a day just setting up before we can test.”

Delivery Lead’s Concern: “Our velocity is impacted. We need automation.”

TEM Insight: With Infrastructure-as-Code and automated provisioning, TEM transforms setup from a bottleneck into a breeze.

Bringing It All Together

Test Environment Management isn’t just about tools—it’s about a strategic enabler that fosters alignment, visibility, and collaboration across the software delivery lifecycle. Whether you’re a tester, developer, project manager, or business stakeholder, TEM empowers every role to work toward a common goal: delivering quality software, faster and smarter.

By resolving common pain points—like environment conflicts, manual setup, data refresh delays, and resource underutilisation—TEM transforms delivery from reactive firefighting to proactive flow. It enables automation, optimises resource allocation, and enhances cross-team coordination.

If these stories resonate, it’s time to assess your TEM maturity. Take our free TEM survey today and unlock practical recommendations to improve your software delivery process.

The significance of implementing and managing test processes within organisations cannot be overstated. Yet, it’s no small feat considering the various factors at play, such as how processes are shared and communicated, the role of governance, and the ongoing need for improvement.

In today’s article, we’ll explore how organisations can tackle these complexities and successfully implement test processes that drive quality and efficiency in software development. We’ll also touch on the importance of usability, training, and networking in successful implementation, along with sharing examples of both good and bad practices in test process management.

Tips for Successful Implementation and Management of Test Processes

Importance of Clear Documentation, Communication, and Training

Clear documentation serves as the cornerstone of successful test process implementation. It outlines the steps, protocols, and standards to be followed to ensure consistency and clarity across the organisation. Documentation should be comprehensive yet concise, avoiding unnecessary complexity that might hinder understanding. If documentation is too convoluted or vague, it can lead to confusion and misinterpretation, undermining the effectiveness of the implemented processes.

Effective communication is equally important. Stakeholders must be informed about the test processes’ purpose, scope, and procedures. Regular meetings, emails, or dedicated communication channels facilitate dialogue and address any concerns or ambiguities.

Comprehensive training is another important aspect to equip employees with the knowledge and skills to execute the test processes proficiently. Training sessions, workshops, or online courses tailored to different roles and responsibilities mean that everyone understands their roles and contributes effectively to the testing efforts.

Without training, employees may lack the necessary proficiency to execute the test processes accurately and efficiently, leading to errors, delays, and decreased productivity. Moreover, a lack of training can result in frustration and disengagement among team members, hindering collaboration and teamwork.

Accessibility and User-Friendliness

Usability considerations are also crucial to ensuring that the organisation implements and embraces the test process. Organisations should be easily accessible, with clear guidelines and instructions available to all relevant stakeholders. User-friendly interfaces and intuitive workflows streamline the testing procedures, reducing the likelihood of errors or confusion.

If processes are difficult to access or understand, stakeholders may be less inclined to engage with them, leading to inefficiencies and missed opportunities for improvement. Feedback mechanisms should be in place to gather input from users regarding the usability of the processes. This feedback can then be used to iteratively improve and refine the processes so they remain effective and efficient.

We often work with organisations that have process documentation, but, when questioned, few of the testers know where that documentation is.  This obviously makes following process (which may have been developed at great cost) difficult!

Recently, for example, we reviewed a test strategy which mentioned a supporting document numerous times but, when interviewed, the strategy author had not heard of that supporting document.

The Role of Governance in Monitoring and Enforcement

Governance mechanisms are crucial for overseeing the implementation of test processes and ensuring adherence to established standards. This includes defining roles and responsibilities, establishing checkpoints and review processes, and enforcing compliance with documented procedures.

Regular audits and inspections can also help identify any deviations or non-compliance, allowing corrective actions to be taken promptly. Meanwhile, governance bodies such as steering committees or quality assurance teams provide oversight and guidance to align the test processes with organisational values and industry best practices.

We recently recertified an organisation to Level 5 of TMMi who demonstrated best practice in this area through their implementation of an audit function, dedicated to assuring process compliance and gathering supporting metrics.

Continuous Review and Improvement

The journey towards effective test process implementation does not end with initial deployment. Continuous review and improvement are essential to keep the processes relevant and effective in a dynamic environment. Regular evaluations, feedback loops, and performance metrics help identify areas for improvement and optimisation, embracing a culture of continuous improvement and organisation to evolving requirements, technologies, and market trends. This iterative approach means test processes remain agile and responsive, driving ongoing software quality and efficiency improvements.

As TMMi assessors, we always look for evidence of regular review and update of process documentation.  Although it is not always necessary to update process, using relevant metrics and regular reviews to check is considered best practice.

Key Steps to Establishing Effective Test Processes

With these tips above, organisations have a solid foundation for successfully implementing and managing test processes. However, there are some other crucial considerations. Implementing processes effectively involves several key steps:

1. Process Identification: Begin by meticulously identifying the process slated for implementation. This involves breaking it down into manageable steps while comprehending its purpose, inputs, outputs, and stakeholders. The active involvement of relevant stakeholders ensures alignment with organisational goals.
2. Resource Allocation: Next, allocate resources crucial for the process, including personnel, time, technology, and tools. Balancing these resources carefully is essential to meet the demands of process execution effectively.
3. Responsibility Assignment: With resources allocated, proceed to assign clear responsibilities. Each team member should be entrusted with well-defined roles and objectives, fostering clarity and accountability within the team.
4. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Establishment: Establishing KPIs provides the necessary metrics to gauge the process’s success and effectiveness. These KPIs, ranging from time taken to quality achieved, offer measurable insights into performance.
5. Implementation of Controls: Establish checkpoints and controls to monitor progress, identify issues, and ensure compliance with standards and regulations.
6. Iterative Improvement: Continuously monitor and review the process for areas of improvement. Solicit feedback from stakeholders and incorporate suggestions for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness.
7. Utilise Technology: Where feasible, employ appropriate technology and tools to streamline and automate the process. This can include software for project management, workflow automation, and collaboration.
8. Effective Communication: Maintain open communication channels to keep all stakeholders informed about the process, changes, and updates. Promptly address any concerns or issues that arise to ensure effective communication.
9. Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt the process based on changing circumstances, feedback, or new requirements. Flexibility is essential for long-term success and organisational sustainability.
10. Monitoring and Review: Regularly monitor the implemented process’s performance against the established KPIs. Conduct periodic reviews to identify areas for optimisation and ensure continuous improvement.

By following these steps above, you can implement processes effectively to achieve desired outcomes while maximising efficiency and minimising errors.

Best and Worst Practices in Test Process Management

Beyond these tips and steps above, there are some general practices in test process management organisations that follow and some practices that they need to avoid.

Best Practices

Change Management Procedures

This involves defining clear procedures for assessing proposed changes, obtaining necessary approvals, and implementing alterations while minimising disruptions to ongoing testing activities. Organisations can ensure that updates are properly evaluated and tested by establishing a structured approach to change management, mitigating the risk of unintended consequences.

Post-Implementation Reviews

Regularly conducting post-implementation reviews is critical for identifying lessons learned and areas for improvement. These reviews provide an opportunity to reflect on the effectiveness of testing processes, identify bottlenecks or inefficiencies, and implement corrective actions. By systematically evaluating past testing efforts, organisations can improve their approaches, enhance efficiency, and optimise allocation for future projects.

Worst Practices

Neglecting Stakeholder Involvement and Communication

Neglecting stakeholder involvement and communication can lead to misunderstandings, delays, and, ultimately, process failure. It’s essential to engage stakeholders throughout the development of the testing process, solicit feedback, and address concerns proactively to ensure alignment with business objectives and expectations.

Allowing Process to get Stale

Processes should not be seen as “set in stone”.  All processes need to be revisited and improved as working practices and/or risk profile change.

Conclusion

In conclusion, implementing and managing test processes within organisations is crucial to guaranteeing software quality and efficiency. Despite the challenges posed by factors such as communication, governance, and the need for continual improvement, organisations can overcome these challenges by following established best practices.

Organisations must also be mindful of both best and worst practices in test process management. Practices such as change management procedures and post-implementation reviews contribute positively to process effectiveness while neglecting stakeholder involvement and allowing processes to get stale can lead to inefficiencies and setbacks.

By embracing best practices and avoiding common pitfalls, organisations can optimise their test processes, drive continuous improvement, and ultimately achieve their software development goals with confidence and efficiency.

If you would like to learn more, please get in touch with the team. We would be more than happy to discuss how you can realise efficiency and effectiveness gains through better, well-managed processes.

This is the third and final part in our series on the TMMi (Test Maturity Model Integration) framework. In parts one and two, we examined TMMi Level 2 and Level 3 in depth. Today, we will take a look at the final two levels of the TMMi Framework—Level 4 “Measured” and Level 5 “Optimisation”.

The Role of TMMi in Advancing Software Testing at Levels 4 & 5

At Levels 4 and 5, TMMi goes beyond traditional software testing practices, integrating advanced measurement techniques and optimisation strategies. This integration improves software performance and ensures high quality with minimal defects. These levels emphasise proactive quality management and continuous process improvement so they align closely with broader business objectives.

1. Strategic Alignment: TMMi integrates testing processes with strategic business goals, emphasising the importance of testing in achieving organisational objectives.
2. Advanced Metrics and Measurement: These levels prioritise using sophisticated metrics to enhance testing efficiency and gain insights into process effectiveness and product quality.
3. Optimisation and Automation: TMMi encourages the adoption of optimisation techniques and automation to improve process efficiency.
4. Risk Management: With a focus on sophisticated testing strategies, TMMi helps manage and mitigate risks, directly contributing to project and product success.
5. Innovative Practices: TMMi promotes the adoption of innovative testing methodologies and technologies to stay updated with technological advancements.

By emphasising these areas, TMMi at Levels 4 and 5 plays a crucial role in advancing software testing through strategic integration, advanced metrics, process optimisation, risk management, and innovation. It ensures that testing processes contribute significantly to overall business success.

Understanding Levels 4 & 5

Level 4 within the TMMi framework covers areas like Focus on Test Measurement, Product Quality Evaluation, and Advanced Reviews. These aspects introduce more advanced methods for measuring and evaluating test processes and product quality, which in turn enhance the effectiveness of review practices. This level aims for a deeper understanding and control over the testing process through precise measurement, enabling better decisions regarding product quality and enhancing the effectiveness of peer reviews.

The TMMi 2nd World-Wide User Survey conducted in 2023 gathered insights from a diverse range of organisations spanning various sectors, including Banking, Healthcare, and IT Software Delivery. The findings revealed tangible benefits derived from the implementation of Levels 4 and 5:

• Greater customer satisfaction evidenced by overwhelmingly positive feedback.
• Substantial reductions in defect leakage rates surpassing 50% in some cases.
• Noteworthy improvements in test efficiency including up to a 30% enhancement in effective test cycle time.
• Attained exceptional stability in the test environment with reliability now reaching 99.76% in some cases.
• Strengthened testing discipline and capability leading to better performance and reliability.

Moving on to Level 5, it focuses on Defect Prevention, Quality Control, and Test Process Optimisation. This level emphasises preventive measures for quality, comprehensive quality control strategies, and continuous optimisation of testing processes. It significantly reduces defect rates, ensures consistent quality control throughout the development lifecycle, and promotes ongoing improvement of testing processes for efficiency and adaptability.

The insights from the TMMi World Wide User Survey report also align with the principles of higher maturity levels in testing, with key recommendations including:

• Significant Enhancement in Defect Detection: Organisations have observed substantial improvements in their ability to detect defects early in the development cycle, leading to enhanced software quality and reliability.
• Notable Reduction in Defect Leakage: By emphasising quality control and defect prevention strategies, projects have reported up to a 50% decrease in defect leakage to production, illustrating the effectiveness of rigorous quality assurance practices.
• Advancements in Test Process Efficiency: The implementation of TMMi Level 5 practices has significantly improved the discipline and capability within testing teams. This focus on optimisation and continuous improvement has led to more robust and efficient testing processes, elevating the overall quality of software projects.
• Elevated Testing Discipline and Capability: Implementing TMMi Level 5 practices has fostered a culture of continuous improvement and excellence in testing disciplines, significantly uplifting the overall testing capability within organisations.

Progressing to TMMi Levels 4 and 5 signifies a notable evolution in the maturity of software testing practices. It goes beyond basic improvements to embrace optimisation and ongoing improvement. These levels prioritise measurement, evaluation, and process enhancement to ensure that testing practices not only fulfil present requirements but also remain adaptable to future demands.

In-Depth View Per Process Area

Level 4

Test Measurement

Developing a strong test measurement program holds significant importance for organisations to objectively assess the efficiency and effectiveness of testing processes, leading to improved decision-making and resource allocation.

• According to findings from the TMMi User Survey, a leading Banking institution introduced a thorough test measurement initiative and, in doing so, saw a significant reduction of over 50% in its defect leakage rate. This underscores the importance of emphasising test measurement practices and the positive outcomes they can generate for organisations.

Nonetheless, grappling with the complexities of integrating measurement tools into existing workflows and ensuring the pertinence and precision of measurement criteria poses considerable challenges.

Product Quality Evaluation

Systematic evaluation of product quality throughout the development lifecycle is important as it allows for proactive quality management, reducing the risk of post-release defects.

• The TMMi User Survey found that one Banking institute saw the Defect Detection Rate for its A-Level system reach 99.7%, meaning that almost all defects within this system were identified before reaching production. This enhancement underscores the significant impact that focused quality assessment practices can have on identifying and resolving defects more efficiently in software development, ultimately leading to improved product quality, customer satisfaction, and business success.

However, striking a balance between the depth of quality assessments and the demands of project schedules and budget constraints presents a significant challenge.

Advanced Reviews

Implementing advanced review techniques can be beneficial for identifying and addressing defects early in the development lifecycle, leading to cost savings and improved product quality.

• According to the User Survey, a Banking software provider achieved a 10% increase in test efficiency by implementing advanced Review Techniques. This gain was largely attributed to the early detection and resolution of issues, underscoring the critical role that comprehensive review sessions play in enhancing testing workflows. These advanced reviews improved efficiency and contributed to the project’s overall success by ensuring higher-quality outputs and optimising resource allocation.

However, it can be challenging to ensure that all team members are trained in these techniques and integrate them into the workflow without causing delays. It requires a concerted effort to promote continuous learning and adaptation within the team, which may be difficult for some companies due to time and skill constraints.

Level 5

A focus on defect prevention through root cause analysis leads to a significant reduction in the introduction of defects, streamlining the development process and improving product quality.

• By implementing advanced defect prevention measures, one Financial software provider included in the TMMi User Survey achieved a remarkable 50% reduction in defect leakage to production. This significant improvement highlights the efficacy of rigorous review and testing strategies in improving software quality. Such advancements not only improve the reliability and safety of Financial software but also play a crucial role in minimising patient care risks, thereby elevating the standard of outcomes.

However, creating a culture prioritising defect prevention and investing in root cause analysis can be challenging, requiring organisational commitment and mindset change.

Quality Control

Comprehensive quality control strategies ensure that quality is maintained throughout the entire development process, from initial requirements to final release, leading to more reliable and stable products.

• The TMMi User Survey found that, after revamping its quality control processes, a Finance platform realised a 30% improvement in test efficiency, specifically in the effective test cycle time. This enhancement directly translated into a more streamlined testing process, significantly reducing the time required to identify and resolve defects. Such efficiency gains not only bolster the quality of the software but also contribute to a more agile development cycle, enabling faster response to customer needs and improving overall satisfaction.

However, integrating comprehensive quality control requires significant coordination across different teams and stages of the development lifecycle.

Test Process Optimisation

Continuous improvement of test processes through innovation and adoption of new technologies means that testing remains effective and efficient in the face of changing requirements and technologies.

• A mobile Finance application developer included in the User Survey improved test efficiency by 20% by adopting test process optimisation practices, including automation and AI-driven testing. This advancement significantly improved their ability to quickly and effectively test new features and updates, contributing to a more agile and responsive development cycle. As a result, the developer could meet market demands more promptly, giving them a greater competitive edge and driving greater profitability through improved operational efficiency.

However, balancing the investment in new technologies and methods with the need to maintain current operations can be challenging, requiring careful planning and resource allocation.

Achieving TMMi Levels 4 and 5 with Experimentus

Reaching TMMi Levels 4 and 5 brings about profound changes, empowering organisations to improve their testing processes and reconcile them closely with business goals and technological progress to achieve greater efficiency, agility, and innovation in their operations. This journey demands a dedication to ongoing enhancement, an openness to embracing transformations, and an emphasis on quality throughout the development journey.

However, navigating this journey alone can be challenging. Experimentus stands ready to provide invaluable support throughout this challenge. With our expertise in advanced software testing and process integration, we are a trusted partner for enterprises moving towards TMMi Levels 4 and 5. Our profound understanding of the intricacies allows us to adeptly guide organisations through the complexities of higher-level testing processes, ensuring a seamless and successful transition.

If you would like to learn more, get in touch with our team today. We would be more than happy to discuss it with you and help you on your journey to achieving TMMi Levels 4 & 5.

Introduction

This analysis summarises the key insights from a survey of professionals on sustainability practices in software testing at their organisations. The survey has been live from May 2023 to February 2024 to understand how organisations align testing goals with sustainability objectives, manage risks and quality, and monitor testing performance.

The survey findings indicate that while many organisations recognise the importance of sustainability, there is still room for improvement in aligning testing processes with sustainability goals. A majority of respondents said their organisations do not have formal processes to measure the environmental impact of testing activities. There was also limited monitoring of resource usage and waste generation related to testing.

Some positive trends included an increased focus on automating test cases to reduce manual effort and reliance on cloud-based testing tools to make processes more efficient. A few organisations have also implemented practices such as code reviews and monitoring to catch issues early and minimise rework.

In conclusion, the key insights from the survey suggest that sustainability in software testing is an emerging area of focus for many organisations. Formalising processes to set goals, measure impact, and continuously enhance practices can help organisations strengthen their sustainability performance over time.

The Dataset

The dataset provided detailed information on participant responses to the survey. It included columns for Participant ID, Date Submitted, Country, City, Company/Organisation, followed by responses to specific questions.   Each question was related to sustainable software testing practices, covering topics like testing goals, risk-based testing approaches, monitoring progress, test script prioritisation, and more.

Given the structure and content of the dataset, we could analyse trends in responses, aggregate scores by category, and identify areas where participants are performing well or may need improvements. The analysis informs the creation of short sharp messages that can discuss common challenges, best practices, and insights into sustainable software testing based on the survey data.

The Analysis started by examining the data to understand its structure  and identify any initial insights and any cleaning that may be required i.e. test data removal, columns not relevant for the purpose of the analysis etc.

Analysis Action Plan

Given the structure of the dataset and the specific columns highlighted, we were able to perform several analyses to extract insights, trends, and observations that could be valuable.

The plan of action was to perform the following:

• Category Scores Analysis: Calculate average scores for each category (Process, Environment, Housekeeping, Measurements) and the overall score. This will help identify which areas participants are performing well in and which areas need improvement.
• Dynamic Text Response Analysis: Analyse the distribution of dynamic text responses for each category and overall. This can provide insight into common feedback themes.
• Correlation Analysis: Explore correlations between different categories to see if performance in one area relates to performance in others.

The Findings, Trends, Insights, Observations

In this section, our data analysis revealed the following key discoveries.  

What are the average scores for each category and the overall score?

These scores provide an overview of the performance in different categories based on the survey responses. These scores provide insights into the performance across different sustainability categories in software testing practices, with the Process category scoring the highest on average and the Measurements category the lowest. The overall average score indicates a moderate level of sustainability integration into software testing practices among the respondents.

Message – Our analysis of the data has provided insightful findings on the average scores for each category and the overall score in terms of sustainability practices. The percentage figures highlight areas of strength and opportunities for improvement, guiding us towards more environmentally friendly and efficient processes. This concise overview serves as a call to action for continuous improvement in our sustainability efforts.

Sustainability integration in software testing varies widely across organisations, with average scores ranging from 57-71% across different categories. This highlights both achievements and opportunities for improvement, signalling the diversity in practices and the potential for shared learning.

What are the standard deviations for the scores in each category?

• Process                      23%
• Environments           26%
• Housekeeping           29%
• Measurements         27%
• Overall Score            23%

These values represent the variability or dispersion of the scores within each category. A higher standard deviation indicates greater variability among the scores in that category.

Message– The standard deviations for the scores across different categories indicate a moderate level of variability in responses. This suggests that while there are areas of consensus, there are also diverse opinions and practices within each category. It highlights the importance of tailored strategies to address specific needs and opportunities for improvement in our sustainability efforts.

From the average scores and their standard deviations, what insights can we note in relation to the integration of sustainability practices within software testing?

These figures provide insights into the integration of sustainability practices within software testing in several ways:

• Average Scores: The average scores indicate the general level of integration of sustainability practices across different areas. Higher scores suggest better integration and adoption of sustainable practices. For instance, a higher average in the “Process” category suggests that the processes involved in software testing are more aligned with sustainability goals.
• Standard Deviations: The standard deviations indicate the variability or consistency of the scores within each category. A lower standard deviation suggests that the scores are more consistent, indicating a uniform level of integration of sustainability practices across the respondents. Conversely, a higher standard deviation indicates greater variability, suggesting differences in how sustainability practices are integrated across different respondents or areas.

Together, these metrics can help identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement in integrating sustainability practices within software testing. They can guide targeted efforts to enhance sustainability in areas with lower average scores or higher variability, ultimately contributing to more sustainable software development practices.

Message – This reveals a clear picture: while there’s a strong effort towards integrating sustainability in software testing, the journey is still ongoing. The variation in scores across categories shows us that practices differ widely, signalling both achievements and areas needing attention. This diversity in performance underscores the opportunity for shared learning and collective improvement towards a more sustainable future in software testing.

There are achievements in integrating sustainability into software testing, there are also clear opportunities for improvement. By focusing on areas with lower average scores or higher variability, organisations can identify where they need to enhance their sustainability practices. Learning from areas or organisations with more consistent performance can guide efforts to strengthen sustainability integration, moving towards a more sustainable future in software testing.

What percentage of participants scored highest and conversely the lowest?

• Percentage of participants who scored the highest: 7.0%
• Percentage of participants who scored the lowest: 4.0%

These percentages indicate that 7% of participants scored the highest in the overall score, while 4% scored the lowest. This provides insight into the distribution of scores among participants, highlighting the range of performance in integrating sustainability practices within their software testing processes.

Key Insights:

• Consistent Performance in Process: The average score in the “Process” category is the highest among all categories at 71%, indicating that participants generally perform well in integrating sustainability practices into their processes.
• Opportunities for Improvement: The “Housekeeping” and “Measurements” categories have the lowest average scores at 57%, suggesting these are areas where participants could focus on improving their sustainability practices.
• Variability in Integration of Practices: The standard deviations indicate variability in how sustainability practices are integrated across participants, with “Housekeeping” showing the highest variability at 29%. This suggests that while some participants are excelling in this area, others may need additional support or resources.
• High Achievers and Room for Growth: With 7% of participants scoring the highest and 4% scoring the lowest, there’s a relatively small but significant range in performance. This highlights both the presence of high achievers in sustainability practices and the opportunity to elevate those at the lower end of the spectrum.

These insights can guide targeted efforts to enhance sustainability in software testing, focusing on areas with lower scores and higher variability, and leveraging the practices of high achievers to elevate overall performance.

Message – The analysis highlights a diverse competitive landscape in sustainability practices within software testing, showing a spectrum from leaders (7%) to those just beginning (4%), pointing to significant opportunities for growth and learning industry-wide.

While some organisations are making efforts to integrate sustainability into their software testing processes, there’s a significant opportunity for growth and improvement. Learning from the high performers could provide valuable insights for those at the lower end of the spectrum, indicating a path forward for enhancing sustainability practices across the board.

What organisations with high “Process” scores differ from those with lower scores in terms of sustainability integration?

The comparison between organisations with high and low Process scores in terms of sustainability integration reveals significant differences across various areas:

• Environments: Organisations with high Process scores average 74%, compared to 51% for those with lower scores, a difference of 23%.
• Housekeeping: There’s a 27% higher average score (70% vs. 43%) in Housekeeping for organisations with high Process scores.
• Measurements: In Measurements, the difference is 31%, with high Process score organisations averaging 72% compared to 41% for lower scores.
• Overall Score: Reflecting these differences, the Overall Score averages 76% for organisations with high Process scores, versus 47% for those with lower scores, marking a 29% difference.

These insights reveal that effective process integration plays a crucial role in the adoption of sustainability practices within organisations. Organisations that score higher in the Process category tend to integrate sustainability more effectively across all areas, suggesting a strong correlation between well-established processes and the comprehensive integration of sustainability practices.

Message– Effective process integration is key to adopting sustainability practices, with a strong correlation between well-established processes and comprehensive sustainability integration within organisations.

What specific practices contribute to the success of organisations with high Process scores in integrating sustainability into their software testing processes?

These practices include:

• Alignment with Business Goals: Ensuring that testing goals and objectives are closely aligned with the broader business goals, including sustainability objectives. This alignment helps in prioritising testing activities that contribute to sustainability.
• Risk-Based Approach: Establishing an approach to testing based on identified risks and quality goals. This allows organisations to focus their resources on areas with the highest impact on sustainability.
• Monitoring and Measurement: Regularly monitoring and measuring the progress and performance of testing activities against predefined goals and expectations. This includes measuring the impact of testing activities on the environment and incorporating sustainability measures.
• Clear Ownership and Responsibilities: Having clear ownership of testing and quality activities, including sustainability responsibilities. This ensures that there is accountability for integrating sustainability into testing practices.
• Organisational Processes and Frameworks: Deploying organisational test processes or frameworks that incorporate sustainability considerations. This includes defining roles and job descriptions that emphasise sustainability responsibilities.

Organisations that excel in these areas tend to have higher Process scores, indicating a more mature integration of sustainability practices within their software testing processes.

Message – Achieve sustainable software testing by aligning goals with business sustainability, prioritising risks, measuring environmental impact, assigning clear ownership, and embedding sustainability into organisational frameworks.

What are the key factors contributing to the variability in scores across the categories of Process, Environments, Housekeeping, and Measurements?

The correlation figures, provide a clearer understanding of the key factors contributing to the variability in scores across the categories of Process, Environments, Housekeeping, and Measurements:

• Environments and Measurements also show a high degree of correlation (77%), suggesting that environmental initiatives are closely tied to the metrics used to measure sustainability.
• Strong Correlation Between Categories: The correlations between all categories are indeed strong, with percentages ranging from 66% to 82%. This confirms that improvements or declines in one area are likely to be associated with similar changes in the others, indicating interconnectedness and mutual influence among the categories.
• Highest Correlation: The highest correlation is between Housekeeping and Measurements (82%), underscoring the close link between operational practices and the metrics used to measure sustainability outcomes. This suggests that enhancements in housekeeping practices can have a direct and significant impact on sustainability measurements.
• Process as a Central Factor: The Process category indeed shows strong correlations with all other categories, with a 76% correlation with Measurements and a 71% correlation with Environments. This reinforces the idea that the processes an organisation implements for sustainability are crucial for achieving high performance across all sustainability integration areas.
• Interconnectedness of Categories: The strong correlations across all categories, as highlighted by the percentages, confirm the interconnectedness of sustainability practices. This interconnectedness suggests that effective integration in one area can enhance performance in others, emphasising the need for a holistic approach to sustainability.

These findings underscore the significance of a holistic approach to sustainability, illustrating how efforts in one area not only led to improvements across the board but also highlight the interconnectedness of various categories. Supported by rounded percentages, the insights advocate for focusing on foundational process improvements, which are pivotal in driving positive effects across all areas of sustainability integration.

Message – Efforts in sustainability are deeply interconnected; focusing on foundational improvements can drive widespread positive impacts across all areas of integration.

How do low scoring organisations approach sustainability integration in testing?

Low-scoring organisations may approach the integration of sustainability measures differently due to various factors. While the data does not provide direct insights into the specific practices of low-scoring organisations, we can infer some potential approaches and challenges based on the lower scores across the categories:

• Limited Alignment with Business Goals: Organisations may not fully integrate their testing goals with sustainability objectives, often due to a lack of awareness or understanding of sustainability’s role within testing practices.
• Resource Constraints and Limited Resources: They face limitations in budget, personnel, time, and technological resources, restricting their ability to implement effective sustainability practices across all testing activities.
• Early Stages of Sustainability Practice Maturity and Lack of Expertise: Many organisations are in the initial phases of developing sustainability practices, experimenting to find suitable approaches, and often lack specialised knowledge or expertise in sustainability integration.
• Lack of Awareness and Training: A significant gap in awareness and training on sustainability in software testing exists among staff, leading to insufficient initiative or motivation to incorporate sustainable practices.
• Inadequate Measurement, Monitoring, and Reporting: Low-scoring organisations often do not have robust systems for measuring and monitoring the impact of their testing activities on sustainability, coupled with struggles in accurately measuring sustainability performance and reporting it transparently.
• Focus on Immediate Testing Needs Over Long-Term Goals and Inadequate Processes: There is a tendency to prioritise immediate testing needs and deadlines over long-term sustainability goals, often resulting from underdeveloped or inefficient processes for integrating sustainability into business operations.
• Poor Stakeholder Engagement: Insufficient engagement with stakeholders, including employees, customers, and the community, regarding sustainability goals and practices, can hinder progress and alignment with broader sustainability objectives.

To effectively boost sustainability in software testing, a strategic approach is essential, focusing on aligning business and sustainability goals, overcoming resource constraints, maturing sustainability practices, enhancing staff awareness and training, and establishing robust measurement and monitoring systems, thereby fostering increased awareness and stakeholder engagement for comprehensive integration.

Message– To enhance sustainability in software testing, organisations should align testing goals with sustainability objectives, overcome resource constraints, mature their sustainability practices, improve staff awareness and training, establish robust measurement systems, and balance immediate needs with long-term sustainability goals.

Measurement and monitoring systems are critical yet lacking, with the Measurements category scoring lowest. Developing metrics to evaluate environmental impact is essential for progress tracking and continuous enhancement.

What observations can be made about the ‘Housekeeping’ category, as to the potential factors contributing to its low scores based on common challenges organisations face in this area?

• Inadequate Training and Awareness: Employees may not be sufficiently trained or aware of the importance of sustainability practices in their daily operations, leading to less effective housekeeping practices.
• Lack of Clear Policies and Procedures: The absence of clear, documented policies and procedures for sustainability practices can result in inconsistent implementation of housekeeping measures.
• Resource Constraints: Limited resources, such as budget, personnel, or technology, can hinder the ability to implement or maintain effective sustainability practices in housekeeping.
• Operational Priorities: Housekeeping practices may be deprioritised in favour of other operational needs or objectives, leading to less attention and investment in sustainability efforts in this area.
• Measurement and Feedback: A lack of effective mechanisms for measuring the impact of housekeeping practices on sustainability, and providing feedback on performance, can limit improvement efforts.

Message– Addressing these challenges through targeted strategies such as enhancing training programs, developing clear sustainability policies, allocating resources effectively, prioritising sustainability in operational planning, and establishing robust measurement and feedback systems could help improve scores in the ‘Housekeeping’ category.

To boost scores in ‘Housekeeping’, organisations should enhance employee education, develop robust sustainability policies, optimize resource allocation, prioritise sustainability in operations, and establish metrics to track performance and provide feedback for continuous progress. Targeted efforts in these areas can help strengthen housekeeping practices.

What are the key factors contributing to the variability in scores across the categories of Process, Environments, Housekeeping, and Measurements?

• Organisational Priorities and Focus: Organisations may prioritise certain aspects of sustainability over others based on their specific business goals, industry standards, and regulatory requirements. This can lead to higher scores in some categories where there is a stronger focus and lower scores in others that are less prioritised.
• Resource Allocation: The amount of resources (time, budget, personnel) allocated to sustainability initiatives can significantly impact the scores. Organisations with more resources dedicated to sustainability efforts in software testing are likely to score higher across the categories.
• Maturity of Sustainability Practices: The maturity level of an organisation’s sustainability practices plays a crucial role. Organisations with well-established, mature practices are likely to have less variability in their scores, indicating consistent integration of sustainability across all categories.
• Awareness and Training: The level of awareness and training regarding sustainability among staff can influence the scores. Organisations that invest in educating their employees about sustainability practices and their importance are likely to perform better.
• Measurement and Monitoring Systems: The presence and effectiveness of systems to measure and monitor sustainability practices can affect the scores. Organisations with robust measurement and monitoring systems are more likely to have consistent and higher scores across categories.
• Innovation and Continuous Improvement: Organisations that actively seek innovative ways to integrate sustainability into their software testing practices and focus on continuous improvement are likely to have higher and more consistent scores.

These factors contribute to the variability in scores, highlighting the complexity of integrating sustainability into software testing practices and the need for a holistic approach to improve performance across all categories.

Message – Variability in sustainability scores across Process, Environments, Housekeeping, and Measurements is influenced by organisational priorities, resource allocation, practice maturity, employee awareness, effective measurement systems, and a commitment to innovation and continuous improvement. For better performance, focus on a holistic approach that integrates sustainability uniformly across all aspects of software testing.

Variability in scores indicates a need for tailored strategies to address specific organisational needs at different maturity levels. A one-size-fits-all approach will not be effective.

Sharing insights from high performers can inspire others, as exemplified by the 7% scoring highest. Benchmarking success stories fosters industry-wide learning and improvement.

Other Messages

Based on the insights derived from the dataset analysis here are further 10 key messages that can help other organisations act towards becoming sustainable in software testing:

1. Growing Focus on Sustainability: There’s an increasing awareness and focus among organisations on integrating sustainability into software testing, highlighting its emerging importance in the industry.
2. Automation and Cloud Adoption for Efficiency: Organisations are increasingly automating test cases and adopting cloud-based tools to enhance testing efficiency, reduce manual efforts, and minimise environmental impacts.
3. Early Issue Detection and Continuous Monitoring: Implementing practices like code reviews and continuous monitoring helps catch issues early, minimising rework and promoting sustainability through reduced resource consumption.
4. Need for Formal Processes and Strategic Integration: There’s a critical need for formalising processes for setting sustainability goals, measuring impact, and aligning testing processes with business and sustainability objectives for strategic integration.
5. Insights from the Field: Insights from a survey of 46 professionals underline the current state of sustainability practices in software testing, revealing both advancements and areas needing improvement.
6. Call to Action for Comprehensive Improvement: Immediate action is needed to address gaps in testing processes, including test environments, housekeeping, and measurement capabilities, to effectively meet sustainability goals.
7. Educating and Training Teams on Sustainability: It’s essential to educate and train software testing teams on sustainability practices to cultivate a culture of environmental responsibility.
8. Adoption of Sustainable Technologies and Methodologies: There’s an opportunity to explore and integrate sustainable technologies and methodologies throughout the software development lifecycle to enhance sustainability.
9. Measuring Impact and Sharing Best Practices: Developing metrics and KPIs to measure the environmental impact of testing activities is crucial, as is sharing best practices within and across organisations to foster collective progress towards greener software testing.
10. Commitment to Continuous Improvement: Organisations must commit to a mindset of continuous improvement, regularly reviewing and enhancing sustainability practices in software testing to achieve long-term sustainability goals.

These messages underscore the importance of integrating sustainability into software testing, offering unique insights and actionable steps across the spectrum—from raising awareness and adopting technology to formalising processes and pursuing continuous improvement—for organisations to enhance their environmental impact and testing efficiency.

An In-Depth Look at TMMi Level 3

Continuing our examination of the TMMi (Test Maturity Model Integration) framework, let’s delve into the specifics of TMMi Level 3 following our previous article in the series on Level 2.

At Level 3, according to the Test Maturity Model integration (TMMi®) Guidelines for Test Process Improvement report, there’s a shift in testing practices. Unlike Level 2, where testing typically occurs post-coding, Level 3 emphasises full integration of testing into the development lifecycle and milestones.

Understanding TMMi Level 3

One of the key aspects of Level 3 in the TMMi framework is the emphasis on early test planning. Often initiated during the requirements phase, test planning is formalised within a master test plan, building upon the foundational skills and commitments established at Level 2. This early planning is crucial for organisations at Level 3 as they establish and refine a set of standard test processes, which form the backbone of their testing practices.

Level 3 in the TMMi framework also underscores the importance of reviews in quality control. Organisations at this level implement a formal review program, although it may not yet be fully integrated with testing processes. These reviews, conducted across the development lifecycle, involve test professionals actively participating in reviewing requirements specifications. Additionally, test designs and techniques at Level 3 expand beyond functional testing to include non-functional aspects such as usability and reliability, aligning them more closely with business objectives.

A significant difference between Levels 2 and 3 lies in the standardisation and rigour of processes. While Level 2 may have variability in process implementation, Level 3 emphasises tailoring standard processes to suit specific projects or organisational units, fostering greater consistency. This tailoring allows for valid comparisons between different implementations and facilitates smoother staff transitions between projects. Moreover, processes are described with greater precision and rigour at Level 3, necessitating a revisit of Level 2 process areas to ensure alignment and maturity.

In-Depth View Per Process Area

As with Level 2, TMMi Level 3 comprises five distinct process areas with unique benefits and outcomes. These include:

Test Organisation

At Level 3, the test organisation focuses on establishing structured test teams and optimising resource allocation. This includes defining clear roles and responsibilities within the testing process and ensuring that each team member understands their tasks and how they contribute to the overall testing objectives. This has a number of benefits:

• Clearly defined roles and responsibilities help streamline the testing process, reducing redundancies and minimising confusion. This efficiency ensures that testing tasks are carried out promptly and effectively.
• With clear roles established, communication channels are optimised within the test teams. This fosters better collaboration, exchange of ideas, and problem-solving, ultimately leading to improved overall quality of testing outcomes.
• Understanding each team member’s tasks and contributions can allocate resources more effectively. This ensures that the right people are assigned to the right tasks, maximising productivity and reducing wastage of resources.

According to the recent Capgemini World Quality Report, there’s a noticeable trend towards valuing quality over quantity. Over 64% of organisations are now embracing product-oriented delivery models, indicating a growing emphasis on quality outcomes and customer satisfaction in software development. This shift reflects contemporary industry priorities, emphasising the efficient delivery of impactful products.

Test Training Programme

The focus shifts towards continuous improvement of tester skills and competencies through structured training programs. These programs are designed to improve the technical proficiency of testers and familiarise them with evolving testing methodologies and tools. By investing in training, organisations can unlock a number of benefits:

• Improving tester skills and competencies through structured training programs leads to a higher quality of testing. Testers become proficient in utilising advanced testing methodologies and tools, resulting in more thorough and effective testing processes.
• With increased technical proficiency, testers are better equipped to identify and address defects early in the development cycle. This helps in reducing the number of defects that reach the production environment, resulting in higher software reliability and customer satisfaction.
• Skilled testers can execute testing tasks more efficiently, leading to shorter testing cycles and quicker time-to-market for products or software releases. This allows organisations to stay competitive by delivering products to market faster than their competitors.

The World Quality Report suggests organisations adopt a build-or-buy mentality. It’s recommended to develop a solid training program, which can help reduce overall costs while ensuring the organisation remains adaptable to the industry’s changing technology and skill requirements. It’s also important to focus on understanding and utilising AI so that the organisation can effectively incorporate and assess these systems, given their growing importance in modern business operations and software development processes.

Test Lifecycle and Integration

At this stage, there is a strong emphasis on integrating testing activities into the software development lifecycle. This involves the early involvement of testing teams in requirement analysis, design reviews, and code inspections to identify potential issues and defects at the earliest stages. This has several benefits:

• Involving testing teams in requirement analysis, design reviews, and code inspections allows for the early identification of potential issues and defects. This proactive approach helps address problems at their inception, minimising their impact on later stages of development.
• Detecting and fixing defects early in the software development lifecycle is typically less expensive than addressing them during later stages or after product release. By integrating testing activities early on, organisations can reduce software development and maintenance costs.
• Early involvement of testing teams ensures that quality is built into the software from the beginning. By identifying and resolving issues at the outset, organisations can deliver higher-quality products that meet or exceed customer expectations.

Cloud testing, specifically, has become a vital element of modern testing strategies. According to last year’s World Quality Report (WQR), 57% of organisations viewed cloud testing as part of the software development lifecycle but not as a mandatory function. However, this year, 82% of respondents highlighted cloud testing as mandatory for cloud-based applications. This shift signifies a positive change in testing strategies, particularly concerning cloud and infrastructure testing. It underscores the importance of testing cloud-related features for both functional and non-functional aspects of applications. This shift in perspective is a response to organisations recognising that migrating to the cloud alone does not ensure system availability and reliability. It also emphasises the importance of integrating testing into the development lifecycle to improve overall software quality.

Non-functional testing

At Level 3, non-functional testing expands beyond functional aspects, including performance, security, and usability testing. This ensures that software products not only meet functional requirements but also perform optimally under various conditions and are secure against potential threats. By addressing non-functional aspects, organisations can unlock a number of benefits:

• By conducting usability testing, organisations can ensure that software products are intuitive, user-friendly, and meet the needs of their target audience. This results in improved user satisfaction and loyalty.
• Performance testing helps organisations identify and address bottlenecks and inefficiencies in their software, ensuring optimal performance under various load conditions. This leads to faster response times, better scalability, and overall improved user experience.
• Security testing helps organisations identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses in their software, allowing them to implement appropriate measures to protect against potential threats and cyber-attacks. This enhances data security, protects sensitive information, and preserves organisational reputation.
• Addressing non-functional aspects such as security ensures that software products comply with industry regulations and standards, reducing the risk of non-compliance penalties and legal issues.

According to the World Quality Report, it’s crucial to prioritise these non-functional aspects equally with functional requirements, as they significantly impact the end-user experience. By addressing these non-functional aspects alongside functional requirements, organisations can deliver software that not only meets user needs but also performs optimally, is secure, scalable, and easy to use. This comprehensive approach not only improves the end-user experience but also builds trust and confidence in the reliability and robustness of the software product.

Peer Reviews

Peer reviews play a crucial role in ensuring quality assurance and fostering knowledge sharing among team members. Peer reviews involve the collaborative examination of artefacts such as requirements specifications, test designs, and code to identify defects and improve overall quality. By leveraging the collective expertise of team members, organisations can benefit from:

• Peer reviews help identify defects, errors, and inconsistencies in artefacts such as requirements specifications, test designs, and code. By catching issues early in the development process, organisations can ensure higher-quality deliverables and reduce the risk of defects reaching production environments.
• Peer reviews facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration among team members. By discussing and examining artefacts together, team members can learn from each other’s expertise, share best practices, and collectively brainstorm solutions to challenges, leading to improved overall quality and efficiency.
• Peer reviews help validate the accuracy and completeness of project artefacts, increasing confidence in the quality of deliverables. This builds trust among stakeholders, including clients, customers, and project sponsors, and enhances overall project credibility.
• Involving team members in peer reviews demonstrates trust and respect for their expertise and contributions. This can boost morale, increase team engagement, and foster a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, ultimately leading to higher levels of productivity and job satisfaction.

Overcoming Level 3 Challenges with Experimentus

There are many benefits to implementing Level 3, from elevating the quality of outcomes to bolstering customer satisfaction. However, it’s important to acknowledge and address the significant challenges that come with this transition. These hurdles arise from the need to align overarching organisational objectives with the intricacies of individual process areas, manage the complexities of integrated testing processes, and ensure continuous improvement of training and skills among team members.

While these challenges can be overwhelming, organisations need not tackle them alone. Experimentus stands ready to offer invaluable assistance in this journey. With our extensive expertise in advanced software testing and process integration, we serve as a trusted partner for enterprises embarking on the path to TMMi Level 3. Our deep understanding of the intricacies involved means we guide organisations through the complexities of higher-level testing processes, ensuring a smooth and successful transition.

We also offer bespoke solutions to address specific challenges encountered during the implementation of Level 3. Whether it’s integrating testing seamlessly into development lifecycles, strengthening non-functional testing capabilities, or fostering a culture of effective peer reviews, our bespoke strategies are designed to facilitate the evolution towards more sophisticated testing practices.

What really sets Experimentus apart is our commitment to delivering globally applicable support and strategies. We understand that every organisation operates within a unique business context, and our solutions are tailored to address the specific challenges faced by each client. By leveraging our expertise and proven methodologies, organisations can confidently overcome obstacles, paving the way for improved testing maturity and software quality.