In my opinion there can be multiple factors including following: 1- Software tester ability of requirement analysis. 2- Quality of Bugs produced not Quantity of Bugs. 3- Low % of Issues from that resources leaking into UAT or Production 4- QA Technical documentation skills that includes Test Case writing, Effective Defect report writing, Test Plan development (if he is senior) 5- Ability to adapt on different tools related to testing/SQA. 6- Satisfactory time to cover his estimated testing tasks for the assigned project

L'évaluation des performances d'un membre de l'équipe de test logiciel repose sur plusieurs critères cruciaux. Tout d'abord, la capacité à élaborer des cas de test complets et pertinents est essentielle, démontrant ainsi une compréhension approfondie des exigences du logiciel. La qualité des rapports de bug, avec des descriptions claires et des informations pertinentes, est un indicateur clé de la compétence du testeur. La réactivité et le respect des délais sont des éléments incontournables, soulignant l'efficacité opérationnelle. La participation active aux réunions d'équipe, la collaboration fructueuse avec les développeurs et la proactivité dans la détection précoce des problèmes contribuent également à une évaluation positive.

Test Coverage is the one which can give confidence to go-live for the product. Test coverage must include positive, negative, system, integration test cases so that stakeholders are happy with the coverage and there were no gaps.

Measuring the performance of a software testing team member involves assessing various aspects: 1. Test Coverage 2. Defect Detection 3. Test Execution Efficiency 4. Documentation 5. Communication Skills 6. Collaboration 7. Adaptability 8. Automation Skills 9. Continuous Learning 10. Feedback from Peers and Stakeholders

Firstly, understand the software development life cycle and the software testing life cycle to be able to give well-detailed and clear test cases and scenarios, both negative and positive. The team members' willingness to grow and learn also includes having good communication skills.

The issue here is the quality of defects reported when relying upon a density formula to measure performance.. For example, tester A reports 5 low quality bugs (fit and finish). And tester B finds a single high quality bug (a security vulnerability) Which tester did better? Without a way to weigh each bug's importance and severity, you are going to drive the testers to find as many low value bugs as possible and ignore putting in the time for the high value bugs.

For complicated features, good test coverage will help uncover major defects. The explanation of problem and the documentation style of defect are important in evaluating testers performance. Poor or incorrect defect description causes rework in the code and at times not good use of technical expert’s time.

Test engineer's performance can be evaluated by : 1. His/ Her Domain knowledge and applying critical thinking to identify risk areas and use cases by having business understanding 2. Impact analysis - How one is understanding feature changes and applying impact analysis to define test coverage 3. Test Design and testing techniques knowledge and implementation 4. Communication - How tester proactively assess and communicate risks if any 5. Execution and Test Reports - How one plan, executes, build automation in testing for repetitive testing and share precise and to the point test reports with stakeholders 6. Bug detailing - Adding all information to reproduce issues 7. User and product analytics - Monitoring, observing and adding in testing

I disagree on defect density as a valid metric to evaluate testing team performance. Being as Test manager/Lead, if you reward testers based on the number of bugs they report; 1) The tester will probably report easier to find, more superficial bugs, and will be more willing to report multiple instances of the same bug. 2) They will be less likely to spend time coaching other testers or to work on the bug tracking system. Hence, programmers will be more likely to dismiss design bugs as nonbugs that testers put in the system to raise their bug count.

It's crucial, however, to interpret defect density in the context of project complexity, requirements, and other influencing factors. A low defect density may not always indicate success if critical issues are still present. It's often used in conjunction with other metrics for a more holistic evaluation.

We focus majorly on customer's need and decide accordingly. In case customer is more bothered about the time and out put we need to concentrate more on the defect resolution with proper validation in the defined time constraints and that also becomes one of the important benchmark. And if Customer is more bothered about quality rather than time then we focus thoroughly on the testcases quality, there timely execution and rechecking the issues.

Encontrar o erro antes do usuário pode elevar a aceitação e o engajamento do usuário com o produto, elevando outros indicadores fora do ambiente de desenvolvimento. Este talvez não deva ser um fator decisivo ao avaliar o desempenho de um testador, mas é fundamental que seja considerado.

Test Execution Rate is a metric used to measure the performance of a software testing team member. It indicates the number of test cases an individual runs during a specific time frame, such as a sprint, release, or project. By using this metric, the team can evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the team members in executing the test cases assigned to them. A high Test Execution Rate indicates that team members complete their tasks quickly and accurately. In contrast, a low Test Execution Rate may suggest that the team member needs more support or training.

In my opinion, this metric should not be used for individual testers performance evaluation. It should be team metric rather than individual.

Nachfolgendes gilt für die meisten Punkte in diesem Artikel. Während die Automatisierungsrate ein wichtiger Indikator für die Effizienz des Testprozesses sein kann, sollte sie nicht das einzige Kriterium sein. In Ergänzung zu der Rate sollte auch auf die Qualität der Automatisierung berücksichtigt werden. Es ist wichtig, nicht nur die Quantität, sondern auch die Qualität der automatisierten Tests zu berücksichtigen. Gut konzipierte Tests, die kritische und komplexe Szenarien abdecken, sind wertvoller als eine große Anzahl einfacher, aber oberflächlicher Tests.

Customer satisfaction is a must metric for assessing a software testing team member's performance. Their ability to ensure product quality directly impacts end-user experience. Achieving high customer satisfaction underscores proficiency in identifying and rectifying issues, ultimately contributing to the success of the team and the organization.

Ensuring customer satisfaction is crucial for a project to succeed. The level of customer happiness often determines a project's success.

Evaluating individual testers can be tricky. Teams benefit from diverse skillsets, making uniform metrics difficult. A defined test creation, review, and execution process is key. Feedback from colleagues on executed tests provides timely insights and fosters knowledge sharing. The resulting test coverage reflects thoroughness. However, relying solely on quantitative metrics is risky. Code and test artifact complexity can vary greatly between projects (new product vs. update) and lack comparability. If the process is kept well documented it should be transparent which impact the single employees in test had and what they might have missed.

From my experience, analyzing the requirements and incorporating them into test cases, known as test coverage, stands as a crucial metric. Additionally, assessing tester performance can be achieved by considering defect identification, defect retesting, and test execution rate. Exploratory testing, driven by a tester's experience, is another valuable metric to include. Finally, evaluating a team member's contribution to the project's benefit is a significant aspect to consider.

I think one of the most important qualities in a Tester is the perspective. To unpack this: Unfortunately usually the perspective a Tester has is to just look at the product confirm a new functionality and find issues. In my experience the Tester really needs to have the perspective of a prospect customer or a user of the product. Business might have an idea which sounds good but is not really what a customer is looking for or is simply not user-friendly. Raising this concern early on to the team and creating awareness is super important. It can save time and dollars. To be able to do this a Tester really needs to understand the product and the audience.

As a tester one can contribute in many ways. Depending on the stage of software development, the testing may yield more defects or not. But having good solid test coverage and executing them with accuracy is the most important thing to have confidence to release the product. Hence automation helps as well. So abilities to produce good test coverage which covers customer requirements, test with accuracy and indeed automate them, quality defects found, good communication are important metrics expected from the candidate.

- amounts of tickets that were converted to improvement-tickets during exploratory testing: can bring additional value. - created defects vs resolved defects: can show the forecast where u can be with approximate amount of defects in the certain point of time: can show u the gaps in your SDLC which affects overall testing process

In my perspective, below are few additional points can measure testing team members performance. 1. Selection of Regression Test - The way testing team members are identifying regression scenario measure efficiency of software quality while maintaining it. 2. Understanding of Product Knowledge - Better understand of Product requirement or Domain help better collaboration within team and helps in exploring the product features and testing. 3. Communication and Collaboration - The way testing team members communicate with developers, other test team members and stakeholders indicates how they are serious about the product quality. 4. Eliminating Manual Activity - Reduce manual test activities by implementating automation.