<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on Automated Acceptance Testing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.gdinwiddie.com/2010/03/03/more-on-automated-acceptance-testing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.gdinwiddie.com/2010/03/03/more-on-automated-acceptance-testing/</link>
	<description>Effective software development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:01:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Markus Andrezak</title>
		<link>http://blog.gdinwiddie.com/2010/03/03/more-on-automated-acceptance-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-102943</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus Andrezak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.gdinwiddie.com/?p=360#comment-102943</guid>
		<description>Hi George,

very well put. Still, one totally different question is nagging me. Although I myself totally *believe* in acceptance tests as not only a good quality agent in the development process but also as an acelerator towards a good lead time as well as a good and solid release cycle, I have the following problem: 

As I already said, I belive in that, I think that we have relatively few facts about ROI of acceptance tests. Given the situation that for any medium sized organization upwards this is a tremendous change, it might be that we need to collect for fact based ammunition to convince our environments?

Just think of my environment where we have a huge code base with only few automated acceptance tests and imagine being the first team including that in your definition of done, process or whatever. Not an easy and not a nice job, and one easy to convince your peers, upper management and team members of.

And it is even hard to argue that these are *small* issues ;-)

Cheers

Markus</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi George,</p>
<p>very well put. Still, one totally different question is nagging me. Although I myself totally *believe* in acceptance tests as not only a good quality agent in the development process but also as an acelerator towards a good lead time as well as a good and solid release cycle, I have the following problem: </p>
<p>As I already said, I belive in that, I think that we have relatively few facts about ROI of acceptance tests. Given the situation that for any medium sized organization upwards this is a tremendous change, it might be that we need to collect for fact based ammunition to convince our environments?</p>
<p>Just think of my environment where we have a huge code base with only few automated acceptance tests and imagine being the first team including that in your definition of done, process or whatever. Not an easy and not a nice job, and one easy to convince your peers, upper management and team members of.</p>
<p>And it is even hard to argue that these are *small* issues ;-)</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Markus</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

