LOGIN
התחברות או הרשמה
Avatar
להמשך הרשמה ידנית – לחץ על כפתור ההרשמה, להרשמה/כניסה מהירה בעזרת חשבון רשת חברתית – לחץ על הלוגו בכותרת

אפס סיסמה - שכחתי את שם המשתמש

שם משתמש
סיסמה
זכור אותי

he icon   en icon

והזוכים בפרס לעידוד מצוינות ולתרומה לקהילת הבודקים בישראל 2014

נכתב על ידי 
שני, 12 ינואר 2015 21:56
דרגו כתבה זו
(1 הצבעה)

 

והזוכים בפרס לעידוד מצוינות ולתרומה לקהילת הבודקים בישראל 2014 הם:

 

בכל שנה ארגון הבדיקות הישראלי ITCB  מכריז על תחרות לעידוד המצוינות בבדיקות.

וועדה מטעם ITCB עוברת על פרויקטים רבים המוגשים במהלך השנה ובוחנת על פי קריטריונים רבים את איכות הפרויקט, התרומה לארגון ולקהילת הבדיקות.

המועמדים הסופיים אף מציגים את הפרויקט בפני הוועדה ונדרשים להציג  חומרים רלוונטיים בכדי לענות על הקריטריונים הנדרשים.

בגלל איכות הפרויקטים שהוגשו השנה החליטה הוועדה לחלק את המקום הראשון בין שני מועמדים.

במסלול הטכנולוגי זכתה חברת "סיסקו"  בפרויקט "פניקס"– הפרויקט הוגש ע"י אוריאל גוטליב שהציג פתרון אוטומציה הנותן מענה לבדיקות פלטפורמות רבות בזמן קצר, כיסוי גבוה, תחזוקתיות נמוכה ואיכות גבוהה.

פרטים נוספים בטופס ההגשה של Cisco

במסלול התהליכי זכתה חברת "נייס אקטימייז" בפרויקט "QA Dashboard" – הפרויקט הוגש ע"י עמיר ישראלי שהציג פתרון תהליכי הנתמך בכלי פנימי הנותן מענה לטיפול בבאגים שדווחו ע"י לקוחות (Escaped Defects) . הפתרון כלל אנליזה איכותית, הגדרת התיקון והצגה בזמן אמת על מצב הבאגים והאזורים עליהם יש להשים דגש. התהליך גרם לשיפור משמעותי בכמות התקלות שדווחו ע"י הלקוחות (ירידה  של כ 30% שנה אחר שנה), שיפר את איכות המוצרים , הווה בסיס למיקוד נקודות החולשה והפך לסטנדרט בהנהלת החברה.

פרטים נוספים בטופס ההגשה של NICE Actimize

 

חשוב לציין ששני הפרויקטים שזכו יכולים להיות מוטמעים בארגונים נוספים ע"י שינויים קלים ובכך לתרום לקהילת הבדיקות והבודקים בישראל.

לנוחיותכם, מצורפים טפסי ההגשה של שני הזוכים.

בברכה,

יגאל לוי

יו"ר הוועדה

 

לצפייה בפרטי התחרות:

פרס לעידוד מצוינות ולתרומה לקהילת הבודקים בישראל 2014

 

ההזמנה להגשת מועמדות לפרס 2014

 

And the winners of the Testing Excellence Award for 2014 are:

Every year the ITCB (Israeli Testing Certification Board) encouraging the testing community to submit project for the Testing Excellence competition.

A committee on behalf of ITCB reviews a large number of presented projects along the year and examines the projects according to many criteria, verifying the quality of the project as well as the contribution to the organization and the testing community.

The final candidates present the project in front of the committee, and asked to present relevant materials to comply the requested criteria.

Due to the high quality of projects presented this year, the committee has decided to share the first place between 2 candidates.

 

In the Technological track won Cisco company in the "Phoenix" project –

The project was submitted by Ouriel Gottlieb who presented an Automation solution

This answers the needs of testing many platforms within a short period of time, with high coverage, low maintenance and high quality.

Additional details in Cisco registration form.

 

In the Procedural track won Nice Actimize company in the "QA Dashboard" project –

The project was submitted by Amir Israeli who presented a procedural solution supported by an internal tool,

Which answers the need to handle bugs reported by clients (Escaped Defects).

The solution included high quality analysis, definition of required remedy, and live presentation of the status of the bugs and areas which should be focused on.

The process made a major improvement in amount of failures reported by the clients (Around 30% drop year after year),

Improved the quality of the products, served as basis for focusing on the weak-points and became a standard in the company management.

Additional details in Nice Actimize registration form.

 

It is important to note that the two projects which won can be assimilated in other organizations with just minor changes and by that contribute to the Israeli Testers and Testing Community.

For you convenience, we attach here the registration forms of both winners.

Best Regards,

Igal Levi

Committee chairman

 

במסלול הטכנולוגי זכתה חברת "סיסקו"  בפרויקט "פניקס"– הפרויקט הוגש ע"י אוריאל גוטליב:

CiscoTeam 2014 Award 2 

 

במסלול התהליכי זכתה חברת "נייס אקטימייז" בפרויקט "QA Dashboard":

במסלול הטכנולוגי זכתה חברת "סיסקו"  בפרויקט "פניקס"– הפרויקט הוגש ע"י אוריאל גוטליב

 

 

 

 

שונה לאחרונה ב שבת, 08 אוגוסט 2015 12:00

חובה להיות משתמש רשום במערכת בכדי להגיב - ההרשמה/כניסה בכותרת האתר

חדשות מעולם הבדיקות

  • The dragons of the unknown; part 5 – accident investigations and treating people fairly

    The dragons of the unknown; part 5 – accident investigations and treating people fairly Introduction This is the fifth post in a series about problems that fascinate me, that I think are important and interesting. The series draws on important work from the fields of safety critical systems and from the study of complexity, specifically complex socio-technical systems. This will be the theme of my keynote at EuroSTAR in The Hague (November 12th-15th 2018). The first post was a reflection, based on personal experience, on the corporate preference for building bureaucracy rather than dealing with complex reality, “Facing the dragons part 1 – corporate bureaucracies”. The second post was about the nature of complex systems, “part 2 – crucial features of complex systems”. The third followed on from part 2, and talked about the impossibility of knowing exactly how complex socio-technical systems will behave with the result that it is impossible to specify them precisely, “part 3 – I don’t know what’s going on”. The fourth post “part 4 – a brief history of accident models” looks at accident models, i.e. the way that safety experts mentally frame accidents when they try to work out what caused them. This post looks at weaknesses of of the way that we have traditionally investigated accidents and failures, assuming neat linearity with clear cause and effect. In particular, our use of root cause analysis, and willingness to blame people for accidents is hard to justify. The limitations of root cause analysis Once you accept that complex systems can’t have clear and neat links between causes and effects[…]

    21.10.2018 | 12:38 קרא עוד...
  • Implementing RestSharp in REST API automated tests

    I have written before a few times about implementing automated tests for REST APIs using C# (here and here). In those posts, I’ve used a utility method to handle the actual sending of the HTTP request, and another one to read the response. These methods help to illustrate what our automated tests are actually doing. However, I don’t think I need to be bothered with all of that all the time. Generally, in an automated test suite, you don’t want to be building everything yourself from the ground up. Actually, that goes for most things we’re building – that’s why libraries exist! So I looked into a NuGet package that would do what I wanted, and found RestSharp. Using RestSharp really cleaned up my code! For one, it got rid of those utility methods. And let’s be honest, I’m not the most amazing C# developer, and I’m sure there were issues with those methods. And it combines the request to the API and the deserialization of whatever came back all in one line of code, so my tests have fewer lines of code as well. I just needed to add the RestSharp NuGet package to my test project, and add the reference. Let’s take a look at the before and after! Before [Test] public void VerifyGetTodoItem1ReturnsCorrectName() { //Arrange var expectedName = "Walk the dog"; //we know this is what it should be from the Controller constructor var url = _baseUrl + "1"; //so our URL looks like https://localhost:44350/api/Todo/1 //Act var response =[…]

    21.10.2018 | 11:22 קרא עוד...
  • Should We Hire Specialist Testers?

    Should We Hire Specialist Testers? I previously talked about some heuristics for hiring test specialists. There was an assumption in that post that you do, in fact, want to hire specialist testers. But, of course, that is just an assumption. Perhaps you don’t. And before you say “But of course we do!”, let’s talk about this a little bit. Before getting into this, I should provide the basis for how I think about this. In this entire post, I’m going to be skipping over entirely the “traditional” — for lack of a better term — aspects of being a tester. By this I mean writing test cases, test scenarios, creating and running automation, etc. Those are important and are not to be dismissed. When hiring test specialists, those are aspects of the discipline you need to be ferreting out. But they are also the low-hanging fruit in the specialty of testing as a discipline. Testing is much more about the thinking than about the artifacts that result from that thinking. Hiring a test specialist means you agree with that or, at the very least, understand it. And that’s a really important point because in an interview you may ask a test specialist something about a traditional aspect of the discipline but the answer you get will seem to be much more expansive than what you were necessarily looking for. You should be willing to embrace that but also challenge the specialist if you are having trouble seeing the relevance. Interviewers typically want answers but, as[…]

    21.10.2018 | 8:28 קרא עוד...

טיפים

לרשימה המלאה >>