We require that our updates to applications be tested by at least one other programmer prior to going live.

You are writing here because you have proven this to be insufficient.

Applications should be tested by end users

We used to joke that we'd let end-users test our code. The point of testing is to find bugs before the end-users do. That way, end-users have a good experience, and recommend, or buy more of the software.

not [tested by] programmers

What's wrong with programmers testing? I think it's an important part of being a good programmer. Some schools of thought recommend that programmers write tests before even writing code! I think the problem that you are getting at is only having programmers do testing.

staging environment in place that is a clone of the live environment

This is very good. But if it is truly a clone, then the learning you gain from installing from development to staging is not getting transferred from staging to production. One way or another, you aren't getting the full benefit of this system. Do you do your testing in the staging environment?

We don't do end user testing really at all.

End user testing is usually about acceptance of new features, ease of use, and meeting the users needs. Not about finding bugs. End-users finding bugs = lost customers.

We don't have a QA team or anything of that nature. We don't have test cases for our projects that are fully laid out.

Eek! This is the root cause of your problems. A QA team would be fantastic, but even one eager and capable full-time tester would be an improvement. You could get a short-term contractor, but having someone on-board long-term who can weave testing into your whole development cycle would be much better.

I work in a small company and we have a written regression test that we go through for every release. It is not fun, but it catches bugs. We take turns and just do it.

Maybe you mean something different when you talk about end-users finding bugs. If so, you need to find a different way of expressing it, because that's a losing proposition if I've ever heard one. Specifically it sounds like it loses customers. Advocate instead for:

• A professional tester
• A written regression test
• Test-driven development
• Establishing a culture of Quality.

Each of those is a time-honored industry-standard solution to a real issue you are experiencing that is affecting your bottom line. If you keep metrics, then you should be able to estimate a dollar figure to the number of users who leave because of bugs, and the negative advertising the bugs generate. There is also an opportunity cost, where customers who don't find bugs are happier and more likely to recommend your product. If 80% of the total cost of the bugs to the company is enough to hire a tester, that's your whole business case right there. A slam-dunk really. Good luck!

We require that our updates to applications be tested by at least one other programmer prior to going live.

That's a start, but you are writing here because you have proven this to be insufficient.

Applications should be tested by end users

We used to joke that we'd let end-users test our code. The point of testing is to find bugs before the end-users do. That way, end-users have a good experience, and recommend, or buy more of the software.

not [tested by] programmers

What's wrong with programmers testing? I think it's an important part of being a good programmer. Some schools of thought recommend that programmers write tests before even writing code! I think the problem that you are getting at is only having programmers do testing.

staging environment in place that is a clone of the live environment

This is very good. But if it is truly a clone, then the learning you gain from installing from development to staging is not getting transferred from staging to production. One way or another, you aren't getting the full benefit of this system. Do you do your testing in the staging environment?

We don't do end user testing really at all.

End user testing is usually about acceptance of new features, ease of use, and meeting the users needs. Not about finding bugs. End-users finding bugs = lost customers.

We don't have a QA team or anything of that nature. We don't have test cases for our projects that are fully laid out.

Eek! This is the root cause of your problems. A QA team would be fantastic, but even one eager and capable full-time tester would be an improvement. You could get a short-term contractor, but having someone on-board long-term who can weave testing into your whole development cycle would be much better.

I work in a small company and we have a written regression test that we go through for every release. It is not fun, but it catches bugs. We take turns and just do it.

Maybe you mean something different when you talk about end-users finding bugs. If so, you need to find a different way of expressing it, because that's a losing proposition if I've ever heard one. Specifically, it sounds like it loses customers. Advocate instead for:

• A professional tester
• A written regression test
• Test-driven development
• Establishing a culture of Quality.

Each of those is a time-honored industry-standard solution to a real issue you are experiencing that is affecting your bottom line. If you keep metrics, then you should be able to estimate a dollar figure to the number of users who leave because of bugs, and the negative advertising the bugs generate. There is also an opportunity cost, where customers who don't find bugs are happier and more likely to recommend your product. If 80% of the total cost of the bugs to the company is enough to hire a tester, that's your whole business case right there. A slam-dunk really. Good luck!

We require that our updates to applications be tested by at least one other programmer prior to going live.

You are writing here because you have proven this to be insufficient.

Applications should be tested by end users

We used to joke that we'd let end-users test our code. The point of testing is to find bugs before the end-users do. That way, end-users have a good experience, and recommend, or buy more of the software.

not [tested by] programmers

What's wrong with programmers testing? I think it's an important part of being a good programmer. Some schools of thought recommend that programmers write tests before even writing code! I think the problem that you are getting at is only having programmers do testing.

staging environment in place that is a clone of the live environment

This is very good. But if it is truly a clone, then the learning you gain from installing from development to staging is not getting transferred from staging to production. One way or another, you aren't getting the full benefit of this system. Do you do your testing in the staging environment?

We don't do end user testing really at all.

End user testing is usually about acceptance of new features, ease of use, and meeting the users needs. Not about finding bugs. End-users finding bugs = lost customers.

We don't have a QA team or anything of that nature. We don't have test cases for our projects that are fully laid out.

Eek! This is the root cause of your problems. A QA team would be fantastic, but even one eager and capable full-time tester would be an improvement. You could get a short-term contractor, but having someone on-board long-term who can weave testing into your whole development cycle would be much better.

I work in a small company and we have a written regression test that we go through for every release. It is not fun, but it catches bugs. We take turns and just do it.

Maybe you mean something different when you talk about end-users finding bugs. If so, you need to find a different way of expressing it, because that's a losing proposition if I've ever heard one. Specifically it sounds like it loses customers. Advocate instead for:

• A professional tester
• A written regression test
• Test-driven development
• Establishing a culture of Quality.

The benefit of each of those is self evident in the way they are stated. Good luck!

We require that our updates to applications be tested by at least one other programmer prior to going live.

You are writing here because you have proven this to be insufficient.

Applications should be tested by end users

We used to joke that we'd let end-users test our code. The point of testing is to find bugs before the end-users do. That way, end-users have a good experience, and recommend, or buy more of the software.

not [tested by] programmers

What's wrong with programmers testing? I think it's an important part of being a good programmer. Some schools of thought recommend that programmers write tests before even writing code! I think the problem that you are getting at is only having programmers do testing.

staging environment in place that is a clone of the live environment

This is very good. But if it is truly a clone, then the learning you gain from installing from development to staging is not getting transferred from staging to production. One way or another, you aren't getting the full benefit of this system. Do you do your testing in the staging environment?

We don't do end user testing really at all.

End user testing is usually about acceptance of new features, ease of use, and meeting the users needs. Not about finding bugs. End-users finding bugs = lost customers.

We don't have a QA team or anything of that nature. We don't have test cases for our projects that are fully laid out.

Eek! This is the root cause of your problems. A QA team would be fantastic, but even one eager and capable full-time tester would be an improvement. You could get a short-term contractor, but having someone on-board long-term who can weave testing into your whole development cycle would be much better.

I work in a small company and we have a written regression test that we go through for every release. It is not fun, but it catches bugs. We take turns and just do it.

Maybe you mean something different when you talk about end-users finding bugs. If so, you need to find a different way of expressing it, because that's a losing proposition if I've ever heard one. Specifically it sounds like it loses customers. Advocate instead for:

• A professional tester
• A written regression test
• Test-driven development
• Establishing a culture of Quality.

Each of those is a time-honored industry-standard solution to a real issue you are experiencing that is affecting your bottom line. If you keep metrics, then you should be able to estimate a dollar figure to the number of users who leave because of bugs, and the negative advertising the bugs generate. There is also an opportunity cost, where customers who don't find bugs are happier and more likely to recommend your product. If 80% of the total cost of the bugs to the company is enough to hire a tester, that's your whole business case right there. A slam-dunk really. Good luck!