See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321831080

The Impact of Human Factors on the Software Testing Process: The

Importance of These Factors in a Software Testing Environment

Article in Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management · August 2017

DOI: 10.20897/jisem.201724

CITATIONS READS

3 368

6 authors, including:

Wellington Gonçalves Carlos Barreto de Almeida

Centro Universitário Leão Sampaio, Brazil, Ceará Centro Universitário UNILEÃO
3 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ladyanny N. C. P. Araújo Ivaldir H. de Farias Junior

Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG) Federal University of Pernambuco
26 PUBLICATIONS 611 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 127 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wellington Gonçalves on 21 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Information Systems Engineering
& Management, 2017, 2(4), 24
ISSN: 2468-4376

The Impact of Human Factors on the Software Testing Process: The Importance of
These Factors in a Software Testing Environment

Wellington F. Gonçalves1*, Carlos B. de Almeida1, Leonardo L. de Araújo1, Mateus S. Ferraz1, Rogerio B.

Xandú1, Ivaldir de Farias Junior2

1 Grupo de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Software – GRUPES, Centro Universitário Leão Sampaio - UNILEÃO
Juazeiro do Norte - CE, BRAZIL
2 Softex, Recife - PE, BRAZIL

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Citation: Gonçalves, W.F., de Almeida, C.B., de Araújo, L.L., Ferraz, M.S., Xandú, R.B. and de Farias
Junior, I. (2017). The Impact of Human Factors on the Software Testing Process: The Importance of These
Factors in a Software Testing Environment. Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 2(4), 24.
https://doi.org/10.20897/jisem.201724

Published: August 30, 2017

ABSTRACT
Software testing is a key process that ensures a reliable quality product, and like other activities in the
development process, have a wide range of tools available, but still requires a lot of human work, where the
final quality of the software can be impacted directly by several factors. In this sense, this study aims to
identify the human factors (cognitive, operational and organizational) present in the test process and to
define the influence of these factors during their execution. Thus, the article presents a study with
quantitative methods and techniques of the survey type, in which 112 professionals from the test area
participated in 17 Brazilian states. The results provide a set of human factors that correlate with the final
quality of a software product or service.

Keywords: software testing; human factors; software quality

INTRODUCTION

In current scenario, where demand for software products grows every day, software factories do not hesitate
to receive new projects. In order to increase their profits, they often acquire a workload that exceeds their
production capacity, thus promoting an overload on their employees. Professionals in the area of software testing
are affected directly, and many times, certain factors can interfere with their performance during the performance
of their daily tasks, thus affecting the purpose of the tests, which is to reduce the probability of occurrence of
errors once the system is in production (Jorgensen, 2016).
Testing processes are complex and costly, and in order to reduce efforts, without compromising product
effectiveness and quality, automation of testing activities has been adopted as a popular approach in software
factories (Sahaf et al., 2014). Nevertheless, automation usually requires substantial investment and will not always
be more cost effective than manual testing. This shows the importance of conducting the tests by trained
professionals, motivated and without the influence of factors that may impact the quality of your work day.
It is a fact that testing processes have evolved over time and even though there have been significant
improvements in methods, techniques and tools, there are difficulties to keep up with the increasingly rapid
evolution of software engineering and trends of development paradigms (Causevic, Sundmark and Punnekkat,
2010). However, despite the evolution, software testing is still an activity that requires a large participation of
human work, that is, a socio-technical activity rather than purely technical, and thus the result of a product will be

Copyright © 2017 by Author/s and Licensed by Lectito BV, Netherlands. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Gonçalves et al. / The Impact of Human Factors on the Software Testing Process
highly dependent on the performance of professionals included in this process (Mäntylä, Itkonen and Iivonen,
2012).
Despite decades of effort, software quality remains a central concern in software engineering. According to
(Tassey, 2002). costs were found to cost US companies approximately 1% of US GDP. What, according to
(Sidiroglou, Perkins and Rinard, 2016) still happens today, as the authors state in their study published by MIT
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Cambridge United States that in fact, modern software
projects contain so many defects, and the cost of correction remains so large, that projects are usually shipped with
a long list of known but uncorrected defects.
In this way, this article proposes to understand the human factors (cognitive, operational and organizational
aspects) belonging to the test process and how they can impact the quality of the same. Research on human factors
in software testing is limited. Many of the studies investigated for this research generally cover the performance of
the application of some testing techniques, the benefits of automation or the differences of practices applied in
software factories that follow traditional or agile development methods. In this sense, this study investigates if
there is some kind of influence of human factors during the software test, and what is the impact of these factors
during the same.
The article is structured as follows: section 2 describes the conceptual context considered in this study; section
3 presents the method used during the research; section 4 presents the results obtained and the data analysis
process; section 5 presents a discussion of the findings of the study and its implications; and finally, section 6
presents the final considerations.

CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT

The studies presented in this topic aim to refer to theories about the topic addressed. For a better
understanding, it is important to divide it into three aspects, human factors, software testing and software quality.
On these aspects, there are many definitions. Several authors such as (Deak, Stålhane, and Sindre, 2016;
Elberzhager, Münch and Assmann, 2014; de Castro and Junior, 2015; de Moraes and Mont’Alvão, 2010) recently
pointed out the need to manage human factors during the testing phase.
Some authors address a context about tests being the key to ensuring that a product or service is reliable and
that it is dependent on human factors, but despite the effort of some companies to recognize the importance of
testing and motivating professionals in this area, Emphasis is placed on minimization of costs and project duration
(Deak, Stålhane, and Sindre, 2016). Other authors point to studies that help companies to better comprehend the
effort that must be applied during software testing in order to improve the quality of the product which will be
made available to the customer (Elberzhager, Münch and Assmann, 2014).
Some studies emphasize that ergonomics aims to adapt the work to the man, promoting adequate
environmental conditions that attend the employees with a minimum of comfort and satisfaction in the
accomplishment of their tasks (de Moraes and Mont’Alvão, 2010).
The analyzed approaches bring significant results to the identification of the influence of human factors in
software testing. However, there are still gaps to be addressed in the related work. Thus, in comparison with the
other works listed, this paper focuses on the identification of the influence of human factors on software testing.
Human Factors in the Software Testing Process
In the current context companies are recognized for their flexibility, ability to serve their clients and
professionalism (Vargas, 2016). In software factories, the human factor represents the central investment capital
to achieve productivity and quality sought. In this way, it can be seen that the influence of human factors in the
work environment is directly related to the quality of the product being developed and its productivity, so it can
be said that the increase in efficiency and human effectiveness is the great factor responsible for building in the
development of software products (Pirzadeh, 2010).
As regards the final quality of the software, the testing process provides the last element from which quality
can be estimated and, more pragmatically, errors can be discovered (Pressman and Bruce, 2016). In this sense, it is
important to emphasize that human factors are defined as cognitive, organizational and operational aspects and
these factors are the influence to the work day of the professional of the test area and consequently the quality of
the product.
The cognitive aspects can cause difficulties of perception, absorption and retention of information if subjected
to factors such as mental load, stress, psychological pressure, among others that are part of the daily life of
companies. They also include mental workload, human error, interaction between the human being and the
machine; the operational aspects are characterized by the intense rhythm of activities, the repetitiveness and
monotony inherent in the production process, as well as the pressure for production and control periods.
Operational problems present the absence of some events in the development of tasks, such as: task scheduling,

2 © 2017 by Author/s
 Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 2(4), 24
team interaction, rhythm suitability, employee autonomy, programmed breaks, proper supervision, precision,
tolerance, control Quality and dimension of the teams with a balance between the volume of service and the
available workforce; and finally, organizational aspects present problems related to the lack of adequate division of
activities, participation, management, working hours with evaluation of schedules, shifts and scales, as well as the
lack of selection and training of personnel, aiming at training for productive activities (Correia and Silveira, 2009).
Even with all the improvements implemented in recent years, the quest for software quality is always constant.
Each of the aforementioned factors directly influences the final quality of the product, since without the ideal
working conditions, and being directly affected by the mentioned aspects, the test professional does not enjoy its
maximum performance, resulting in the discovery of possible future problems in the product delivered to the
customer product quality.

METHOD

Approach of quantitative research methods and techniques of survey type (Creswell, 2013; Freitas et al., 2000)
was used to investigate the influence of human factors in the software testing process.
Research Questions
Through the related works for this study were identified some issues that could be solved through a more
specific research. Thus, in order to understand human factors more deeply in the software testing process, this
article aims to answer the following research questions:
Q1: What is the influence of human factors during the software testing process?
Q2: How do these factors influence the work day of the professional test?
Research Instrument
The collection instrument used in this research was created based on the QWLQ-bref (Quality of Working Life
Questionnaire), which is an abbreviated version of the QWLQ-78 quality of life questionnaire (Cheremeta et al.,
2011), following the methodology of WHOQOL-100 (Power, Bullinger and Harper, 1999), the World Health
Organization (WHO).
The QWLQ-bref presents 20 questions divided into four domains (physical, psychological, personal,
professional). In this way, 12 QWLQ-bref questions were used in order to better understand the quality of life of
the professional in the software testing area. The other questions were elaborated to collect information on the
personal and professional aspects of the participants. In order to fit the reality of this work, 28 questions were
created with the purpose of evaluating indicators related to cognitive, operational and organizational aspects.
The construction of the instrument was divided between questions about personal data, professionals,
cognitive, operational and organizational aspects. All questions were validated and applied as a pilot test among 11
participants of the GRUPES. The instrument was applied to the participants through the Portuguese language of
Brazil. The results were used to improve the text of some items and their answers.
Procedure
The questionnaire was built from the tool SurveyMonkey 1 , the link to the instrument was shared among
professionals in the area of software testing through e-mail and social networks. The survey is available at
https://goo.gl/FFQUwh. The survey was attended by 115 professionals from the area and was available between
07/12/2016 to 10/01/2017. Among the 115 participants, the survey obtained 112 valid answers.
Sample
The sample included the main roles in the testing area. Table 1 shows the number of participants, mean and
standard deviation for age and sex per position in the test process.
Among the main roles cited above Table 2 presents a comparison with the number of professionals listing the
positions and their respective academic backgrounds, where it is possible to realize that the most identified
academic formation among professionals in the area of software testing is Systems of Information having a total
of 40.2% which equals 45 professionals.
Data Analysis
The collected responses were converted to a database, where they were statistically analyzed using the IBM
SPSS Statistics Base2 software, and it is possible to perform a descriptive analysis of the data and generate the

1
SurveyMonkey is a web tool that provides the use of online surveys and data collection for analysis.
2
IBM SPSS Statistics Base is statistical analysis software that provides the resources needed to run a data analysis process.

© 2017 by Author/s 3
Gonçalves et al. / The Impact of Human Factors on the Software Testing Process
Table 1. Participants by function in the testing process
Age Sex
Roles
N M SD % Fem % Mal
Test Analyst 61 29.7 4.41 54.1 45.9
Test Architect 2 24.5 6.36 - 100.0
Test Automator 5 27.0 2.12 20.0 80.0
Test Manager 9 34.2 9.54 44.0 55.6
Test Leader 12 28.9 3.55 66.7 33.3
Tester 5 31.6 1.34 40.0 60.0
Others 18 30.9 5.68 33.3 66.7
Total 112 30.0 5.17 48.2 51.8

Table 2. Academic Formation vs. Roles

Role

Test Automator
Test Architect

Test Manager
Test Analyst

Test Leader

Others
Tester

Total
Academic Formation

% % % % % % % N
Management 100.0 - - - - - - 4
Systems Analysis 65.0 - 10.0 10.0 - 5.0 10.0 20
Computer Science 50.0 4.5 4.5 9.1 9.1 4.5 18.2 22
Computer Engineering 66.7 - - - - 33.3 - 3
Information Systems 51.1 - 4.4 6.7 15.6 2.2 20.0 45
Does not have 50.0 - - - - - 50.0 2
Others 43.8 6.3 - 12.5 18.8 6.3 12.5 16

Table 3. Brazillian regions

North Northeast Midwest Southeast South Total
1 42 10 39 20 112
0.9% 37.5% 8.9% 34.8% 17.9% 100.0%

tables presented in this article. The analysis of the data began with the verification of the profile of the participants,
where only the population that was interested in the study were filtered. Then, some answers were constantly
compared to identify the reliability of the data.

RESULTS

The survey had participation of 17 Brazilian states, where the northern region had only the state of Amazonas
with 0.9% participation; in the northeast the states of Bahia, Ceará, Paraíba, Pernambuco and Rio Grande do Norte
had the participation of 37.5% of participants; in the Midwest, the participation of all its states, the Federal District,
Goiás, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul was verified, thus obtaining 8.9% of respondents; in the South-east
region, the research reached the participation of the states of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, which
contributed with a 34.8% participation; finally, the South region had 17.9% with the participation of all its states,
being Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina.
Table 3 presents data on the number of participants and their percentages in each of the Brazilian regions.
Human Factors
Table 4 presents the descriptive and psychometric statistics of the 12 QWLQ-bref measures, which were used
and obtained through these studies. The first two columns present the minimum and maximum values with a
Likert scale that could vary from 1 to 5; the third column shows the value of the median obtained in each of the
aspects; the last column shows the fashion and is divided in order to show the option that was most answered
(medium, high, more or less, good, almost always, very, sometimes, little) in the scale and the number of
participants that marked this option (N).

4 © 2017 by Author/s
 Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 2(4), 24
Table 4. Human factors - Statistical data
Human Factors
Cognitive Aspects Min Max Med Mod N
Motivation to hold office 1 5 4 Medium 43
Freedom of expression at work 1 5 3 Medium 41
Pride of the profession 1 5 4 High 49
Quality of life at work 1 5 3 More or less 47
Organizational Aspects
Interaction with the test team 2 5 4 Good 58
Achievement of goals 1 5 4 Often 49
Respected by superiors 2 5 4 Much 59
Satisfied with the tasks performed 1 5 3 Medium 44
Operational Aspects
Do overtime 1 5 3 Often 48
Evaluation of incentive policies 1 5 3 Medium 40
Comfort in the work environment 2 5 4 Good 45
Satisfied with company trainings 1 5 2 Little 40

Table 5. Cognitive difficulties - Frequency

Cognitive Difficulties % N
Low self esteem 9.8% 11
Tiredness 43.8% 49
Displication 8.9% 10
Stress 67.0% 75
Laziness 15.2% 17
Health problems 8.9% 10
Family problems 8.0% 9
Reasoning stopped 61.6% 69
Somnolence 30.4% 34
Others 5.4% 6

The consistency of the answers obtained revealed that the measuring instrument presented high reliability in
the space where it was applied. The Cronbach’s alpha value for these factors was 0.852 according to the preference
established by (Streiner, 2003), which suggests that the coefficient values are above 0.80 so that the research has a
higher index of confidence.
Cognitive Aspects
Among the cognitive aspects identified in the research it was possible to evaluate which are the most frequent
among professionals in the field of tests. Thus, Table 5 presents the cognitive difficulties that most influence in
their daily activities.
The most indicated factor shows the stress as a present difficulty in 67.0% of the work environment. Within
the scope of the work, one of the main agents causing problems is the stress that can be generated by several
professional or social factors (Sadir, Bignotto and Lipp, 2010).
In order to verify the experience of participants who affirm that stress is the greatest cognitive difficulty, Table
6 presents a relation between the time of experience and the cognitive difficulties, where it is possible to analyze
at what point in the career the professional feels this difficulty.
Participants who claim that stress is the most pressing cognitive difficulty in their daily lives have 1 to 3 and 5
to 7 years of experience. Thus, of the nine difficulties analyzed, six were identified more frequently among these
professionals.
Thus, in order to understand why these professionals present these difficulties more frequently during this
period, a t-test of independent samples was performed to analyze if there is any significant difference between
these two groups of professionals. For this sample, the degree of freedom was of (df = 56) and the value of t =
2,508 having a significance (α = 0.15) not reaching what was proposed by (Hubbard, 2011) which is α <0.05. In
this case, it can be affirmed that there is no significant difference between these two groups that provides the
indication of stress as the main cognitive difficulty.
Operational Aspect
Table 7 presents the operational difficulties identified by the participants during the execution of software tests
in their daily activities.

© 2017 by Author/s 5
Gonçalves et al. / The Impact of Human Factors on the Software Testing Process
Table 6. Time of experience vs. Cognitive difficulty
Experience Time of Participating Professionals (Years)
Cognitive Difficulties Less than 1 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 7 7 to 10 More than 10 Total
% % % % % % N
Low self esteem 18.2 18.2 36.4 18.2 9.10 - 11
Tiredness 12.2 20.4 30.6 24.5 8.2 4.1 49
Displication - 30.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 - 10
Stress 8.0 28.0 18.7 28.0 12.0 5.3 75
Laziness 5.9 29.4 41.2 11.8 5.9 5.9 17
Health problems 10.0 50.0 - 20.0 20.0 - 10
Family problems - 33.3 11.1 44.4 11.1 - 9
Reasoning stopped 4.3 27.5 18.8 26.1 17.4 5.8 69
Somnolence 5.9 35.3 17.6 26.5 8.8 5.9 34
Others - 33.3 - 33.3 - 33.3 6

Table 7. Operating difficulties - Frequency

Operational Difficulties % N
Developer conflicts 42.0% 47
Task forgetting 9.8% 11
Monotony 35.7% 40
Health problems 13.4% 15
Personal problems 13.4% 15
Others 15.2% 17

Table 8. Roles vs. Operational difficulty

Role

Test Leader
Automator
Architect

Manager
Analyst

Others
Tester

Total
Test

Test

Test

Test

Operational Difficulties

% % % % % % % N
Developer conflicts 55.3 - 2.1 10.6 10.6 6.4 14.9 47
Task forgetting 63.6 - - - 9.1 9.1 18.2 11
Monotony 57.5 2.5 5.0 7.5 2.5 10.0 15.4 40
Health problems 60.0 - - - 13.3 - 15.0 15
Personal problems 53.3 - - - 6.7 13.3 26.7 15
Others 64.7 - 5.9 - 5.9 - 23.8 17

The study shows that conflicts with the developer is the most indicated difficulty among test professionals and
represents 42.0% of the participants, who claim that this difficulty can affect the final quality of the software testing
process. Involvement of all team members is essential to success. In projects that software development is done
involving multidisciplinary teams, their success depends on the performance of team members, as in any project
that involves interaction between people (Moe, Dingsøyr and Dybå, 2010).
Table 8 shows a relationship between positions and operational difficulty, where it is possible to verify the
positions of participants that affirm that the conflict with the developer is the operational difficulty that most
affects their activities.
It has been identified that test analysts and test leaders report the conflict with developers as the main
operational difficulty. Thus, of the five difficulties analyzed, three were identified more frequently among these
professionals.
Thus, in order to verify if there is difference in quality of life at work between these two groups, a t-test of
independent samples was performed. For this sample the degree of freedom was (df = 71) and the value of t =
1,403 having a significance (α = 0.165). In this case it can be affirmed that there is no significant difference between
the two groups in the quality of life at work in relation to the positions within the operational aspect.
Organizational Aspect
Among the organizational aspects identified in the research it was possible to analyze which represent in a most
impactful way the quality of life in the work of the professionals. Thus, Table 9 presents the organizational
difficulties that most influence in their daily activities.

6 © 2017 by Author/s
 Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 2(4), 24
Table 9. Organizational difficulties - Frequency
Organizational Difficulties % N
Lack of training and capacity building 47.3% 53
Lack of competent management 47.3% 53
Lack of knowledge of test techniques and tools 25.0% 28
Lack of infrastructure 38.4% 43
Lack of versioning for testing 25.9% 29
Others 16.1% 18

Table 10. Company size vs. Organizational difficulty

Company Size (Employees)
Micro: Small: from Average: from Large: more
Organizational Difficulties Total
up to 9 10 to 49 50 to 99 than 100
% % % % N
Lack of training and capacity building 20.0 57.1 52.6 44.8 53
Lack of competent management 40.0 42.9 63.2 44.8 53
Lack of knowledge of test techniques and tools 20.0 38.1 47.4 14.9 28
Lack of infrastructure 60.0 52.4 21.1 37.3 43
Lack of versioning for testing 20.0 38.1 5.3 28.4 29
Others 20.0 14.3 10.5 17.9 18

There were two difficulties that were identified as the main ones among the participants, both of which obtained
47.3% of the professionals who affirm that the absence of training and the lack of competent management
compromise the quality of life at work.
Thus, in order to verify if this reality is applied in companies of different sizes, Table 10 was developed, which
shows a relation between the size of the company and the organizational difficulties.
The professionals who affirm that the absence of training and training influence in their activities represent
57.1% in small companies. The lack of competent management is accounted for by 63.2% of professionals working
in medium-sized companies.

DISCUSSIONS

View of Participants
The first research question addresses the influence of human factors during the software testing process. The
data obtained through the data collected confirmed, in several aspects, what has already been identified in previous
studies (Deak, Stålhane and Sindre, 2016), that the professionals of this area face many factors on a daily basis that
are discouraging for the career. As Respondent A says, “most often the testing environment is worse (worse than
development, worse than customer approval, and so on). Almost always the database is outdated or incomplete
(with little data, inconsistent data, missing fields in the tables or the entire table.)” Respondent B also states that
there is a demobilization and devaluation of professionals, saying “today the profession of Software testing, at least
where I work, is seen as if anyone could come to realize, even though I am certified in software testing, we are still
not valued, and it is not only in the company where I work, I agree with other professionals in the area And the
complaints are always the same” the study also identified promising and motivating scenarios for some
professionals, Respondent C shares his experience in the work environment of an American multinational and
makes a comparison with the Brazilian market where he says: “I believe that The reality of the company in which
I work today, being an American multinational, is still unique regarding the Brazilian scenario. The quality analyst
profession is respected, we have our due value and recognition of importance within the life cycle scenario of a
project. Very different from what we see in the Brazilian scenario, unfortunately. Devalued professionals, salaries
do not match the investment made in the career by the professional, and we are often seen merely as a mere
extension of development. There is much to improve on software quality in Brazil, but I believe faithfully that we
are striving towards improving our category.”
The second question in the study looks at whether human factors can impact the quality of the software
product. Tables 5, 7 and 9 present some significant results on the main aspects that can influence the test process
in a negative way, generating low quality products. Factors such as low self-esteem, monotony, lack of competent
management, lack of infrastructure, overtime provide an environment with poor quality of life.
In this way, some of these factors can directly affect the quality of the test process, as Answerer D says: “The
amount of eight hours a day plus overtime makes testing delivery more difficult and exhaustive. The non-
investment and insensitive to the test team added to the accumulated and unresolved problems, especially those in

© 2017 by Author/s 7
Gonçalves et al. / The Impact of Human Factors on the Software Testing Process
which the test indicates recurrence, make the environment addicted. And it promotes a negative culture of
acceptable quality products” In contrast, the study also identified reports that even with these difficulties they can
overcome with daily effort, Respondent E says: “What I learned in the area of testing is that since it is an area that
is now gaining great importance, we do not have our Space and not a total respect for the middle of the software
development process, with enough work and improving our knowledge we will conquer our space and as a
consequence we will deliver a quality product to our client.”
Human Factors in Software Quality
Nowdays, a technology company can not focus on the success of its application without thinking about the
coordination of the people who make up the team responsible for the production and testing of software.
However, this perception of the human factor as central to an organization’s performance is not new, but it receives
a new meaning from the importance of cooperation among people in the same company to achieve its goals. In
this sense, in an environment of technological development that involves software quality, the technical aspect
affects the human aspect and vice versa, seeking the balance between these factors is paramount for success.
Nevertheless, there are personal aspects that can affect the whole team (e.g. divorce, drug use, bipolarity,
depression, debt), among others. Personal problems can harm the whole project; the effects are from delay, lack
of attention, decreased focus, fits of anger and aggression, demotivation and temporary withdrawal. The absence
of a person essential to the software development process can cause failures, vulnerabilities, and bugs in the version
that will later be delivered to the client.
According to (Vargas, 2016) people involved in software development processes deserve particular attention,
since much of the success of the activities depends on their behavior. Some human relations theories cite that the
influence of psychological and social factors also affect productivity. In relation to psychological disorders, one of
the main problem-causing agents is stress, which was confirmed by this study, which can be generated by various
professional or social factors, which may lead to depression, moodiness, Lack of involvement with work and
organization, frequent absences and delays, excessive visits to outpatient medical and drug dependencies (Sadir,
Bignotto and Lipp, 2010).
The performance of the professional is influenced by its level of education and the experience he has gained
from practice, and this knowledge along with experience must be renewed and improved whenever possible to
maximize human capacity. Having the knowledge of the methodologies applied in the company is also essential to
generate results, but having this knowledge along with skills and attitudes help to achieve the expected results for
the organization.
Thus, to conclude this understanding, it is concluded that human factors have a significant influence on the
actions of software development professionals, and that they impact on performance as their activities, which can
compromise the quality of the software product and generate financial losses for the Organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the influence of human factors within the test process and its impact
on the quality of the software testing process. Thus, results were presented that can be used as reference for the
development of actions capable of improving the human factor within the software testing process.
During the research, it was observed that the participants report that human factors provide motivational and
demotivational aspects. The results show the dissatisfaction of some professionals with various cognitive,
operational and organizational aspects. It is clear that the absence of an appreciation of human capital for
professionals in this area directly affects the quality testing process. These approaches only confirmed the suspicion
that the human factor, when not managed correctly by the managers, provides an environment of low quality of
life at work.
Therefore, it is concluded that human factors must be observed, understood and be the focus of a software
factory, and should be qualified and managed by a management that values the intellectual capital, where without
these aspects it cannot be guaranteed that Team to work to provide a product with a high level of quality.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank the professionals participating in the research, the members of GRUPES and UNILEÃO who
provided the development of this research. Support is gratefully acknowledged. We will deliver a quality product
to our customer.

8 © 2017 by Author/s
 Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 2(4), 24
REFERENCES

Causevic, A., Sundmark, D. and Punnekkat, S. (2010, April). An Industrial Survey on Contemporary Aspects of
Software Testing. In 2010 Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). IEEE,
pp. 393-401. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICST.2010.52
Cheremeta, M., Pedroso, B., Pilatti, L.A. and Kovaleski, J.L. (2011). Construção da versão abreviada do QWLQ-
78: um instrumento de avaliação da qualidade de vida no trabalho. Revista Brasileira de Qualidade de vida, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.3895/S2175-08582011000100001
Correia, S. and Silveira, C. (2009). A ergonomia cognitiva, operacional e organizacional e suas interferências na
produtividade e satisfação dos colaboradores. In Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção, 29.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
de Castro, B.P.P. and Junior, P.T.A. (2015). Human Factors Aspects in Test Cases Formalization. Procedia
Manufacturing, 3, 1938-1945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.238
de Moraes, A. and Mont’Alvão, C. (2010). Ergonomia: conceitos e aplicações. 2ab.
Deak, A., Stålhane, T. and Sindre, G. (2016). Challenges and strategies for motivating software testing personnel.
Information and Software Technology, 73, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.002
Elberzhager, F., Münch, J. and Assmann, D. (2014). Analyzing the relationships between inspections and testing
to provide a software testing focus. Information and Software Technology, 56(7), 793-806.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.007
Freitas, H., Oliveira, M., Saccol, A.Z. and Moscarola, J. (2000). O método de pesquisa survey. Revista de administração,
35(3), 105-112.
Gonçalves, W.F., Almeida, C.B., Araújo, L.L., Ferraz, M.S., Xandú, R.B. and Junior, I.F. (2017). The Influence of
Human Factors on the Software Testing Process: The impact of these factors on the software testing process.
In 2017 12th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). IEEE, pp. 2098-2103.
https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI.2017.7975873
Hubbard, R. (2011). The widespread misinterpretation of p-values as error probabilities. Journal of Applied Statistics,
38(11), 2617-2626. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2011.567245
Jorgensen, P.C. (2016). Software testing: a craftsman’s approach. CRC press.
Mäntylä, M.V., Itkonen, J. and Iivonen, J. (2012). Who tested my software? Testing as an organizationally cross-
cutting activity. Software Quality Journal, 20(1), 145-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9157-4
Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T. and Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study
of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480-491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004
Pirzadeh, L. (2010). Human Factors in Softwate Development: A Systematic Literature Review. Chalmers University of
Technology.
Power, M., Bullinger, M. and Harper, A. (1999). The World Health Organization WHOQOL-100: Tests of the
universality of quality of life in 15 different cultural groups worldwide. Health psychology, 18(5), 495.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.18.5.495
Pressman, R.S. and Maxim, B.R. (2016). Engenharia de Software-8ª Edição. McGraw Hill Brasil.
Sadir, M.A., Bignotto, M.M. and Lipp, M.E.N. (2010). Stress e qualidade de vida: influência de algumas variáveis
pessoais. Paideia, 20(45), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2010000100010
Sahaf, Z., Garousi, V., Pfahl, D., Irving, R. and Amannejad, Y. (2014, May). When to automate software testing?
decision support based on system dynamics: an industrial case study. In Proceedings of the 2014 International
Conference on Software and System Process. ACM, pp. 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1145/2600821.2600832
Sidiroglou, S., Perkins, J. and Rinard, M. (2016). Cloud Intrusion Detection and Repair (CIDAR) (No. AFRL-RY-
WP-TR-2015-0183). MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Cambridge United States.
https://doi.org/10.21236/AD1002451
Streiner, D.L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. Journal
of personality assessment, 80(3), 217-222. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8003_01
Tassey, G. (2002). The economic impacts of inadequate infrastructure for software testing. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, RTI Project, 7007(011).
Tomayko, J.E. and Hazzan, O. (2004). Human aspects of software engineering. Firewall Media.
Vargas, R.V. (2016). Gerenciamento de Projetos (8ª Edição): Estabelecendo diferenciais competitivos. Brasport.

© 2017 by Author/s 9

View publication stats