June 18, 2013
agile, competence, exploratory, skills
[ Recognise and Acknowledge Your Skills | Ministry Of Testing - The Testing Planet | June 2013]
TYING IT ALL TOGETHER… Is a matter of applying a square lashing… that squeaks under pressure? It is a model combining the skills recognised and organised with a skill acknowledgement for each. As with all testing work, the results are mostly for taking decisions – while the key learning’s are in finding the results.
June 10, 2013
Family and fun, Softwaretesting
atWork, business, cost, economy, geeks, gofigure, learning, timing, value
If you ask “what is the ROI of context-driven testing” it is the same as asking:
- What is the value proposition of providing information to the stakeholders?
- Will management and customers pay for information?
Let me tell you a story: Just today I finally got around to changing tires on my car. Three months ago I bought a campaign voucher for a cheap switch of winter tires to summer tires – so it was about time. I booked a time and went to the shop with the summer tires in the trunk. BUT then … the front tires where out of shape due to wrong “tracing”, brake cables and other stuff worn and empty for lubrication. sigh!
So … the shop had to repair those critical defects (yeah, the vouchers a good business generator, #I’mOKwithThat). They gave me the keys to a replacement car for the day for free. And we discussed fixing some other stuff – the tricky ignition was Deffered/FixedUpStream but the defective brake lights added to the work order (New bug raised due to a hunch). I got an estimate and went for the day. The quote was pretty close, the repair on time and the requirements verified on the release bill.
And then they provides me with a list of a few things they noticed along the way.
- I probably paid for an automated test and configuration of a “trace” balancing – I assumed it there.
- We did discuss scope, price, schedule and timing - along with bug triage
- The shop did provide me with enough information and estimation up front to base my decisions on
- As the product owner I did not pay directly for the list of test ideas not covered – but I appreciated it!
The shop could have just swapped the tires for the voucher cost – and noticed nothing else. They could have chosen not to tell me about the additional bugs. They could not have offered me a replacement car for the day. They probably where more expensive than a moonlighting garage dude – I known now what the difference can be.
I value that they provide information to aid my business decision-making – besides just swapping the stupid tires. They will probably get repeat business from me – directly or indirectly. And yes, Scott, they did have free coffee
June 4, 2013
context, exploratory, gofigure, letstest, team, value, video
We are setting up Dansk Workshop on Exploratory Testing (again) inviting testing people to join the banquet. We all test the software, the hardware, the context, the project, the environment the performance, – to give the decision makers information. We need testing people to have all kinds of backgrounds
| This is what the C-D-T is about | Also know as the exploratory testing and the muh muh | further more know as a jam |
Let me tell out about the invitation to the Context Driven banquet in another way: There once was this man who had a great fortune and many talents – and wanted to celebrate. He walked to his friends to invite them to come for the fiesta. One friend just landed a new job – but she was not yet as equal as the others. Another just had a new minivan, and had to test drive it (pun intended). But there where room for more at the banquet – so the invitation is sent to the insecure, to the un-educated, to the start-ups and the emerging thinkers, to the bloggers and the twitters, the black swans, the unicorns and the dancing monkeys….
May 26, 2013
Enterprise IT, Softwaretesting
agile, business, communication, context, cost, exploratory, knowledge, learning, letstest, unknown_unknown
How much critical mass will the product/project/service need to allow for (software) testing?
Recently I participated in a local “coffee shop meet-up” along with photographers, coaches, entrepreneurs and start-ups. We could agree that coaches as well as testers give indirect value to the business – but while staff coaching could be individually sold to carpenters and hairdressers – (software) testing could not. Afterwards I challenged my self to think otherwise!
Good testing is an information and exploration activity – to find risks and present information to the stakeholders. Usually it’s easy to find the known risks to entrepreneurs – but good testing can test for unknown unknowns – even if there is no product or “just” a minimum viable product:
“The minimum viable product is that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort.” The definition’s use of the words maximum and minimum means it is decidedly not formulaic. It requires judgment to figure out, for any given context, what MVP makes sense.
Similarly minimum viable testing is an effort, that allows the team to collect tacit and explicit learning about the solution, given the context. Go look for it in your context - Testing can add business value to any project state
Related: Acceptance is more than what can be measured , You call that testing – how can that add value,
May 25, 2013
Family and fun, Softwaretesting
collaboration, fun, leadership, letshug, letstest
On stage for closing of #LetsTest2013
Perhaps you will forgive me if I turn from my own words to lyrics of a song:
It was fun being along - could it be forever long. I am saving thoughts of joy – inside of me.
Now remember, others saved - to go and share to you.
Release now, the joy you had and let it flourish
Listen to others, give them some - that for you have also come.
Not only hid the joyousness inside you.
If you try to herd joy given - to keep it on your own.
It never comes around, when most you need it;
So when someone reaches out, share all you have around,
And surely joy and laughter is around you.
[The FDF songbook #75, my translation]
April 28, 2013
Family and fun, Softwaretesting
context, geeks, tracking
Simon 7yo made the sticks with space aliens. The egg candy is flying saucers
One day I was typing in my personal measurements into my health tracker. I had to go do the weight and height and then I came back and entered them. And I started running, burning 800+ kcal‘s every time. First thought, whatever – it’s probably right. But apparently it was awesome for running a few clicks in 20 minutes (said my wife). After some time I returned to the settings for a different reason and found:
||70 cm / 2.3 feet
||180 kg / 374.8 lbs
No wonder I had burned some carb’s if I’d been running along with those numbers…. Bug / No bug ?
- Apparently 70 cm is a valid height – What would be an invalid interval? – What would be invalid input?
- Apparently 180 is a valid weight – What would be an invalid interval? – What would be invalid input?
- How many angry users will you get for hinting that their body details are invalid?
- Does it matter? – It didn’t matter to me (or I would have spotted it sooner, I guess)
April 24, 2013
AFOL, atWork, facilitation, leadership, value
In testing we handle risks, concerns, challenges, worries – we put the sore spots in the spotlight….
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!“*
Have the courage to stand tall and be the beacon where worries go to
See also: Acceptance is more than what can be measured, Testing is your sensory nerves, Eating wicked problems for breakfast
April 23, 2013
conference, exploratory, facilitation, påDansk
[ FYI IT QUALITY & TEST MANAGEMENT conference | 12.6.2013-13.6.2013 Hotel First Copenhagen ]
WORKSHOP: Sådan kommer du i gang med Exploratory Test – uden at miste overblikket!
Exploratory Test er på dansk også kendt som udforskende test. Man kan nemt forledes til at udføre den ustruktureret og uden overblik. Med få teknikker kanman dog lede en Exploratory Test, så indsatsen bliver en aktiv valgt tilgang med fokus på det, der giver ny viden. Nogle af de teknikker, der er vigtige at kende i regi af exploratory test er: mindmaps, heuristikker og session-based test management.
Workshoppen tagersigtemod at give dig nye ideer til, hvad der kunne være relevant at teste af det, du sidder med til dagligt. Ligeledes får du input til, hvordan du undgår at miste overblikket, når du konkret står overfor at skulle vælge, hvad det giver mest værdi at teste i en given situation.
Dette er en praktiskworkshop – såmedbring din laptop!
Om workshop underviseren:
Jesper Lindholt Ottosen har i 10 år arbejdet med struktureret test i Systematic, CSC og TDC. Han har siden 2009 haft interne og eksterne blogs om softwaretest og følger de seneste trends på den globale scene indenfor Exploratory Test og context-drevettest. Jesper harfokus på, at tests skal gøre en forskel ved at være værdi-drevet og finde information om projektets egenskaber.
April 16, 2013
Enterprise IT, Softwaretesting
atWork, leadership, outsourcing, services, team, test_strategy, wicked problem
[ Paul Gerrard | Will The Test Leaders Stand Up | The Testing Planet issue 10, March 2013 , Paywall] paraphrased:
There are five broad choices for you to take if you are a test lead or test manager:
- Provide advice to the business leaders, as an independent agent cajole project leadership and review performance
- Take control of the knowledge required to define and build systems. Demand clarity and precision in requirements
- Help agile projects to recognise and react to risks, coach and mentor and manage testing
- Manage the information flow between the key groups and continuous integration system, control change and delivery
- Manage outsourced and offshore teams, manage relationships
It’s probably 6) All of the above
April 12, 2013
atWork, context, exploratory, learning, test_strategy, value, wicked problem
If software testing is solely about finding bugs, I would do nothing else to hack, break and attack the solution. In one context the testers job is to “positively destroy” the solution. Taking this to the extreme – this contradicts with the shared purpose to deliver value to some one“. If the context require that the tester is not allowed to report errors (#bad, but it happens) – that contexts is also not good taking to the extreme. If the acceptance criteria is that X severity bugs can be released, gaming the play will leads us not to look for them. Where does your team score on the Bug hunters dimension
Mission: Break the solution
Mission: Confirm solution
In a Rapid Software Testing situation, testing is on the spot, with the given information at hand within a short time frame. I could imagine that a lot of mobile app development projects have very few formal/informal tests besides: “Does it work – then ship it“. Enterprise settings and medical systems need a higher degree of conformity to contracts, standards, certifications and FDA approvals. Where does your context score on the Exercise dimension:
A lot of testing contexts have the job to verify the solution. Given so and so requirements, so and so predefined charters, testcases, scripts … verify that the thing works as predicted. To solve this problem brawn is usually enough, tasks are broken down and systematically applied (machine checking). On the other end of the scale is a more learning context, where sapient tests trigger exploration based on brains. Where does your context score on the Thinking dimension
When you start considering these dimensions it’s easier for you to get to the what, the where, the whom and how much. In some contexts the sliders are not easily moved. But even so consider to apply a bit of the dimensions in the various phases of your software testing – scoot over the application in “gold master testing” and snow plow testing. Verify and learn, test and check, break and confirm.
[ Rob Lambert | Thanks for the information, I’ll make up my own mind though ]
As professional skeptics we need to make up our own minds and come to our own conclusions. That should be done using any supporting material we can, but ultimately from our own information, decisions and activities
Please make your own model – what 3 dimensions characterizes the testing in your context?