What I know of the ISO29119 is that specifies specific numerated techniques, documents and document content. I know this from their website, where I can read that it will cost me $1000 to buy “the book” (club discounts available) – the body of knowledge.
It’s a collective work written by a number of people in the industry, and have been years in the making. Some of the people work in consulting and provide training in the framework, some of the companies sponsoring the work provide consulting in implementation of the framework. Companies can have an audit for a certificate too. That will require a large investment as the organisation have to (norminative) conform to plenty of “shall”.
But besides that it’s a closed book (and it’s not even on Amazon). To me the 29119 is misguided from the beginning, it should be a book – a commercial body of knowledge, like TMAP or like ITIL. Something that you could buy into or not. Not something in any respect labelled as a international standard.
- It seems it requires either a range of documents and lot of tailoring
- It seems to be some what “dated” in the addressing ways of testing being added in recent years
- It seems to claim that it has consensus in the industry
- It seems that some people have tried to participate , but failed
- It seems that some people did not want to participate on principle, even if invited
- It seems to claim that it is a silver bullet, a one size fits all
I cannot evaluate the implications for my customers asking about compliance without elaboration – on the details of 29119, and on the customers objectives. What is the business driver for complying with said framework? Which is actually what I was looking for – what helps the (customer) business making a business?
I doubt that someone else’s delivery framework can provide you with the DNA, the unique value proposition, of the specific context that is needed – for you! #ImLookingAtYou. If we blindly comply with the framework what is the driver besides cost and commodity. If the driver is something else, then start right there. Start with how testing and artefacts implements the strategy, values and decisions that you have. Start with “innovative“, “quality of life“, “coherent” – how does that relate to your testing.
See also
- Acceptance is more than what can be measured
- More standards are not the solution, May 2012
- Boost your competencies, not your bodies of Knowledge
[…] that is not specifically on par with the reviewed and approved scripts. Even the best CMMi or ISO29119 accredited company will stumble into new information, or test only limited subsets of total […]
LikeLike
[…] actually gives meaning and value to the stakeholders and context. Deconstruct the traditions and commercial bodies of knowledge and make some […]
LikeLike
[…] Director 7.6 – in a browser… There was only one model of testing, v-model, and only one book of testing the ISEB (later ISTQB) vocabulary. And only one expected output of testing: Testers […]
LikeLike
[…] see outsourcing contracts that requests 10-15 test phases. It looks like someone has simply thrown the book at it, and not considered if it is an infrastructure project, a software development project or COTS […]
LikeLike
[…] never have time to test everything. So in the context of classic test techniques and testing types (I’m looking at you, old fart) you had to prioritize and combine tests to make more with what you […]
LikeLike
[…] was clear to me that while ISTQB lists and describes the above testing activities, and Heuristic Test Strategy Model lists heuristics […]
LikeLike
[…] and other old models. The following models are at least as established and practice based as any old book […]
LikeLike
[…] to do this as testing professionals. We get caught up in terminology discussions, application of standards and obligations and who gets to do the work – that we forget to align with the business side of things. And […]
LikeLike
[…] in IT deliveries. Really, It’s not. Sorry. I understand if you feel attacked on your brand. I have had that feeling too – other people have been having that feeling for years. You will […]
LikeLike
[…] could imagine that, even if testing was being taught in colleges, it would be based on the previous bodies of knowledge. All in the best intention of teaching (sic) “best” practices. Similarly, training in […]
LikeLike
[…] Currently I’m working on a project for payments of benefits. We have daily CI/CD and loads of classic manual testing. The key message from the stakeholders is that they expect things to be tested and evaluated. They generally trust us and collaborate with us on the work, so there is not so much discussion on the details as in other projects. Yet the discussion of expected results did come up in our internal dialog: What is the reasoning behind expected results on the test case steps – besides coming from an old book. […]
LikeLike
[…] see outsourcing contracts that requests 10-15 test phases. It looks like someone has simply thrown the book at it, and not considered if it is an infrastructure project, a software development project or COTS […]
LikeLike