The hyped mnemonic “DevOps” is equally true the other way around: OpsDev – that is, more and more work in the operations and infrastructure departments happens as development activities with scripts, code repositories and build managers. OpsDev is as tool-heavy as DevOps, and test involvement similarly pipeline focussed.
In September 2017 the Ministry of Testing had a crowd-based knowledge sharing event called “30 Days of Agile Testing” with a small learning activity for each day of the month. As with the similar security event I set up a weekly schedule at work to meet for an time-boxed hour and discuss 3-5 selected topics each time.
Our score was 17 topics discussed – some more discussed than actually tried out. Hence the half marks on the poster on the window below. Me and my coworkers work on many different teams – so to dig into specific team tools and processes was out of scope.
Here is a few of our findings:
Day 3 – YouTube is full of videos on agile, but our Chinese colleague cannot view them. They can though view videos locally on the Dojo and TestHuddle.
Day 12/26 – We need the test cases in many contexts, but do we need the Test Plan specifically. Perhaps we can reduce the test plan to “Requirements/scope”, “test cases” and “staffing” as in Plutora Test.
Less Test Managers and more coaches. That’s how I see it going.
Fittingly as he inspired the first post with his talk “How I Lost My Job As a Test Manager” presented at Test Bash 2015. This post is a further elaboration of the Shift-Coach test management trend. Here are some of my experiences:
I have been assigned to an agile development team to introduce them to 3 Amigos, Test data driven test automation and such things. The purpose of my involvement was to enable the team to continue the practices without me, and without testers besides the business analyst / product owner (See The domain expert is the tester) as they are doing Shift-left. Similar to an agile or scrum coach, my approach was to look at it as a change in the way of working.
Another project is an infrastructure project, there are no testers only technicians configuring Cisco routers that by software can replace firewalls, iron ports, VM servers and other network equipment. The project has to implement 80+ of these, so I setup both a test process and an ITIL change request process acting as a test and release manager – another quite frequent trend. I could continue in the project for the duration, but instead I setup guidance and leave when it’s sufficiently in place.
This might be similar to a test architect, a (internal) test consultant activity. It has nothing to do with diminishing testing. Rather I see it as more testing happening, something that would not have been done without the coaching from a test manager. It’s all about finding a test approach that is fit for the context.
The competence of the test coach is to have enough change management expertise (people skills) and test management expertise (domain skills) to know how to coach and facilitate the change. Should test coaches test too, perhaps when required, but not necessarily. The activity is primarily to up-skill the team to continue on their own.
The “Test Coach” is a trend similar to “shift-left” and all the other shifts in testing and test management. I see it as a pattern, and what I read from the threads and discussions is that many test managers gradually shift towards test coaches.
More and more often I 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 implementation or – what on earth, they actually want to learn from the testing.
These are the phases of a recent project:
Environment Acceptance testing
Hardware and integration testing
Component- integration testing
Operational acceptance testing
Service Level testing
It’s a challenge in the vendor reply. The vendor will want to reply to all test phases in order to be compliant with the tender, and not loose points. There is no room for elaboration or discussion if you want in on the bid process.
Quite often the requester comes back and say “we didn’t want all those weird testing things, we just want something that works for us”. But when the contract is signed and the work set in motion the project team have challenge to make the testing practical within the framework of the contract. This goes from both sides. Many good hours can be wasted with unwinding cumbersome contractual terms.
What I usually do in such a situation is to bundle the contract’s testing scope into fewer activities, and setup a mapping so that everything is covered. That is if the client allows me to make the activities practical and context-driven. If not – my hands are tied, and we deliver according to spec – even if the chapters of the test plans are set in stone.
Let’sworktowardsbetterdealsfortestingactivities. If you are looking to prepare a BID include a test manager – and have a discussion of the value-add and learning of testing up front. There is no one book of how to do testing. Instead spend the time and money figuring out your context. Figure out what phases are on the client side, and what is on the vendor side. Have a test management consultant on retainer for before and after the bid process. Do something to discuss your test strategy and put the guidelines in the contracts, so that the vendors can propose a solution.
TL;DR: We can add testing to all requirements and all business risks. Testing to document requirements and to debunk risks provides valuable information for the business. Let us not limit testing to things that can be coded. The intellectual activity of trial and learning is happening anyways, we might as well pitch in with ways to find important evidence for the decision makers.
Test all the requirements
Traditionally testing was all about testing the functional requirements that could be coded. Non-functional requirements was left for the specialists, or plainly disregarded. I know I have done my share of test planning, with a range of requirements left “N/A” with regards to testing. Especially performance scope, batch jobs, hardware specs, data base table expansions and virus scanning have been left out of my functional test plans…
When I look at a list of requirements now – I see that we can indeed test all the things, or we can at least work on how to document that the requirement is fulfilled. Some of the requirements are actually quite easy to document. If it’s on a screen somewhere, take a screen shot and attach it to a simple test case. Done deal really. Additionally with a testing mind-set I can think of ways to challenge the details. But do we really, really need to fill up a disk to establish if it’s exactly a 1 Gb allocation – probably not. Do we really really need to document all requirements – yes in some contracts/contexts it’s important for the customer to know that everything has indeed been established. Sometimes the customer doesn’t trust you otherwise, sometimes the tests are more about your ability to deliver and provide evidence that matters.
Test all the business risks
Look into the business case of your project and find the business risks. Sometimes they are explicitly stated and prioritized. A a recent Ministry of Testing Meetup we looked into a case for a large national health system. We looked at the tangible benefits, intangible benefits and on the scored business risks. What worried the business and management most was budget, time and whether the new system would be used in a standardized way. There is an opportunity for testing here to help address, document and challenge the most important business risks. Traditional testing would usually look at functional requirements that can be coded or configured, and miss totally to address what matters most to the business.
OK, how do we test the project costs? How about frequent checkpoints of expected spending – would that be similar to tracking test progress. Perhaps – let’s find out. Testing is all about asking questions for the stakeholders and solving the most important problems first. Can we help to analyse risks and setup mitigation activities – sure we can. We just have to step out of our traditional “software only bubble”.