When good enough is the perfect fit

2 Comments

Similar to scope creep we may also experience “test creep“. Test Creep is when the tester adds more tests than what is in scope. Just as well as more business functionality is added during scope creep, more testing is added in test creep. Both aren’t necessarily bad, but in time-boxed or similar (budgeted) constraint projects creeping isn’t necessarily value adding. This is probably easier to understand in an agile project focusing on minimal viable product , but may happen in other contexts too.

It is test creep, when the tester feels an obligation to run an extra drill down into browser and OS configurations, when scope is less broad. It is creeping the scope of testing, if the testers feels a “/need/ to write testcases for this first” when exploratory sessions fits the mission. Consider test creep like gold plating, in that way that it tries to refine and perfect the product – when good enough is the perfect fit.

Test creep can happen intentionally, happen by management or by product owner request. It may happen unintentionally, and usually it is with the best intentions – as more testing always is better testing – right? (But it Depends) Sometimes yes, we as testers are to blame that we add more scenarios, rigor and details, because a testing mindset drives us to investigate the product.

In discussing this with Mohinder and Darren, we found that – it’s not only a matter of removing wait time for testers. This may add more time, to test but the scope creep in testing may happen none the less. A Lean mindset with focus on what adds value to the business and a discussion on the minimum viable testing will assist the project in avoiding test creep.

 

minecraft_creeper_wallpaper_by_lynchmob10-1440x900

A commercial body of Knowledge

Leave a comment

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

I know you need more info…

Leave a comment

Mindmaps for 400

1 Comment

Finally non-profit self-organizing software testing is happening in Denmark. On may 21 2014 we actually had two events:

At the first I was glad to share my experiences using mind maps in software testing, note taking and information structuring. (Get the PDF Xmind mind map here: https://jlottosen.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mindmaps-400.pdf)

You stop going deeper down the tree, when there is nothing more knowledge to gain, just like good (exploratory) testing.

Cultural context of the “for 100″ comes from the Jeopardy TV Quiz, where the questions come in 4 levels: 100, 200,300, 400 for the  increasingly harder questions. The prize is similarly $100 for level 100 etc.  

Left to my own devices I probably would

Leave a comment

You can easily do a half-marathon

Yes I could, but the thing is it would need longer runs. I run with the Running Club Tuesdays and Thursdays before dinner. As a simplified example – if dinner get’s delayed the kids won’t eat as well, then they can’t fall asleep – and will need to eat past their bed time. They will sleep too late, and we (the parents) will have less time to the evening chores and being together. Every time there is something I’d like to do, there is always something else that matters that doesn’t get done.

Come to X-conference – it’s just a matter of priority if you’re one of the ones

Sure, it is – that’s easy for you to say.  But €2000 + travel is out of my private pocket, missing work hours is out of my pocket, being away from family is out of both my time and their time. And really €4000 is a lot of money in a family with two kids with special needs – where the income is one job, one early retired. Also it’s a stupid argument, as I can point to heroes of testing that I consider “one of the ones” that like me aren’t going to both this and that.

I can do a Test Bash, write blog posts* and articles for the Testing Planet etc. 

I can run 14km in 1½ hours. 

14km

(*: and I’ll try to get back to blogging more)

Quote Left to my own devices

and I could
and left to my own devices
I probably would
Left to my own devices
I probably would
Oh, I would

Related:

 

Use case 115: It was a dark and stormy night

Leave a comment

Discussing relevance of testcases, user stories and requirements is an age-old challenge in IT development. Sometimes we think we know the usage of our software so much better, than the users – that we laugh and say: That would never be the case. But it may very well be.

The reason for undertaking the largest national construction project is so that the capital region can get fresh milk.” That’s what the minister of transportation said [1] – and boy we laughed. Why would we invest billions, 7 years and 18 km bridge so that one part of the country could supply fresh milk for the other (that had it’s own dairies).

A commercial[2] for a dairy snack (oh the irony) later alleged that this decision was made on an empty stomach[3]. But it wasn’t – with regular ferry service since 1883, the people wanted to cut the time from 90 minutes to 15 minutes, with all the added benefits of increased trade, travel and traffic.

The link opened in 1998 and a stormy night in 2006 the bridge closed for traffic. No big deal – it happens. It so happened that it closed for 22 hours. And hence the ecological milk dairy on the ”countryside” couldn’t deliver milk for the ”capital” side [4]. And the scenario from the minister of transportation had become no laughing matter.

Your user is not you - http://www.developsense.com/blog/2013/12/your-user-is-not-you/

The baristas wept as there was no ecological skimmed milk

1: DK video: http://larslars.net/blog/2009/04/derfor-fik-vi-storeb%C3%A6ltsbroen/
2: Similar to this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2UrushQ86I
3: Why being hungry is bad for decision-making http://blog.bufferapp.com/8-things-you-dont-know-are-affecting-your-decisions-every-day
4: DK text: http://www.landbrugsavisen.dk/Landbrugsavisen/2006/5/26/Ingen+frisk+maelk+over+Storebaelt.htm

Quality comes in all shapes and sizes

2 Comments

Quality comes in all shapes and sizes .. like Christmas trees. This Christmas I was out selling trees at the local “shopping center ” with my oldest.Most left with a tree that satisfied the acceptance criteria – explicit as well as implicit – yet still no one came with a requirement spec…

2013-12-14 10.33.55

Heuristics from the merry christmas tree salesmen:

  • The  tree looked at first – is usually returned to and bought
  • Do A/B split testing between one or two trees
  • Too many options makes selecting even more confusing
  • One family’s reject – is another family’s perfect fit
  • Context is important – like how much room inside, how many people, how many kids
  • The closer to deadline – the less options
  • No one notices the wicked branches, when the music plays and the tree is lit
  • After christmas it doesn’t matter how picky you were with the details

A young woman came to us looking a bit puzzled – she had never bought a tree herself, and the tree been bought was not for her. All she knew was that she had volunteered to do charity help to a down-and-out family. They wanted a tree for christmas – but could not themselves. I can only guess that this specific christmas tree was the family’s perfect tree. The cost didn’t matter to the young woman at all – but the implicit value even more.

Many decisions are never about the monetary (sunk) costs. Hence your customer makes seemingly odd decisions – and that’s OK. 

See also: Acceptance criteria are more than what can be measuredLook for Minimum Viable TestingWithout Timing – Quality, Schedule and Cost is nothingValue of Information for Decisions , 16 points that may rock the boatWhen do testing happen? Are you looking too hard

Older Entries Newer Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 953 other followers