It’s really that simple, yet awesomely profound. And a typical Gerald Weinbergquote, like my other favorites of his points:
No matter how it looks at first, it’s always a people problem (The second law of consulting)
You’ll never accomplish anything if you care who gets the credit
Things are the way they are because they got that way
Quality is value to some person
Regarding the last quote; which was later extended with “who matters, at some time” by Bach, Bolton. Once I had an argument about how to deliver quality. The other side held towards IEEE definition of delivering the expected. But even when he did, he failed to see that the unmeasured and irrational parts affected the value to the customer. I agree completely with The Cowboy Tester that knowing works of Weinberg is a measure of seriousness.
For many of us learning whether or not you know about @JerryWeinberg is a kpi for how serious you are about testing as a career and craft. You don’t have to agree with him, but you should know him.
Weinberg worked not only with testing, but among other things also consulting and organisational change management. I did not know that when reading “Making Sense of Change Management” (Cameron & Green 2012). I literally jumped up and started laughing while reading the quite serious elaborations to the Satir Change model – the authors found that Quality Software Management: Anticipating Change (1997) is a “masterly book on change, but with a title that might not appeal to everyone“. It might not appeal to change scholars, but definitely appealed indirectly to a lot of people in testing.
Recently (August 2018) Jerry died aged 84. Not a boss – yet a leader.
So far I have mostly thought that “Modern Testing” of the A/B testing podcast would never work in an enterprise context. But it seems some tools and existing approaches in the enterprises already fits well with the ideas of the concept.
The enterprise is all the privately owned companies that usually manufacture (non-IT) things – for either the consumer or other businesses. The enterprise sell and produce tangible products like windmills, power tools, dairy consumer products etc. The interest with regards to IT for the enterprise is that it just works, and supports business processes around order setup, order tracking and invoicing – and many other moving parts.
While I have heard of some organisations that have successfully implemented some agile and SaFe methods (in banking), the enterprise have a hard time to change mode of operations, as it usually comes down to actual production of things, logistics and hierarchies of command-and-control … and culture, most of all culture.
Some enterprises change towards being learning organisations, but still treat their IT in general as low-value and an annoying cost. It seems the IT departments and IT contractors have a challenge in talking about what they do to achieve the right quality for the businesses….
Que: The Modern testing mission on “Accelerate the achievement of Shippable Quality”. While MT is mostly a concept around transition of testing activities, it seems the concept applies to IT delivery teams in general. MT has 7 principles and some of these are:
5. We believe that the customer is the only one capable to judge and evaluate the quality of our product
Most enterprise projects I know off around implementing SAP, MS dynamics 365, EPIC hospital solutions etc, have a large reliance on end-user testing and UAT. Often there is no professional testers involved, as the best tester is the business experts themselves. Interestingly the principle #5 fit’s well with existing practices from the UAT space.
Another interesting MT principle is #6 around data analysis of actual customer usage. This requires some totally different tooling for the tester, than previously generally available (…besides shifting-right perhaps…).
6. We use data extensively to deeply understand customer usage and then close the gaps between product hypotheses and business impact.
Yet recently I was investigating Panaya Autonomous Testing for SAP. One thing I realized is that what the tool collects real user usage of SAP and then provides the ability to balance the testing activities based on that analysis. It is interesting to see a commercial test management product for the enterprises following new trends like the “modern tester”.
While it’s interesting how some of the concepts of modern testing are reflected in testing in the enterprise – and vise versa – the challenge remains for both the tools and concepts to be applied and accepted in more organisations.
It might not fit everywhere, but it might be a good fit in more places than you think it would.
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.
New ways of delivering software and solutions challenge existing perceptions of what roles and activities testers and test managers have. Some are getting more into development others into people skills. Sometimes forcefully, other times as part of self-organizing teams.
Shift-Deliver is a label I choose to put on the changes the roles and activities of the TEST MANAGER, when the test manager moves towards (also) being involved in the ITIL change requests, delivery management, configuration management and branch management that happens when the solution goes from the test phase to production. Another label could be “TestOps” as presented here, as the intersection of Testing and Operations. TestOps have been identified for along time. ….Interesting. 🙂
In my IT outsourcing context, this is less about software, and more about solutions. In at least two of my long term enterprise scale projects, half the job was test management (of operations) projects, half the job was regarding ITIL change management. My change management activities was mostly making sure that
the process was followed
that information was provided to the stakeholders
that testing happened
risk mitigation happened
I was hired as “the quality guy”, but expanded the role over the time I’ve been on the team to take ownership of all of our build and release infrastructure as well. Basically, I’m responsible for everything from the moment code is checked in, until it hits our production servers
To use a quote by Alan Page. Again Alan is a representative of what happens with regards to trends in testing. He might be wrong, as well as I. I try to label the trends to understand them. These four trends that I have spotted are not mutually exclusive, neither do they all four need directions. Change is happening to the classic test manager rolle of going through the motions of test cases and documents. This is clear when looking into these posts:
To me Shift-Left is still an active trend and change how to do testing. This goes along with Shift-Right,Shift-Coach and Shift-Deliver discussed separately. I discussed these trend labels at Nordic Testing Days 2016 during the talk “How to Test in IT operations“.
Microsoft have similar “Software Design Engineer in Test” as discussed by Alan Page in “The SDET Pendulum” and in the e-book “A-word“
A project I was regarding pharmaceutical Track and Trace, had no testers. I didn’t even test but did compliance documentation of test activities. The developers tested. First via peer review, then via peer execution of story tests and then validation activities. No testers, just the same team – for various reasons.
A project I was in regarding a website and API for trading property information had no testers, but had continuous build and deploy with even more user oriented test cases that I could ever grab. (see: Fell in the trap of total coverage)
The general approach to Shift-Left is that “checking” moves earlier in the cycle in form of automation. More BDD, more TDD, more automated tests, continuous builds, frequent feedback and green bars. More based on “Test automation pyramid” (blog discussion, whiteboard testing video). Discussing the pyramid model reveals that testing and checking goes together in the lower levels too. I’m certain that (exploratory) testing happens among technicians and service-level developers; – usually not explicitly, but still.
To have “no QA” is not easy. Not easy on the testers because they need to shift and become more SET/SDET-like or shift something else (Shift-Right and Shift-Coach and Shift-Deliver). Neither is it easy on the team, as the team has to own the quality activities – as discussed in “So we’re going “No QA’s”. How do we get the devs to do enough testing?”
Testers and test managers cannot complain, when testing and checking is performed in new ways. When tool-supported testing take over the boring less-complex checks, we can either own these checks or move to facilitate that these checks are in place. Similarly when the (exploratory) brain-based testing of the complex and unknown is being handed over to some other person. Come to think of it I always prefer testing done by subject matter experts in the project, be it users, clients, testers or other specialists.
We need to shift to adapt to new contexts and new ways of aiding in delivering working solutions to our clients.