Do you know what testing is?

So you are working on a project, large or small and you are working with a variety of stakeholders, some may know what testing is, some may think they know what testing is, and some have never even thought about it.
So what do you do?
For me this one is an easy thing to address, I tell them all what testing is to me, in small bit size pieces. Using plain English, and alway checking back with them about what they mean when they use technical language, always phrased as " just so I can understand.." not so I can correct them, so I can make sure I really know what they mean, This goes for technical people more than any, I sat in a meeting with a system architect lead, interface lead and developer lead, and they all had a different definition to unit testing (or developer testing). If I hadn't asked it would have gone unsaid, assuming they all meant the same things.
People who don't know what testing is, you have to show them the value you bring, demonstrate why what you do, makes their lives easier. Telling them isn't enough, they have to see what you bring to the table otherwise you are just some strange IT role.
Be open and inclusive invite people to see what you do, help them see why you ask the questions you do, and never fear being challenged, just make sure when you respond to that challenge its positive, clear, easy to understand and relevant, they aren't saying your wrong, or not needed, they are really saying I don't understand why often with little realisation that this drives what they are saying.
If you want to do well in the professional world being able to demonstrate your worth is a skill that is worth developing, as the way you demonstrate it has to change according to the audience, you have to be able to explain in terms anyone can understand and defend why you have done or are doing what you are, especially if they come with preconceptions about what it is you do.
James Bach and Micheal Bolton tester story is an invaluable tool here (These are the people who I first saw this from not sure who's idea it was first) It gives a framework within which to think about the differing side of what you are doing, and how to address questions about it to support why you have chosen to do what you have, when you have.
It's all about understanding, what the concerns are, and how you can provide assurance to the stakeholder who raised it, that you will be able to provide them with proof/information/demonstration of that area so they can make a judgement on how happy they are with it, for example, in my current project the speed of order entry for the trade sales team is very important, they need to be able to work through an order flow, including placing individual lines on an order at the speed of speach. We are addressing this through demonstartaions and timings of screen loading, so the Trade sales manager can see how fast it is and make a judgement of if they are happy with that.

Tests, scripted, and taken

So I was watching some short videos on cognitive biases the other day when my mind wandered on to the topic of tests and testing. The things that we do to investigate the quality of software, and the thing most people do in large rooms under time pressure, and I wondered if the most commonly understood meaning of the word testing, as in formal highly structured, controlled and scripted process of answering questions on a specific topic under time pressure to receive a grade has poisoned, to use a dog training term, the ability to get people to understand testing as a process of exploring, learning, evaluating, modeling etc software to help make a value judgement on its quality.

So what do I mean by poisoned, in dog training terms if you have a cue you have taught your dog that elicits a specific behaviour, such as down, to lay on the floor, and then other people repeatedly, and constantly overuse the term, ie more than once per requested behaviour, and also use it to mean get off that thing/me/other person. The dog will stop having a cue down for laying on the floor, and the down cue will like not result in any particular behaviour.

So how am I applying this to the endless education issue around testing in software testing, we are bombarded with the word test and the school exam meaning for many of our formative years, and again if you enter an industry that has a high degree of continuous study and testing to maintain a level of knowledge and does this via formal testing. Rarely do any of these tests reflect our use of the word testing, they seem anathema to it, in fact, all formal, with a gravitas and pomp to give the appearance of great importance. 

Is this in fact the fight that we are having to get people to accept that testing software  can legitimately be exploratory and investigatory, rather than a highly formalised and scripted process, has the interpretation of test become an Alief in the minds of the general population?

What are your thoughts, why is it so difficult to shift the understanding of the word Test?

Doug

If it's a journey...

As those of you who have read previous posts of mine will know, at work we are installing a new ERP system, and taking out the very old one.
One of the phrases that are being used is we are on a journey, this provokes an irrational response of wanting to strangle the individual uttering it.
So I thought I'd explore what about it drives me mad.
The way it is used implies that we are following some path that leads us to our chosen end goal, and if we travel it we will discover what we need to know along the way and get to this nirvana.
However, there is no path, we don't know what we will encounter, we are drawing the map as we go, as what we require is unique to us, as is each major software installation. We don't even know if our compass works here, the things we have used before to direct us no longer apply, the context they worked in, isn't this context.
This journey would be more akin to some explorers landing on a new planet and having to map it all by hand, without knowing whats safe and whats not, let alone having a known destination to head towards, best we have is large geographical features, ie it needs to me able to manage stock.
It is this apparent gap between the reality and the phrase that causes my sanity to fray.

Passion in your job

So as you may know from earlier posts I'm quite new to testing as a full-time job, it's something I've been involved in for a while. As I've progressed in my new role as a software tester, rather than just doing some testing on the side I have come to the realisation that testing, as I now understand it, is something I really enjoy. It speaks to many parts of my mind, it's a constant challenge, with a great deal to learn about, and a huge variety. It turns out that I am very passionate about testing being done well, and that passion is translating to work listening to what I have to say to them.
So what does this meaning for me?
Work are more willing to accept when I tell them something about testing.
They are willing to send me on courses and to conferences.
They are willing to review what I do, as defined by my job title.
But more importantly, they are willing to give me more responsibility, areas of the business that were out of my original reach, yet really needed to review how they test software are becoming places I can influence, they are falling within my remit as a software tester. This hasn't taken long either, my passion for high-quality testing totally changed how we are approaching testing the ERP we are installing, as a knock on from that they are willing to listen to me about minor software changes. letting me help the new testers we have, in terms of coaching, and getting them on courses to help them, inviting me to meetings with the senior developers so I can input early on projects.
All of this is happening because of my highly visible passion for what I'm doing.

If you want to go further where you work, show the passion you have for your role, bring ideas to your boss, push your self-development, let people know how much doing what you do, well, means to you, and how it helps them. Passion for your job does translate to progress.

Doug

Assessment of progress

So I want to be a great tester.
I'm building up a syllabus of material to learn, and a way of tracking my progress against that.
How though do I know how good I am at actual testing?
It's not like there are formal assessments that can tell me how I'm doing, I have no colleagues that are more experienced than me, so their insights are going to be limited. So I can critically review work that I have done, with a view to what else I could have tried. What does that look like though, what are the actual steps I'd take?
I could apply the Socratic method and see in which piece of work I can see better ways to think about it, and approach it. I think this has a limited use to me currently as without broader and deeper experiences in testing, I may be unable to have an effective socratic conversation.
I think I have to build myself a self assessment model, definitely not a strong suit of mine.
I'd be reviewing heuristics used, where they the best, could better ones have been used, and what of the oracles, were they good enough, could alternative ones been found that would have given a better insight into the rightness of what I was testing.
Ideas from others who have tried a similar thing would be most welcome.

Testing mind set

I started writing this blog as a place to record my growth within software testing, as my understanding evolves I wanted somewhere I could go to to write about it, and a place to reflect back on where I have come from.

So a little recap, I work for a company that changes in-house software, and we need to make sure that it still works on its own and with the other software we have. I've been part of this for a number of years, to varying degrees of involvement. Recently I started full time in IT as a tester, my starting point was, if I'm getting paid to do this I'd better get good at it. And thus began my journey into real testing.

I recently finished the BBST foundation course, it was awesome, I'm now putting together a business case to get me on the others, that and the rapid software testing course. That might take a bit more doing.

All of this has been fantastic in helping me grow, it isn't the epiphany, though. I'd recently read James Bach's integration question and the many conversations that followed. Shortly after that, I was watching some lectures on youtube, and I watched one on the Socratic method as part of some work I'm doing on putting together a coaching/mentoring model. And there it was, I could see Jame's use of the Socratic method in so much of what had been written, I can see how this can be applied to help me gain a much greater understanding in my own work. I can use this to challenge what I think I understand and grow from there.

Assumptions

Over the weekend I happened to read an article on assumptions and if we should be making them. The article talks about the writers progression from the assumptions are bad, to assumptions are okay if they are reasonable. It was interesting to read the progression of the writers thoughts over the use of assumptions. They went from, as a younger person following the adage about asses, to coming to realise that some assumptions are part and parcel of life. 

However, it struck me that  we could do with a better education when it comes to this type of reasoning within software testing. Too little time is spent talking about how you investigate something and the process that you go through to come up with theories to test, most sciences, both the more classical and social sciences spend time teaching how to investigate, and the use of assumptions.

It reads to me like the author is talking about beliefs, those things that drive our assumptions. If they had dug a little deeper and thought about these assumptions maybe they wouldn't have held them in such low esteem.

We could rephrase the article, rather they are talking about justified beliefs, in the epistemological sense, or we are using them to form part of an ampliative argument. In either case, the negative connotations of the "assumptions" should be removed as you are no longer talking about the vague process of making a guess at something, but it is a considered idea that you believe is supported by the available evidence.

Both of these play a large part in the process of assessing a situation and forming a hypothesis that you are going to investigate further and are held in much higher regard than the simple assumption.

I think that if we could move to accepting that this is the normal process that is gone through, and start using the techniques that are available in other disciplines that rely on investigations we would be able to share in the developments in ways that you can investigate.