Is testing as different as economic systems?
Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Mon, 25/02/2008 - 15:27.
general software testing | metaphors
I have lived in two out of 5 basic types of economic systems: planned (Soviet Union) and market (Latvia now) economy. I could draw certain similarity with notion of testing schools. … well at least to a degree of my interpretation of the notion. Based on my (perhaps limited) experience – I prefer to think about the reasons for implications described – in terms of decision making…
Test management styles: directing VS delegating
There are different projects and different managers. Different leadership models may be applied. It is suggested however that best choice depend on „Development Level of the follower”, i.e. - tester. As a test manager I could apply hands-on test planning with novice testers and delegate most of the decisions to experts.
I’ve found that in some projects project managers, development leads and even individual developers want to play a great role on what, when and how gets tested. I’ve seen some test managers and test leads who want to play a great role on that as well.
On contrary I love to (as much as possible) give more power to an individual tester. Bottom-up in decision-making is much more flexible. Yes, I know - I risk by allowing them to make bad decisions along with good ones. I risk that they will submit wrong defects or miss some probably obvious defects. I like to take this risk as it pays back in terms of coaching: people learn from their mistakes much better! Sometimes I even feel like mistakes is the only what they learn from.
So what’s up with schools?
Learning has nothing to do with testing schools notion… I used to think so until I’ve figured out something while re-reading Paul Gerrard's universal directives (that’s my term for what he calls axioms). I assume that he believes to improve test quality though better directed testers. The main drawback of directive approach is it’s poor flexibility. So I pointed out that everything may change – stakeholders, their goals, and oracles as a result; Paul commented that "these aren't testing issues". On the other hand he suggest that answering „how much testing” have you „left to do”, i.e. when the product will be shipped is testing issue and not project management issue. I don’t think that “who decided ship date” is part of tester belief. But it is a fundamental question, isn’t it?
So: who are to decide what?
I think the fundamental difference between market and planned economies are very simple: “Who makes the decisions?” Planned economy is top-down directed approach: and it makes a lot of sense to create overarching macroeconomic plan. Market economic is bottom-up risk (interest) based approach: who makes right decisions, makes more money. It’s ad-hoc in some sense.
Just the same way decisions related to testing may be either decided by “the planners” or (bottom-up and beforehand) by testers (as software convey information through bugs and other finding). We only need to make sure that each individual tester is interested in making the right decisions (basically not letting a lot of serious bugs get into the field).
Summing up: the decision making difference
Bert Pettichord analyzes “core beliefs”. I never felt comfortable about it, although used his work to teach new testers (along with other materials of course). In my limited experience I’ve seen that this is simply a matter of who (tester himself, test manager, project manager, developer or customer) is making which decisions: how to invest into testing (how much to test each item) and bug fixing (should we fix it and how), when to ship.
As a test manager I’ve wrote a lot of guidelines and procedures in my life – both project-specific and company-while. And I do believe that they are worth to write and follow. But the main challenge and driver for me is tester motivation: how to make them interested in making the right decisions. Because the only rule in “my school” is bottom-up decision making, which means I’m always open when a tester asks me to make a decision just as I’m open to help with my technical knowledge and testing experience. But I want tester to understand each of my decisions. That’s why I don’t write them down.
Note: this blog has been lightly reworked a day after it's publication.
Test management styles: directing VS delegating
There are different projects and different managers. Different leadership models may be applied. It is suggested however that best choice depend on „Development Level of the follower”, i.e. - tester. As a test manager I could apply hands-on test planning with novice testers and delegate most of the decisions to experts.
I’ve found that in some projects project managers, development leads and even individual developers want to play a great role on what, when and how gets tested. I’ve seen some test managers and test leads who want to play a great role on that as well.
On contrary I love to (as much as possible) give more power to an individual tester. Bottom-up in decision-making is much more flexible. Yes, I know - I risk by allowing them to make bad decisions along with good ones. I risk that they will submit wrong defects or miss some probably obvious defects. I like to take this risk as it pays back in terms of coaching: people learn from their mistakes much better! Sometimes I even feel like mistakes is the only what they learn from.
So what’s up with schools?
Learning has nothing to do with testing schools notion… I used to think so until I’ve figured out something while re-reading Paul Gerrard's universal directives (that’s my term for what he calls axioms). I assume that he believes to improve test quality though better directed testers. The main drawback of directive approach is it’s poor flexibility. So I pointed out that everything may change – stakeholders, their goals, and oracles as a result; Paul commented that "these aren't testing issues". On the other hand he suggest that answering „how much testing” have you „left to do”, i.e. when the product will be shipped is testing issue and not project management issue. I don’t think that “who decided ship date” is part of tester belief. But it is a fundamental question, isn’t it?
So: who are to decide what?
I think the fundamental difference between market and planned economies are very simple: “Who makes the decisions?” Planned economy is top-down directed approach: and it makes a lot of sense to create overarching macroeconomic plan. Market economic is bottom-up risk (interest) based approach: who makes right decisions, makes more money. It’s ad-hoc in some sense.
Just the same way decisions related to testing may be either decided by “the planners” or (bottom-up and beforehand) by testers (as software convey information through bugs and other finding). We only need to make sure that each individual tester is interested in making the right decisions (basically not letting a lot of serious bugs get into the field).
Summing up: the decision making difference
Bert Pettichord analyzes “core beliefs”. I never felt comfortable about it, although used his work to teach new testers (along with other materials of course). In my limited experience I’ve seen that this is simply a matter of who (tester himself, test manager, project manager, developer or customer) is making which decisions: how to invest into testing (how much to test each item) and bug fixing (should we fix it and how), when to ship.
As a test manager I’ve wrote a lot of guidelines and procedures in my life – both project-specific and company-while. And I do believe that they are worth to write and follow. But the main challenge and driver for me is tester motivation: how to make them interested in making the right decisions. Because the only rule in “my school” is bottom-up decision making, which means I’m always open when a tester asks me to make a decision just as I’m open to help with my technical knowledge and testing experience. But I want tester to understand each of my decisions. That’s why I don’t write them down.
Note: this blog has been lightly reworked a day after it's publication.