HOW LOOOOW CAN YOU GOOOO?
Everybody has to make a living. Many of us have to make decisions every day in regards to what we will, or will not do in order to be successful, regardless of what our definition of success might be; money, recognition, power, security, etc.
So how much are you willing to sacrifice to get what you want? And WHAT are you willing sacrifice to get what you want? And what does this have to do with QA/QC?
Well, I’ve always considered our field an area that attracts and retains people with a lot of integrity. Part of the definition of “integrity” is “honesty”. You can’t be successful with your testing efforts if you are afraid or unwilling to tell the truth. The other part of the definition is “adherence to moral and ethical principles”. That one is more difficult - morality and ethics vary; you can be true to your own principles and those might not match someone else’s.
What I’m going to throw out there for consideration is that we in the QA/QC bend our own principles on a regular basis. Do we sacrifice our integrity? I don’t know; only you can answer that question.
I’ve been considering my own since the recent debacle involving the ISTQB. I’ve always thought I have a lot of integrity – now I’m not so sure.
If you had been threatened by a large, powerful group, how would you have reacted? Would you have spit in their eye?
Here’s how I would have reacted. First of all, I wouldn’t have threatened the ISTQB in the first place. I don’t care about the ISTQB. It doesn’t bother me that some magazine tends to publish articles that are from ISTQB supporters, or that they accept money for ads from the ISTQB. If I liked the authors and felt there was some merit in their articles, that would justify the cost of the magazine.
The fact that I would be helping to fund the ISTQB probably would not have bothered me. But that is because I have no particular “stand” or feelings in regards to that group; at least no stronger feelings than I have for any certification or association.
But if I DID have strong feelings about it, I would have done what Pradeep did when threatened. I would have kicked sand in their face.
So Pradeep acted with integrity, as he did something difficult and potentially dangerous to himself professionally because of his beliefs.
At the same time, when I went to his site to read the original article, he was advertising for ANOTHER certification, which made equally unlikely claims. This rubbed me the wrong way. It made me question his integrity, because as I do not know him personally, I had no way of knowing whether he was dogging the ISTQB because he wanted to put another certification in its place, because the group he hangs with hates the ISTQB, or because he genuinely believed they were Evil. If he genuinely believed they were evil, then acts of bravery based on principles are admirable and should be supported by the community-at-large, even when we don’t necessarily share those principles.
Once I had thought about this, I started thinking about other, less obvious ways in which we may compromise our integrity in order to get something we want or maintain our status quo. There were a surprising amount of them; some of them are things I’ve poked fun at before, and some are very subtle.
First of all I find, personally, that there are times when I will sacrifice my integrity in order to remain employed. And oddly enough, it doesn’t eat at my conscience much. These tend to be “small” matters. There are times I don’t speak up and say what I think because it would piss off an executive. That would negatively impact my career, and would be potentially devastating to my staff. A manager who is out of favor cannot be effective in getting what their staff needs to survive. So I do my best to think before I speak, and sometimes I choose not to speak. If I do speak, however, I do not lie. That’s where my own personal “line” is drawn in the sand. I will not lie to save myself or my staff. But I don’t do that because I’m some sort of saint-like Polly Pure. I do that because once you start lying, it’s hard to remember what you’ve said to whom, and I do it because I need to respect myself.
Another one of the things I consider “small” involves certification. I can genuinely say that if I needed a certification in order to be employed, I would get it whether I agreed with the principles or not. So I suppose I believe that eating trumps integrity. But when I really think about it, that is not especially admirable or brave. It brings up the questions of whether you should be willing to “die for your art”. Some people would. While I can admire that level of integrity, I guess I really don’t respect it all that that much. Being certified is a bagatelle and merely indicates you understand a given body of knowledge. As far as I know, no one smelling of sulphur, dressed in a red suit, with horns and a tail, demands you sign away your soul when you get certified.
In this region, for example, you cannot get work as a Project Manager unless you have your PMP certification. Have any of you ever studied for or taken the PMP? I have. Studied, that is. Everyone here at a certain level is required to be PMI trained. My company could care less if you go get certified, and if you do it’s on your dime (um, on your $500), but they want everyone trained. That was months of really difficult studying and some really heinous exams. Did I pass? Yes. Was it difficult? Yes. But here’s the real reason it was difficult. The PMP questions are all geared towards what the PMI believes in – THEIR principles of project management. The more experience you have of your own, the more difficult it is to say you’d do X in Y situation, when you know you’d really do Z. And the part of the exam I had the most trouble with? The QA/QC portion. I flunked it the first time. Everything taught by the PMI in regards to QA/QC is pretty much the opposite of what an experienced test manager or analyst would do in a given situation. So you have to learn WHAT THE PMI WOULD DO in a given situation and learn to apply that to the situational exam questions they throw at you. So do I support the PMI? Again, I don’t care about the PMI any more than I care about ISTQB. I neither love them or hate them; I’m indifferent. I do know that I strongly disagree with what they teach about managing QA/QC. But I did “learn” what their body of knowledge believes. If I were certified, that’s all the certification would mean. I certainly wouldn’t apply what was taught there to real-life situations. So does that mean I lack integrity, since if I needed that certification to get hired, I would get it? Yes, in all honesty I would have to say it indicates I lack integrity in that regard. I would obtain a certification I did not believe in to get a job.
So look at your own situation; are there times you sacrifice your own sense of integrity and honesty? Are you OK with it?
There are people in our field that are dependent on the good will of either an individual or organization for their livelihood. This is really no different than being dependent on the good will of an executive manager. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just the Way Things Are. But I think we all really need to examine who we’re selling ourselves to and whether the price is really something we’re willing to pay. Some of us sell ourselves to others in the hopes of receiving favors in the future. Some do it to belong to a group. Some do it for money, or referrals, or prestige.
Let’s talk about blogs for a minute. Do you advertise on your blog? Do you personally believe in and recommend every single person or entity that advertises with you? If not, are you OK with that nibble at your integrity? Take a look at your blog list, because that’s advertising too. Why are you promoting those people? Is it because you really believe in them and read them regularly? Or is it because “it’s the thing to do”? Or in hopes of favors from those on the list? Or because you belong to a group? Do you feel free to blog in direct opposition to the opinions of either your advertisers or the people on your blog list? Have you ever done that? Have you ever publically supported or smooched up to someone because of who they were and not because it’s really what you believed? Have you ever changed or modified a blog or opinion in order to please someone you considered important? Is the price of any of that worth the loss of freedom? In some cases, it is. And that’s a question only you can answer for yourself. But every time you do those things, you lose a little bit of yourself or your freedom. It needs to be worth it to you and is worth thinking about on occasion.
I’m going to tell you the truth; I see situations and comments or blogs that are such patent suck-ups and/or cop-outs it’s positively nauseating. I read all kinds of things that are hypocritical. But it’s easy to accuse others of lack of integrity when you never examine your own; hence this musing of mine. I’m looking at my own and can definitely see some weaknesses there. What about you?
Let’s return to a really common and currently hot topic. Certifications and advertisement; who takes what from whom. I see there are some people that are violently opposed to ISTQB certification. At the same time, however, those very people may contribute articles to either Better Software magazine (or subscribe to same), attend, or speak at STAR conferences. Has anyone read SQE training materials? I have. They are affiliated with both ISTQB and PMI; both of those affiliations are proudly displayed on their literature. How do you balance those things? Clearly, speaking or writing benefits the author and turning a blind eye to the affiliations of the group sponsoring them is a sacrifice they are willing to make. At the same time, however, they are, albeit indirectly, supporting the very things they passionately oppose. Me? I’ve said before that I really don’t care about those things, so those affiliations have no impact on me or my own principles. But for someone that is violently opposed on one hand and taking money/time/exposure with the other, well, let’s just say I find that a bit shaky, ethically speaking.
I’m not a judge and jury; I’m pretty practical and understand the whys and wherefores of this stuff. But while the concept of selling one’s support for (something of value) doesn’t bother me, hypocrisy kind of sticks in my craw. So my questions are - What are you willing to do or sacrifice to get what you want? And is it or has it been worth the price?
I think we’re all doing the Limbo Rock. But the bars are adjustable according to how low you can go. Not everyone wants to be a Limbo Star…but I think a lot of us can and do go a lot lower than we care to admit….
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
WHAT IF THERE REALLY IS A GOD?
I was drinking coffee this morning and found myself inexplicably thinking about industry standards. And no, there was nothing “extra” in my coffee, nor is it some sort of special ritual I go through at 5 A.M. to prepare for my day.
Have any of you ever listened to a Steve Martin comedy album? He does a bit on one of them revolving around “What if there really IS a God?”. He asks what would happen if you died and found out all the stuff you figured out was crap in college turned out to be true. That there were pearly gates, angels strumming harps on puffy clouds, St. Peter at the gate, and a big book that listed all of your transgressions.. In his words - “Oh shit...”.
So there I was, drinking my coffee, and I was wondering – what if there really ARE industry standards? What if there are best practices? What if we just don’t want to acknowledge any?
“Oh shit...”.
I’ve always believed that one size doesn’t fit all, in terms of both software methodology and testing methodologies. I’ve believed that even within one type of methodology, there are rarely “best practices”. There are only best practices for your own environment and you tend to find those out through trial and error.
But what if I’m wrong? I also believe in keeping an open mind. Sometimes we need to examine our own prejudices.
I’ve never made a study of the software industry as a whole or even come close to seriously canvassing the entire testing industry. Have you? I don’t know if 90% of us or 9% of us use test cases, for example. What if 90% of the pundits on the web are exceptions and not the norm? Since they’re often trying to sell an idea or their own services, it wouldn’t really be in their best interests to promote anything other than what they’re selling, would it?
What if 87% of our own constituency believe certification is a good thing? Or 95% of hiring organizations believe certification is a good thing? For example, I’ve always examined the efforts to break the ISTQB with a critical eye. I haven’t seen their “body of knowledge”. I don’t know what their tests are like. I don’t know if I’d agree with what they feel is important. But since I don’t know, I don’t comment. And I don’t really take the word of someone else (that’s why I’m a tester; I have to examine things myself), particularly when I do know that several of those making the attempt to topple the ISTQB want to set up their own certification in its place. Would that be any better? Or worse? Or the same? Again, I don’t know. So I stay out of it; I don’t believe I’m qualified to comment, based on what I know right now. I do know that certifications do not make someone a better tester. I have learned that through my own experience and have specific examples. That does not, however, mean the certification itself is bogus or teaches bad things. It means certification is not the way to gauge someone’s talent. I can learn a thing and pass a test – that doesn’t mean I can or will choose to apply that thing.
Maybe all of these questions have come up because of the latest flurry of point/counterpoint on metrics. I have to honestly say that I consider people who refuse to use them or recognize any value in them as incompetent, particularly if they’re at a managerial level. Why? Because you can’t function efficiently in a business context unless you’re willing and able to use metrics. To do otherwise is to seriously undermine your ability to get taken seriously or accomplish what you’d like to accomplish, including getting the attention and funding your area requires in order to get their work done. I don’t really care that one individual knows of one situation where one fool used them incorrectly. So what? Metrics are in common use across all industries, for all businesses, and all of them can be faulty and/or used incorrectly by people who either don’t know what they’re doing or who slant them for their own purposes. What I’m seeing is that there’s a focus on exceptions, rather than the common use of metrics. And anyone mentioning metrics gets questioned for details from people who have already made it clear they don’t like metrics and just want the info so they can poke holes in it and ridicule the person who provided the information. Then they’re surprised when no one provides them with details? Gads! How many times do you have to suggest that a little respect goes a long way? If you want information from someone, it behooves you not to make it so bloody clear that you’re going to punish them for providing it!
I guess what I’m saying is that the fact that any single one of us doesn’t like something doesn’t magically make that thing disappear. I hate lima beans. And yet, they still exist. I can’t understand why; it’s obvious to me they’re not suitable for human consumption and should only be used for compost.
But I’ve found myself somewhat curious about industry standards as a whole and best practices overall. Not because it will change what I’m doing in my own organization, because what we’re doing works for us. But because it would increase my understanding about what people in our field are doing generally, it might be a worthwhile exercise and spur some interesting conversations.
You know, I haven’t read any literature about stats or trends across the industry for a really long time. I think it’s because I really haven’t cared too much, and I’ve told you that I believe one size doesn’t fit all. But maybe it would behoove me to see what size fits many, if for no other reason, to assuage my curiousity. Any ideas? I had someone suggest Caper Jones; I haven’t read anything by Caper Jones for YEARS, but he has a new book out and maybe I should read it even if my reaction ends up being a gag reflex, just like lima beans…
In short, just because we want to be unique and choose to avoid the obvious, it doesn’t mean the obvious does not exist. Maybe we’re behaving like spoiled children. I don’t know. I’m just throwing it out there. I do know that I haven’t been LOOKING for industry standards, so it’s unlikely I’d find any. In fact, if an industry standard came up and slapped me upside the head, it’s likely I wouldn’t recognize it.
And who knows? Since admitting to using metrics is so unpopular right now, maybe I need to start a “Metric of the Month” to talk about what kinds of things we do here specifically, why, what it’s done (or not done) for us, and how we use it. I’ll mull it over and see if I can find a suit jacket suitable for having a large target painted on the back….
Have any of you ever listened to a Steve Martin comedy album? He does a bit on one of them revolving around “What if there really IS a God?”. He asks what would happen if you died and found out all the stuff you figured out was crap in college turned out to be true. That there were pearly gates, angels strumming harps on puffy clouds, St. Peter at the gate, and a big book that listed all of your transgressions.. In his words - “Oh shit...”.
So there I was, drinking my coffee, and I was wondering – what if there really ARE industry standards? What if there are best practices? What if we just don’t want to acknowledge any?
“Oh shit...”.
I’ve always believed that one size doesn’t fit all, in terms of both software methodology and testing methodologies. I’ve believed that even within one type of methodology, there are rarely “best practices”. There are only best practices for your own environment and you tend to find those out through trial and error.
But what if I’m wrong? I also believe in keeping an open mind. Sometimes we need to examine our own prejudices.
I’ve never made a study of the software industry as a whole or even come close to seriously canvassing the entire testing industry. Have you? I don’t know if 90% of us or 9% of us use test cases, for example. What if 90% of the pundits on the web are exceptions and not the norm? Since they’re often trying to sell an idea or their own services, it wouldn’t really be in their best interests to promote anything other than what they’re selling, would it?
What if 87% of our own constituency believe certification is a good thing? Or 95% of hiring organizations believe certification is a good thing? For example, I’ve always examined the efforts to break the ISTQB with a critical eye. I haven’t seen their “body of knowledge”. I don’t know what their tests are like. I don’t know if I’d agree with what they feel is important. But since I don’t know, I don’t comment. And I don’t really take the word of someone else (that’s why I’m a tester; I have to examine things myself), particularly when I do know that several of those making the attempt to topple the ISTQB want to set up their own certification in its place. Would that be any better? Or worse? Or the same? Again, I don’t know. So I stay out of it; I don’t believe I’m qualified to comment, based on what I know right now. I do know that certifications do not make someone a better tester. I have learned that through my own experience and have specific examples. That does not, however, mean the certification itself is bogus or teaches bad things. It means certification is not the way to gauge someone’s talent. I can learn a thing and pass a test – that doesn’t mean I can or will choose to apply that thing.
Maybe all of these questions have come up because of the latest flurry of point/counterpoint on metrics. I have to honestly say that I consider people who refuse to use them or recognize any value in them as incompetent, particularly if they’re at a managerial level. Why? Because you can’t function efficiently in a business context unless you’re willing and able to use metrics. To do otherwise is to seriously undermine your ability to get taken seriously or accomplish what you’d like to accomplish, including getting the attention and funding your area requires in order to get their work done. I don’t really care that one individual knows of one situation where one fool used them incorrectly. So what? Metrics are in common use across all industries, for all businesses, and all of them can be faulty and/or used incorrectly by people who either don’t know what they’re doing or who slant them for their own purposes. What I’m seeing is that there’s a focus on exceptions, rather than the common use of metrics. And anyone mentioning metrics gets questioned for details from people who have already made it clear they don’t like metrics and just want the info so they can poke holes in it and ridicule the person who provided the information. Then they’re surprised when no one provides them with details? Gads! How many times do you have to suggest that a little respect goes a long way? If you want information from someone, it behooves you not to make it so bloody clear that you’re going to punish them for providing it!
I guess what I’m saying is that the fact that any single one of us doesn’t like something doesn’t magically make that thing disappear. I hate lima beans. And yet, they still exist. I can’t understand why; it’s obvious to me they’re not suitable for human consumption and should only be used for compost.
But I’ve found myself somewhat curious about industry standards as a whole and best practices overall. Not because it will change what I’m doing in my own organization, because what we’re doing works for us. But because it would increase my understanding about what people in our field are doing generally, it might be a worthwhile exercise and spur some interesting conversations.
You know, I haven’t read any literature about stats or trends across the industry for a really long time. I think it’s because I really haven’t cared too much, and I’ve told you that I believe one size doesn’t fit all. But maybe it would behoove me to see what size fits many, if for no other reason, to assuage my curiousity. Any ideas? I had someone suggest Caper Jones; I haven’t read anything by Caper Jones for YEARS, but he has a new book out and maybe I should read it even if my reaction ends up being a gag reflex, just like lima beans…
In short, just because we want to be unique and choose to avoid the obvious, it doesn’t mean the obvious does not exist. Maybe we’re behaving like spoiled children. I don’t know. I’m just throwing it out there. I do know that I haven’t been LOOKING for industry standards, so it’s unlikely I’d find any. In fact, if an industry standard came up and slapped me upside the head, it’s likely I wouldn’t recognize it.
And who knows? Since admitting to using metrics is so unpopular right now, maybe I need to start a “Metric of the Month” to talk about what kinds of things we do here specifically, why, what it’s done (or not done) for us, and how we use it. I’ll mull it over and see if I can find a suit jacket suitable for having a large target painted on the back….
Monday, June 1, 2009
EVERYONE’S A PHILOSOPHER
When I was in college, I studied philosophy. Not because I had to take philosophy, but because I was interested in philosophy. When I finished my first class, I applied for special permission to take a senior-level advanced course in ancient philosophy, because the instructor of that course was a particularly gifted and extraordinary teacher. My final thesis revolved around Plato and “The Forms”. I was 19.
I tell you this because one of the most brilliant scholars and respected teachers I’ve ever known told me this when I said I wanted to open my own Academy and become a Famous Philosopher.
“Linda,” he said, “Everyone’s a Philosopher.”.
Ouch.
This story makes me smile; first, because it reminds me that I was once younger and sillier than I am now, and secondly, it has some applicability because of the latest stuff floating around that says great testers have to study philosophy. I can’t help thinking that some folks will be totally let down to find out that I, The Demon Seed, have studied philosophy, particularly when I’ve said several times that I’m not particularly philosophical.
And I’m not. I don’t have a great deal of time available to sit around thinking great thoughts or contemplating my state of being.
That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize or respect the great thoughts of others; I do. But if it doesn’t directly impact the health and well-being of my staff and the future success of those things that fall into the realm of my responsibility, I’d just as soon zone out and watch back-to-back episodes of “Hole in the Wall”. I don’t get much time to just do something stupid and fun.
I put arguing the nature of being right up there with discussing, for over 4 hours, the difference between “validation” and “verification”. The fact that people use the terms “QA” and “QC” interchangeably doesn’t bother me. I stopped focusing on terminology and worked on understanding meaning instead a long time ago. I just sat back and watched several people I respect argue (for DAYS) about a sub-title on a book. Books have to be marketable; you’d think the publishers would have a tad more experience at it than we do, but (Good God, y’all!) there are some people in our field like terriers with a bone. They have to comment on/argue about freaking EVERYTHING and then will not let it go. They must get in the last word. They never put it to rest. It’s a pain in the behind. I threw in one opinion and that was pretty much it for me; I bagged out. That’s because I really didn’t care enough about the outcome to discuss it any further.
I have a different type of ego than some people do. It doesn’t bother me that there are people out there in the world smarter than I am. Nor do I feel obliged to be interested in and/or have an opinion on something someone else is passionate about. I have my own interests. But I acknowledge and respect both the intelligence and the passion of others. At the same time, I believe that knowledge, while interesting in and of itself, is meaningless to the masses of people that make up our world without some practical application that most people can understand and use.
It’s also part of my nature to question things, regardless of how much more informed or intelligent the source of those things might be. For example, I used to drive my mathematics teachers crazy. I wanted to know how X theorems and formulae were APPLIED. What branches of science or engineering used them and how? Most of the time, they had no idea as to how they were applied. And here’s the key, at least with me. If there was no way to apply it, I felt there was no reason to learn it, and I didn’t. I was the original whiz-kid when it came to formulae for virtually any type of science. But give me some meaningless formula with 23 variables that always added up to zero for no apparent reason, and I stubbornly refused to memorize it. It’s not because I couldn’t. It’s because I thought it was “stupid”. I went on to something more interesting that made sense to me. When I look back on it, and the hassles my parents had with my education, I’m surprised I wasn’t drowned at birth.
My parents strongly believed that those that make the most contributions to the world and their chosen field are those that benefit normal, everyday people. No doubt this belief continues to influence me today. And by the way, if you live in an area prone to forest fires and your house and shingles are treated with a coating that does not burn, you can thank my Dad. It doesn’t keep the wood from exploding from the heat, but… Or do you know those bubble lights you see at Christmas time? He developed those too...
But I digress.
So regardless of how brilliant a given idea or concept might be, if it (or the person offering the ideas) can provide no application for the knowledge, or if their body of work overall contains conflicting messages or appears to have holes, I question it. I may point it out. And if it continues to make no sense to me or what I regard as reality, I refuse to memorize, parrot, support, or learn it.
I’m not saying this is the “right” way to be. It probably isn’t. It’s just the way I am.
Thus, ideas in the field have to have some applicability I understand and can relate to and that can benefit the majority of practitioners in the field.
So I’m slowly winding back to the topic (I can hear the sighs of relief).
Everyone has their own realities and their own philosophies. What we really don’t necessarily understand is the reality and philosophy of others. I’m not sold on the idea that a “great” tester has to study the philosophy of a long-dead person who also believed the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth in crystals in order to test a web site. I think it highly unlikely a majority of our field is going to go out and start studying philosophy and therefore I think the idea overall is a bunch of foofy nonsense. But while I’m not buying the “great testers must study philosophy” um….stuff…., I think it might be a good idea to study and have some understanding of each other.
I’m also of the belief that there is a highly-placed group of Deep Thinkers in our field that are skilled in, and enjoy the company of others skilled in, dialectics.
Go for it, gentlemen…
Dialectics come in several forms, but the most common is a form of discussion or professional argument that is a) oral, b) between equals or people who have some common understanding, c) on a subject that one can address “from the heart” (with some passion), and d) focuses on finding holes or discrepancies in another’s discussions in order to point them out and thus help both participants move more towards (well, Plato would say “perfection”) some sort of common truth.
Dialectics were a specialty of Plato’s and formed the basis for many of the sciences and professions we see today. You can certainly see *some* sort of corollary with testing, as the art involved finding discrepancies and pointing them out. Think about what you do every day as part of your job. Isn’t that pretty much finding holes or discrepancies in something and pointing it out in order to move software towards a more perfect state?
Perhaps you’ll never read The Fragments of Heraclitus. Don’t let someone make you feel inferior or tell you you’ll never be a “great” tester. Chances are good you’ve applied dialectics in a very practical way to a very practical job.
And after all…
Everyone is a Philosopher.
I tell you this because one of the most brilliant scholars and respected teachers I’ve ever known told me this when I said I wanted to open my own Academy and become a Famous Philosopher.
“Linda,” he said, “Everyone’s a Philosopher.”.
Ouch.
This story makes me smile; first, because it reminds me that I was once younger and sillier than I am now, and secondly, it has some applicability because of the latest stuff floating around that says great testers have to study philosophy. I can’t help thinking that some folks will be totally let down to find out that I, The Demon Seed, have studied philosophy, particularly when I’ve said several times that I’m not particularly philosophical.
And I’m not. I don’t have a great deal of time available to sit around thinking great thoughts or contemplating my state of being.
That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize or respect the great thoughts of others; I do. But if it doesn’t directly impact the health and well-being of my staff and the future success of those things that fall into the realm of my responsibility, I’d just as soon zone out and watch back-to-back episodes of “Hole in the Wall”. I don’t get much time to just do something stupid and fun.
I put arguing the nature of being right up there with discussing, for over 4 hours, the difference between “validation” and “verification”. The fact that people use the terms “QA” and “QC” interchangeably doesn’t bother me. I stopped focusing on terminology and worked on understanding meaning instead a long time ago. I just sat back and watched several people I respect argue (for DAYS) about a sub-title on a book. Books have to be marketable; you’d think the publishers would have a tad more experience at it than we do, but (Good God, y’all!) there are some people in our field like terriers with a bone. They have to comment on/argue about freaking EVERYTHING and then will not let it go. They must get in the last word. They never put it to rest. It’s a pain in the behind. I threw in one opinion and that was pretty much it for me; I bagged out. That’s because I really didn’t care enough about the outcome to discuss it any further.
I have a different type of ego than some people do. It doesn’t bother me that there are people out there in the world smarter than I am. Nor do I feel obliged to be interested in and/or have an opinion on something someone else is passionate about. I have my own interests. But I acknowledge and respect both the intelligence and the passion of others. At the same time, I believe that knowledge, while interesting in and of itself, is meaningless to the masses of people that make up our world without some practical application that most people can understand and use.
It’s also part of my nature to question things, regardless of how much more informed or intelligent the source of those things might be. For example, I used to drive my mathematics teachers crazy. I wanted to know how X theorems and formulae were APPLIED. What branches of science or engineering used them and how? Most of the time, they had no idea as to how they were applied. And here’s the key, at least with me. If there was no way to apply it, I felt there was no reason to learn it, and I didn’t. I was the original whiz-kid when it came to formulae for virtually any type of science. But give me some meaningless formula with 23 variables that always added up to zero for no apparent reason, and I stubbornly refused to memorize it. It’s not because I couldn’t. It’s because I thought it was “stupid”. I went on to something more interesting that made sense to me. When I look back on it, and the hassles my parents had with my education, I’m surprised I wasn’t drowned at birth.
My parents strongly believed that those that make the most contributions to the world and their chosen field are those that benefit normal, everyday people. No doubt this belief continues to influence me today. And by the way, if you live in an area prone to forest fires and your house and shingles are treated with a coating that does not burn, you can thank my Dad. It doesn’t keep the wood from exploding from the heat, but… Or do you know those bubble lights you see at Christmas time? He developed those too...
But I digress.
So regardless of how brilliant a given idea or concept might be, if it (or the person offering the ideas) can provide no application for the knowledge, or if their body of work overall contains conflicting messages or appears to have holes, I question it. I may point it out. And if it continues to make no sense to me or what I regard as reality, I refuse to memorize, parrot, support, or learn it.
I’m not saying this is the “right” way to be. It probably isn’t. It’s just the way I am.
Thus, ideas in the field have to have some applicability I understand and can relate to and that can benefit the majority of practitioners in the field.
So I’m slowly winding back to the topic (I can hear the sighs of relief).
Everyone has their own realities and their own philosophies. What we really don’t necessarily understand is the reality and philosophy of others. I’m not sold on the idea that a “great” tester has to study the philosophy of a long-dead person who also believed the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth in crystals in order to test a web site. I think it highly unlikely a majority of our field is going to go out and start studying philosophy and therefore I think the idea overall is a bunch of foofy nonsense. But while I’m not buying the “great testers must study philosophy” um….stuff…., I think it might be a good idea to study and have some understanding of each other.
I’m also of the belief that there is a highly-placed group of Deep Thinkers in our field that are skilled in, and enjoy the company of others skilled in, dialectics.
Go for it, gentlemen…
Dialectics come in several forms, but the most common is a form of discussion or professional argument that is a) oral, b) between equals or people who have some common understanding, c) on a subject that one can address “from the heart” (with some passion), and d) focuses on finding holes or discrepancies in another’s discussions in order to point them out and thus help both participants move more towards (well, Plato would say “perfection”) some sort of common truth.
Dialectics were a specialty of Plato’s and formed the basis for many of the sciences and professions we see today. You can certainly see *some* sort of corollary with testing, as the art involved finding discrepancies and pointing them out. Think about what you do every day as part of your job. Isn’t that pretty much finding holes or discrepancies in something and pointing it out in order to move software towards a more perfect state?
Perhaps you’ll never read The Fragments of Heraclitus. Don’t let someone make you feel inferior or tell you you’ll never be a “great” tester. Chances are good you’ve applied dialectics in a very practical way to a very practical job.
And after all…
Everyone is a Philosopher.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
UM…TRY GOOGLING JAMES WHITTAKER…
So I read the blog regarding the exit, stage right of James Whittaker from Microsoft, and like everyone else, am consumed with curiousity as to “where he landed”.
So, probably like everyone else, I google up a few blogs from his compadres at Microsoft.
Nada.
So then I google up a few blogs from his professional compadres.
Goose egg.
So then, just to cover all bases, I just google on Dr. James A. Whittaker, hoping perhaps the company in question put out a press release saying “We Nabbed Him!”.
Nuthin’.
So I resign myself to waiting around for a while, maybe even until the new book comes out, to learning more about his work with and ideas about tours and to assuage my vulgar curiosity about where he’s working.
Fate works in odd ways. First of all, the fact that I googled on all of this is ironically “The Clue”.
Yup. James Whittaker is the new Test Engineer Director for Google out in the Great Northwest (Seattle and Kirkland).
I wish I could tell you I arrived at that through brilliant deduction, or that we’re like this (crossed fingers) and I’m always giving him a hard time for stealing all of my ideas, but no.
The reality is that Dr. Whittaker took pity on me and my curiousity about his work with tours and shared a few advance chapters of his upcoming book with me. He told me where he had landed and gave me permission to tell whomever I liked; probably because he knows that three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead…
So the book chapters? I ain’t a-telling. Suffice it to say I’m buying the book because I have to read the rest!
Congratulations to both Google and Dr. Whittaker; it seems like a “natural” fit and I’m irritated I didn’t even think of it, even when I was there googling the heck out of everything. James Whittaker is wicked smart AND wicked funny; I think we can all expect some great things percolating out from Google; coffee isn’t the only thing they’ve got going in Seattle…
So, probably like everyone else, I google up a few blogs from his compadres at Microsoft.
Nada.
So then I google up a few blogs from his professional compadres.
Goose egg.
So then, just to cover all bases, I just google on Dr. James A. Whittaker, hoping perhaps the company in question put out a press release saying “We Nabbed Him!”.
Nuthin’.
So I resign myself to waiting around for a while, maybe even until the new book comes out, to learning more about his work with and ideas about tours and to assuage my vulgar curiosity about where he’s working.
Fate works in odd ways. First of all, the fact that I googled on all of this is ironically “The Clue”.
Yup. James Whittaker is the new Test Engineer Director for Google out in the Great Northwest (Seattle and Kirkland).
I wish I could tell you I arrived at that through brilliant deduction, or that we’re like this (crossed fingers) and I’m always giving him a hard time for stealing all of my ideas, but no.
The reality is that Dr. Whittaker took pity on me and my curiousity about his work with tours and shared a few advance chapters of his upcoming book with me. He told me where he had landed and gave me permission to tell whomever I liked; probably because he knows that three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead…
So the book chapters? I ain’t a-telling. Suffice it to say I’m buying the book because I have to read the rest!
Congratulations to both Google and Dr. Whittaker; it seems like a “natural” fit and I’m irritated I didn’t even think of it, even when I was there googling the heck out of everything. James Whittaker is wicked smart AND wicked funny; I think we can all expect some great things percolating out from Google; coffee isn’t the only thing they’ve got going in Seattle…
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST
I’m going to confess right here that I’ve had nothing but a healthy contempt for the idea of “tours” for software testing for quite some time.
First of all, going into a test session cold is, in my opinion, stupid beyond words to begin with; something I never do unless I have no other choice and have communicated the risks to management (and therefore bought myself a Get out of Jail Free card). I’ve talked about the difference between testing code and exercising code before. If you don’t know what results are expected, you don’t have a clue as to whether what you’re experimenting with is right or wrong. Some results might give you a pretty good idea, but many results will just be a crapshoot and whether you consider them interesting enough to write up or not will be based on your own personal opinion and your knowledge base. In other words, you’ll be guessing. Some of you are probably pretty good guessers. Some of you probably suck. And in my experience, people who really stink don’t know how bad they are. Every tester I’ve ever met has thought they were great at their job, even if when they only thing they were good at testing was your patience.
So the idea of being a software testing “tourist”, wandering about exploring, maybe tripping over a bug through sheer luck, was a Really Bad Analogy for the type of testing I advocate. I believe testing is an intelligent, analytical process that involves choosing what to examine and having some understanding as to what results are expected. I (personally) like to think about these things in advance of the actual testing and then expand those ideas once I actually have my grubby little hands on the app. And yes, I’m intuitive and curious and need opportunities to indulge in that type of creativity extemporaneously as part of the process.
I travel that way too. I read everything I can about where I’m going to go, decide what I really want to see and do, and set those things up in advance. Once I arrive somewhere, I have a loose itinerary – and I do keep it loose, because I don’t like to be boxed in if something else more interesting comes up when I’m actually at my destination. But my itinerary “forces” me to make some choices sometimes – which is more important? Seeing the Alamo or taking a tour of the old missions? Can I do both? If not, which is more important? My itinerary also keep me on track. For example, if I continue to sit here and watch the flair bartenders at Harrah's, I'm going to miss the show I paid for at Caesar's. Those decisions are similar to what we do as we're testing every day.
All of the information available on software testing “tours” was really, really vague. And I have no use for something totally vague as a teaching tool. Nor can I hand a “tour” to someone and say “run this tour”. Each tour was just a vague bunch of stuff to think about. I’ve found that new testers (and even old dogs in search of new tricks) need something more explicit and better examples. Everyone who works as a tester is NOT a deep thinker, NOT analytical, and maybe are simply average. There’s nothing wrong with being average. Most people are average. If a “tour” can’t help people who are average (the majority) at their jobs, or is only useful to people who are testing superstars to begin with, then they aren’t useful at all. Interesting, maybe, but not useful. You really can’t force people to be thinkers. A lot of people aren’t wired that way. Should they be? Well, how snobbish are we going to be? Demand that our field, alone of all fields out there, only hire and recognize people who are outstanding? That’s a nice thought, but it’s not realistic. I know I’m not the only manager that knows that’s not The Way Things Are In The Real World. Most of us have to deal with a variety of different people, at all different levels of skill set. The types of learning tools I need are those that can help all levels of testers do better work.
So overall, I thought “tours” were just another group of “hoo-haw” ideas by impractical (but brilliant) people who didn’t have a clue as to reality in terms of normal testing resources in the field, and who were in imminent danger of falling out of their ivory towers and hurting Important Parts of their Anatomies.
All of this is buildup for my next statement –
I THINK I WAS WRONG.
That’s right, I think I was wrong. First of all, training testers has thus far not been the easiest job in the world, primarily because it’s difficult to teach someone to not just think, but to question and analyze.
That said, it’s really easy to teach someone boundary testing. There’s never been a need for heuristics, fancy mnemonics or anything else for boundary testing. It’s easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to remember, and easy to apply. Screen testing is also easy to teach. That’s pretty much anything that is an “attribute” of an object or involves visual inspection/operation of a screen. Icons, colors, sizes, locations, layout, validating links, etc., are also easy to learn, understand, and execute.
Where things get complex goes beyond the mere field or object level. It’s how those field and objects interact with each other, get stored and retrieved, behave under different environment/browser conditions, and are used by other apps. Complexity is added by stuff that runs in the background, or periodically. Or how your end users actually use the app. And quality considerations that are more difficult to measure, like performance, reliability, maintainability, etc. It’s also a challenge to teach someone the fine art of ferreting out bugs (error guessing). Again, all of these areas customarily require someone to analyze, think, and question.
At this moment, “tours” are too vague to be useful to me right out of the box. But I’ve been looking for better ways to teach “the hard stuff” for quite some time and the ideas behind “tours” and recent work done to refine those ideas is starting to look like something that could, with enough attention, become revolutionary in our field. How long has it been, really, since we’ve had “new” test techniques? Almost everything we’ve had up to this point has just been a rehash (renamed of course) of stuff that’s been around for years. Like 25 years.
But tours are, or at least have the potential to be, different. I didn’t think so until I started reading James Whittaker’s series of blogs (“tour of the month”). He’s changed my mind about tours, and that’s quite an accomplishment. I think the real reason I’m starting to take an interest is that he is explaining in more detail the thoughts behind each tour. What I can see is the beginnings of something really exciting; a way to teach “the hard stuff”.
Take for example, his latest entry (“the landmark tour”). That blog is imminently sane and makes perfect sense. We don’t have a sales team here that demos software. Our B.A. staff demo software. But the basic idea, of working with someone that is going to perform a demo to determine what is considered “most critical” to the end user, establishing “landmarks”, is primo. I can take those basic ideas, turn them into a kind of list of information that would typically be useful, add examples, and make it “easy” for any of my staff to comprehend, learn, and execute.
Some of the info in various tours is too vague to be useful. The “intellectual tour” would not be useful unless I could provide a list of “hard questions to ask the software” to use as an example. Just saying you should ask hard questions is not enough. Many staff don’t know what the hard questions are. They need more help than that in order to learn how to do that and apply the ideas.
But overall, I’ve become enthused about the potential of tours and am voraciously reading everything that comes my way about them. I’m going to start working with my leads to see what we can do with the concept here.
That said, I’m now going to address terminology and selling of the concept overall. I cannot sell the concept of “tours”. It sounds frivolous. It becomes even more so when you have “Super-model tours”, “Obsessive-compulsive tours”, and so forth. I report to a VP/CTO and he reports to a Senior Executive VP (who is also the CIO). Anything that sounds frivolous and unprofessional isn’t even going to get a hearing. And I find this is one of the biggest criticisms I have of new ideas in our field.
There are a myriad of people you need to “sell” on a new idea. I think having Fun names for serious work is geared towards appealing to young practioners in the field. The problem with that is that you may get plenty of practioners that want to use your ideas/techniques in the field, but they can’t get anyone to buy off on them, and it adds to both their frustration and the problem of being taken seriously by their management.
I think it would be a huge step forward for our field if we focused in on the desired end result. We not only need and want new techniques in the field, we need them to be something we can present and sell to executives who are very serious indeed about their work and their money. I can’t sell “tours”. And when you think about it, the tour is the actual activity. It’s the guidebook, etc. that helps you decide what you want to tour in the first place. The idea of a “guide” I can sell. There are other more professional-sounding ideas I could sell. But talking about testing guides won’t be as much fun as “super-model tours”.
So take this as a kind of challenge. Can we, as a community, sacrifice fun for acceptance/funding? Can we achieve both in some way?
All I know is that I want to continue to work with the idea of “tours”, and that unless the field as a whole comes up with some way to present these concepts professionally to those who pay the bills, I’m going to have to rename everything myself, for the business biases in this region and in order to get them sold. So is there a problem with that? No. But it doesn’t advance those ideas overall in the QA/QC field and just adds to the terminology conundrum. Everyone, whether they like or use the technique themselves, recognizes what the term “boundary testing” means. It would be nice if we could come up with new techniques that were ALSO as widely recognized and accepted. That means we would have to have the same words for the same things.
Along with our technical, professional growth as a community, couldn’t we add some business maturity? I believe it would move us forward much more quickly….
First of all, going into a test session cold is, in my opinion, stupid beyond words to begin with; something I never do unless I have no other choice and have communicated the risks to management (and therefore bought myself a Get out of Jail Free card). I’ve talked about the difference between testing code and exercising code before. If you don’t know what results are expected, you don’t have a clue as to whether what you’re experimenting with is right or wrong. Some results might give you a pretty good idea, but many results will just be a crapshoot and whether you consider them interesting enough to write up or not will be based on your own personal opinion and your knowledge base. In other words, you’ll be guessing. Some of you are probably pretty good guessers. Some of you probably suck. And in my experience, people who really stink don’t know how bad they are. Every tester I’ve ever met has thought they were great at their job, even if when they only thing they were good at testing was your patience.
So the idea of being a software testing “tourist”, wandering about exploring, maybe tripping over a bug through sheer luck, was a Really Bad Analogy for the type of testing I advocate. I believe testing is an intelligent, analytical process that involves choosing what to examine and having some understanding as to what results are expected. I (personally) like to think about these things in advance of the actual testing and then expand those ideas once I actually have my grubby little hands on the app. And yes, I’m intuitive and curious and need opportunities to indulge in that type of creativity extemporaneously as part of the process.
I travel that way too. I read everything I can about where I’m going to go, decide what I really want to see and do, and set those things up in advance. Once I arrive somewhere, I have a loose itinerary – and I do keep it loose, because I don’t like to be boxed in if something else more interesting comes up when I’m actually at my destination. But my itinerary “forces” me to make some choices sometimes – which is more important? Seeing the Alamo or taking a tour of the old missions? Can I do both? If not, which is more important? My itinerary also keep me on track. For example, if I continue to sit here and watch the flair bartenders at Harrah's, I'm going to miss the show I paid for at Caesar's. Those decisions are similar to what we do as we're testing every day.
All of the information available on software testing “tours” was really, really vague. And I have no use for something totally vague as a teaching tool. Nor can I hand a “tour” to someone and say “run this tour”. Each tour was just a vague bunch of stuff to think about. I’ve found that new testers (and even old dogs in search of new tricks) need something more explicit and better examples. Everyone who works as a tester is NOT a deep thinker, NOT analytical, and maybe are simply average. There’s nothing wrong with being average. Most people are average. If a “tour” can’t help people who are average (the majority) at their jobs, or is only useful to people who are testing superstars to begin with, then they aren’t useful at all. Interesting, maybe, but not useful. You really can’t force people to be thinkers. A lot of people aren’t wired that way. Should they be? Well, how snobbish are we going to be? Demand that our field, alone of all fields out there, only hire and recognize people who are outstanding? That’s a nice thought, but it’s not realistic. I know I’m not the only manager that knows that’s not The Way Things Are In The Real World. Most of us have to deal with a variety of different people, at all different levels of skill set. The types of learning tools I need are those that can help all levels of testers do better work.
So overall, I thought “tours” were just another group of “hoo-haw” ideas by impractical (but brilliant) people who didn’t have a clue as to reality in terms of normal testing resources in the field, and who were in imminent danger of falling out of their ivory towers and hurting Important Parts of their Anatomies.
All of this is buildup for my next statement –
I THINK I WAS WRONG.
That’s right, I think I was wrong. First of all, training testers has thus far not been the easiest job in the world, primarily because it’s difficult to teach someone to not just think, but to question and analyze.
That said, it’s really easy to teach someone boundary testing. There’s never been a need for heuristics, fancy mnemonics or anything else for boundary testing. It’s easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to remember, and easy to apply. Screen testing is also easy to teach. That’s pretty much anything that is an “attribute” of an object or involves visual inspection/operation of a screen. Icons, colors, sizes, locations, layout, validating links, etc., are also easy to learn, understand, and execute.
Where things get complex goes beyond the mere field or object level. It’s how those field and objects interact with each other, get stored and retrieved, behave under different environment/browser conditions, and are used by other apps. Complexity is added by stuff that runs in the background, or periodically. Or how your end users actually use the app. And quality considerations that are more difficult to measure, like performance, reliability, maintainability, etc. It’s also a challenge to teach someone the fine art of ferreting out bugs (error guessing). Again, all of these areas customarily require someone to analyze, think, and question.
At this moment, “tours” are too vague to be useful to me right out of the box. But I’ve been looking for better ways to teach “the hard stuff” for quite some time and the ideas behind “tours” and recent work done to refine those ideas is starting to look like something that could, with enough attention, become revolutionary in our field. How long has it been, really, since we’ve had “new” test techniques? Almost everything we’ve had up to this point has just been a rehash (renamed of course) of stuff that’s been around for years. Like 25 years.
But tours are, or at least have the potential to be, different. I didn’t think so until I started reading James Whittaker’s series of blogs (“tour of the month”). He’s changed my mind about tours, and that’s quite an accomplishment. I think the real reason I’m starting to take an interest is that he is explaining in more detail the thoughts behind each tour. What I can see is the beginnings of something really exciting; a way to teach “the hard stuff”.
Take for example, his latest entry (“the landmark tour”). That blog is imminently sane and makes perfect sense. We don’t have a sales team here that demos software. Our B.A. staff demo software. But the basic idea, of working with someone that is going to perform a demo to determine what is considered “most critical” to the end user, establishing “landmarks”, is primo. I can take those basic ideas, turn them into a kind of list of information that would typically be useful, add examples, and make it “easy” for any of my staff to comprehend, learn, and execute.
Some of the info in various tours is too vague to be useful. The “intellectual tour” would not be useful unless I could provide a list of “hard questions to ask the software” to use as an example. Just saying you should ask hard questions is not enough. Many staff don’t know what the hard questions are. They need more help than that in order to learn how to do that and apply the ideas.
But overall, I’ve become enthused about the potential of tours and am voraciously reading everything that comes my way about them. I’m going to start working with my leads to see what we can do with the concept here.
That said, I’m now going to address terminology and selling of the concept overall. I cannot sell the concept of “tours”. It sounds frivolous. It becomes even more so when you have “Super-model tours”, “Obsessive-compulsive tours”, and so forth. I report to a VP/CTO and he reports to a Senior Executive VP (who is also the CIO). Anything that sounds frivolous and unprofessional isn’t even going to get a hearing. And I find this is one of the biggest criticisms I have of new ideas in our field.
There are a myriad of people you need to “sell” on a new idea. I think having Fun names for serious work is geared towards appealing to young practioners in the field. The problem with that is that you may get plenty of practioners that want to use your ideas/techniques in the field, but they can’t get anyone to buy off on them, and it adds to both their frustration and the problem of being taken seriously by their management.
I think it would be a huge step forward for our field if we focused in on the desired end result. We not only need and want new techniques in the field, we need them to be something we can present and sell to executives who are very serious indeed about their work and their money. I can’t sell “tours”. And when you think about it, the tour is the actual activity. It’s the guidebook, etc. that helps you decide what you want to tour in the first place. The idea of a “guide” I can sell. There are other more professional-sounding ideas I could sell. But talking about testing guides won’t be as much fun as “super-model tours”.
So take this as a kind of challenge. Can we, as a community, sacrifice fun for acceptance/funding? Can we achieve both in some way?
All I know is that I want to continue to work with the idea of “tours”, and that unless the field as a whole comes up with some way to present these concepts professionally to those who pay the bills, I’m going to have to rename everything myself, for the business biases in this region and in order to get them sold. So is there a problem with that? No. But it doesn’t advance those ideas overall in the QA/QC field and just adds to the terminology conundrum. Everyone, whether they like or use the technique themselves, recognizes what the term “boundary testing” means. It would be nice if we could come up with new techniques that were ALSO as widely recognized and accepted. That means we would have to have the same words for the same things.
Along with our technical, professional growth as a community, couldn’t we add some business maturity? I believe it would move us forward much more quickly….
Friday, May 1, 2009
SAD LITTLE MONKEYS…
Wherein one weeps over the inferiority complexes of one’s peers….
I’ve been reading, I’ve been writing, and I’ve been working. And a great deal of what I’ve been reading lately disturbs me. We have some really great minds in this field; how much time are they going to waste word-smithing our “mission”? And what makes anyone think the latest definitions are good or distinguish the testing field from any other group on a given project? Here’s a prime example, from a discussion on the forums at the Software Testing Club; no offense is directed at anyone involved in that particular conversation – I chose it because it’s pretty much indicative of a variety of conversations going on about the same topic:
"To provide correct and timely visibility into the product and process, in order to help the organization and its stakeholders make tactical and strategic decisions; and to do this as close as possible to the defined constraints of schedule, functionality and costs."
OK, so what’s wrong with this? Nothing, I suppose. It could also be the mission statement of virtually anyone on a project team, including finance.
EVERYONE on a project team helps provide visibility into the product and process. EVERYONE provides information to help a given organization and/or its stakeholders make decisions.
So what makes QA/QC different?
We provide those insights based on our testing experiences.
I do not see anything in the provided definition that mentions this distinction. Perhaps it would be of more benefit to the field to step up and be proud of what you do and stop trying to find fancy ways to avoid mentioning the word “test”.
C’mon! Are you a tester? Isn’t it the GREATEST JOB ON EARTH? So why are we acting like a bunch of sad, little monkeys struggling for recognition? I think it’s time to walk upright without our knuckles dragging on the ground; we should have evolved that far by now. You’re an expert professional. You should be looking everyone straight in the eye.
Why do some people feel such an overwhelming need to make our field sound more important? It’s a sign of insecurity. We’re already important. But if we, as professionals, don’t believe that and have to convince ourselves, it’s that much harder to convince anyone else. It’s easier to “sell” what you believe in yourself. It’s easier to “sell” WHEN you believe in yourself.
How can you have a mission statement that doesn’t mention the word “test”? I’d expect that kind of poofy nonsense from a PM who wasn’t very good at his job, not a tester. And why are we STILL, as a field, so honking sensitive and insecure about what we do that we continue – AFTER 25 YEARS – to struggle to define ourselves in a way we think will get us some respect?
Maybe we need to respect ourselves first. Do developers agonize over this kind of stuff? DBAs? PMs?
Not so much.
I realize the thrust of these conversations is to bring awareness that our primary job (testing) provides information to decision-makers and stakeholders. That’s not Big News. Not to me, not to the rest of the field, and not to IT in general. I think it’s important to not lose sight of the fact that our primary job is “testing”. Without that, we’d just be chatting idly about the weather or playing cards with those decision-makers and stakeholders.
Where’s the pride in what we do and the contributions we make? The word “test” is beautimous. There’s no need to be ashamed of it and no need to avoid it. There is no one else on the project team with our mission and no one else on the project team that can fulfill it with the same passion, dedication, and level of expertise…
Attitude is everything. To get respect, you have to give it. To get respect, you have to have some for yourselves. And to get respect you have to earn it. Dorking about with mission statements written to impress CEOs with political bullshit is not the way to do that. They’re inundated with that kind of fertilizer every day. And I, personally, resent it when one of my own peers serves it to me on a platter and expects me to swallow it. I can’t even choke it down when it’s accompanied by an adult beverage and a straw.
So I’m making a plea to the word-smiths amongst us; we have no mission if it doesn’t involve “testing”. For those still struggling with recognition and who would benefit from a cohesive mission statement, let’s start with that basic truth and move on from there.
I’ve been reading, I’ve been writing, and I’ve been working. And a great deal of what I’ve been reading lately disturbs me. We have some really great minds in this field; how much time are they going to waste word-smithing our “mission”? And what makes anyone think the latest definitions are good or distinguish the testing field from any other group on a given project? Here’s a prime example, from a discussion on the forums at the Software Testing Club; no offense is directed at anyone involved in that particular conversation – I chose it because it’s pretty much indicative of a variety of conversations going on about the same topic:
"To provide correct and timely visibility into the product and process, in order to help the organization and its stakeholders make tactical and strategic decisions; and to do this as close as possible to the defined constraints of schedule, functionality and costs."
OK, so what’s wrong with this? Nothing, I suppose. It could also be the mission statement of virtually anyone on a project team, including finance.
EVERYONE on a project team helps provide visibility into the product and process. EVERYONE provides information to help a given organization and/or its stakeholders make decisions.
So what makes QA/QC different?
We provide those insights based on our testing experiences.
I do not see anything in the provided definition that mentions this distinction. Perhaps it would be of more benefit to the field to step up and be proud of what you do and stop trying to find fancy ways to avoid mentioning the word “test”.
C’mon! Are you a tester? Isn’t it the GREATEST JOB ON EARTH? So why are we acting like a bunch of sad, little monkeys struggling for recognition? I think it’s time to walk upright without our knuckles dragging on the ground; we should have evolved that far by now. You’re an expert professional. You should be looking everyone straight in the eye.
Why do some people feel such an overwhelming need to make our field sound more important? It’s a sign of insecurity. We’re already important. But if we, as professionals, don’t believe that and have to convince ourselves, it’s that much harder to convince anyone else. It’s easier to “sell” what you believe in yourself. It’s easier to “sell” WHEN you believe in yourself.
How can you have a mission statement that doesn’t mention the word “test”? I’d expect that kind of poofy nonsense from a PM who wasn’t very good at his job, not a tester. And why are we STILL, as a field, so honking sensitive and insecure about what we do that we continue – AFTER 25 YEARS – to struggle to define ourselves in a way we think will get us some respect?
Maybe we need to respect ourselves first. Do developers agonize over this kind of stuff? DBAs? PMs?
Not so much.
I realize the thrust of these conversations is to bring awareness that our primary job (testing) provides information to decision-makers and stakeholders. That’s not Big News. Not to me, not to the rest of the field, and not to IT in general. I think it’s important to not lose sight of the fact that our primary job is “testing”. Without that, we’d just be chatting idly about the weather or playing cards with those decision-makers and stakeholders.
Where’s the pride in what we do and the contributions we make? The word “test” is beautimous. There’s no need to be ashamed of it and no need to avoid it. There is no one else on the project team with our mission and no one else on the project team that can fulfill it with the same passion, dedication, and level of expertise…
Attitude is everything. To get respect, you have to give it. To get respect, you have to have some for yourselves. And to get respect you have to earn it. Dorking about with mission statements written to impress CEOs with political bullshit is not the way to do that. They’re inundated with that kind of fertilizer every day. And I, personally, resent it when one of my own peers serves it to me on a platter and expects me to swallow it. I can’t even choke it down when it’s accompanied by an adult beverage and a straw.
So I’m making a plea to the word-smiths amongst us; we have no mission if it doesn’t involve “testing”. For those still struggling with recognition and who would benefit from a cohesive mission statement, let’s start with that basic truth and move on from there.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
EXPOSING ONE’S SELF ON THE NET
So I get this invitation from someone I know about Facebook, encouraging me to post my photo and get into the swing of things and get an Email shortly thereafter telling me I really MUST join Twitter. This isn’t the first time. This is the bizillionth time.
So here’s the deal. First of all, none of those things are going to improve my testing abilities, advance my career, or dramatically impact our field. I have no need or desire to “market” myself; I have a job. I love it. I’m not a consultant and don’t need to shake your money tree.
But far be it from me not to assuage your collective curiousity, so I've posted my picture above. Now try to restrain yourselves from sending me marriage proposals; I’ve gone that route once and have no interest in trying it again. Not even if you roll over and bark like a dog.
In regard to Twitter, I have no desire to “follow” anyone and don’t much want to be “followed” either. I’m just not that interested in what any individual either does with their day or is thinking at any given moment – I have a life. The thought of tweeting at people all day with my own activities and thoughts is pretty much horrifying as well - I’m not really that fascinating. Neither is anyone else. I spent several days “following” some people I thought might be interesting and let me tell you, there simply are no words in the English language to adequately describe my level of ennui. Every gem that comes from someone’s mouth is not a pearl. That’s all I have to say. And please forgive me, Twitterers, but what I always think when someone talks me into looking at it one more time is - don’t any of these people have jobs??? And my second (equally unworthy) thought is that I really don’t want to know anyone that well.
Matt Heusser had a post with a title that asked if he Twitters, does that make him a twit? My apologies, Matt, but yes. I kind of think it does. But you can take comfort, however, in the fact that you belong to an entire community of twits, all of whom are fascinated with each other and themselves.
But I want everyone to know that I’ve considered all of their suggestions carefully and I appreciate the feedback. And truly, I love you all, but stop bugging me!!! You all have followers eagerly awaiting your next tweet!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
