SAPIENT TESTING - If it's good enough for monkeys, it's good enough for you....

I enjoy keeping up with the latest hype – have you heard the term “Sapient Testing” yet? I believe it was coined by James Bach, who says he isn’t going to use the term “Manual Testing” any more. He says “A sapient process is any process that relies on skilled humans.”.

My own feeling is that this is just what our field needs – another corrupted piece of terminology. The term “manual” means “involving or using human effort, skill, power, energy, etc.”. Wouldn’t that mean a manual process is any process that relies on human effort, skill, power, energy, etc.?

So why “sapient”? Sapient means “having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment”. It’s a pretty cool word. But a skilled human is not necessarily wise. You can be skilled and have poor judgment. And the term itself is not limited to humans. You can have a sapient monkey. A monkey can learn and apply contextual judgment. In fact, scientists were forced to redefine their thinking of “intelligence” when they discovered a crow in South America capable of building unique tools depending on their individual situation or “context”, if you will.

So again, why “sapient”? Well, amazingly enough, AST launched a new on-line magazine called “Sapient Testing”. Hmm. Can you say “cha-ching”? Mr. Bach disingenuously said someone at AST must have read his definition – as though the rest of us were unaware he and his peeps sit on the board or are executives for that organization.

So overall, I believe this is yet another marketing ploy, and as such, my first reaction was amused contempt.

And yet…..

Overall, this particular bit of self-indulgence is not as damaging or harmful as the “Metrics Phobia” I’ve seen propagated lately, and I really DO like the term “sapient testing”. Just not Mr. Bach’s definition of that term.

There are, in fact, many layers and types of human testers. Manual testing, that is “testing performed by humans”, is not necessarily better than doing absolutely no testing at all. It is not always performed by skilled personnel. Here’s a dreadful thought – some testers are (gulp) just plain stupid. There are incompetent people in every field, including our own. Some testers are merely competent – perhaps the majority lie in this strata. But there are those few truly gifted, awesome, intuitive geniuses that define what the term “tester” or “analyst” can really mean.

So to me, “sapient testing” would define that upper strata – the best of the best. Those people and processes that are virtually light-years above “second best”. And with that particular definition, I could see a “Sapient Testing” magazine, an exclusive think tank of innovators and scholars, etc., while still recognizing that few can actually play successfully in that level of stratosphere. Many of our own realities would not allow or support it. Again, this blog is about common sense. I can’t apply processes that are appropriate for geniuses in an environment that doesn’t contain geniuses. It would fail quite miserably. I think that while the “contextual school” has attracted some of the “best of the best”, it falls down in not recognizing that every shop has similar resources available. It’s the epitome of ivory tower syndrome. They’ve lost touch, in several big ways, with the majority of the field. Still, I expect some brilliant things to come from that group. Maybe not applicable to many situations, but still valuable, interesting, and innovative.

Overall, my thought is I’ll wait and see if “sapient” means “wise and using good judgment ” or “money-grubbing shills”. Time will tell. I do know, however, that “manual testing” will remain in my vocabulary and “sapient testing” will only be added if the definition is something different, better, or more descriptive….