The Joy of Being Amongst Fellow Testers

I recently delivered a presentation on Session Based Test Management to the Auckland Test Professionals Network. It was my first presentation. It was fun and I really enjoyed being there.

For me though, the enjoyment factor came afterwards in talking and discussing software testing with other testers.

I noticed something.

There were some testers that had come to learn something. Not everyone did but I’m sure most took away at least one idea or thought. And my thought is this – why don’t we (software testers in New Zealand) actually share our knowledge a lot more?
Some of us blog, a number attend SIGIST meetings, conferences etc but we then either sit on that knowledge or we’re not sure how to share it. IF we grow our community, our discipline then we all benefit!

I was talking to Farid Vaswani and John Lockhart amongst other wonderful testers there. They were very willing to share their own thoughts and ideas on testing and we had a great discussion and explored multiple testing ideas.

Which created a second thought – since we geographically limited,and we are not able to mentor or share and discuss ideas easily in a physical sense, there are a myriad of ways to achieve this online. So i created a Google group called Software Testers New Zealand. And while it’s aiming for a New Zealand flavour, it is in no way limited by country. So if you are outside of New Zealand and wish to become part of this growing community, feel free to join and share your ideas and thoughts!

By doing so, lets mentor each other and take the best from each other.

Happy testing!

Teamwork – The value of a good team

How a good test team can help you become a better tester!

Teamwork

 

 

 

I’ve been watching New Zealand’s Junior Tall Blacks play at the U19 FIBA World Championships (Auckland New Zealand) and what struck me the most was the level of teamwork showed by the team. This was one of the contributing factors behind the team doing so well – i mean undersized, under gunned but plenty of heart, a good coach, sound systems AND generally good teamwork. What it did lack was the experience. Even though this was the U19’s, a number of teams had professional basket ballers in their team and that experience help decide close games.

When i think back to software testing teams i have been on i immediately think about the varying degrees of teamwork. I’ve worked on a team that was very hierarchical, there was a definitive pecking order and if you upset the head honcho (or in this case, honcho-ess), you quickly became ostracised. And this was regardless of skill, knowledge or enthusiasm and when you were out, you were out. This meant that the peripheral testing activities became harder to accomplish until you got back “in”. You had no or little peer support and pleas (subtle or otherwise) to management were fruitless. It didn’t bother me too much  because (either i was naive or ignorant) but one tester i saw felt this ‘pressure’ and it affected her ability to test. Why? Because she was too busy dealing and thinking about her social status that she couldn’t concentrate on testing (AND I mean thoughtful, critical testing.)

I’ve also worked as a sole tester in which, generally speaking, i never had to contend with team politics. I guess i was seen more as a project peer, an individual and not some annoymous member of an annoymous team. I was real and approachable and i guess this made it easier to build a rapport with. This is my experience but obviously it may not be typical. We have ‘control’ over ourselves but not much so over our environments.

I have also been part of a team that was supportive and encouraging and in essence allowed individuals to experiment, to try different things, expand and explore. And because these positive team attributes were in place, the opportunity to collaborate, share and test greatly increased. Whereas in the hierachial team i was in, knowledge was gold and he/she who had the most gold won, the supportive team wasn’t worried about which individual had the most gold but how much gold the team had collectively. Testing thrived because it was allowed to!

I have felt the value of a good teamwork. It goes along way to helping you get up in the morning and enjoying your day rather than dreading it.Testing is a human approach and its not just our interaction with the software but also with those we work with that helps us become better testers!

The one minute speed dribble syndrome

Rob Rangi is a very good friend of mine who happens to coach the St Mary’s Senior Girls Basketball team based in Wellington, New Zealand. He is blogging about his coaching experiences here.

He recently blogged about a recent session entitled Taking the Positives from the failures of drills. Coach Rangi is installing the Read and React offense, an offense that is based around principles rather than set plays.

Unlike a set play where, for example, player O1 passes to player O2 after player O2 was screened by player O3 (i.e. a structured offensive set), the Read and React is based on a group of principles in which the offensive players move depending on what is happening. This leads to an infinite number of possibliities in which the offense  can move, react and score. There is no blinked eyed approach whereby player O1 must do this in order to satisfy the pattern and potentially miss a scoring opportunity.

To quote from Coach Rick Tolbert (the Read and React creator), “…And that’s exactly what the Read and React Offense does: it provides a framework that can be used as an offensive system to develop players, teams, and programs. Or, it can be an offense for one team, an offense that builds upon itself, with a counter for anything any defense can throw at it.” Notice that Coach Tolbert talks about a framework. There is no mention of the words structured, pattern or set. In essence, the framework provides the heuristics (and the principles are collectively the oracle), the players apply these heuristics and adapt them  during game time.

Coach Tolbert also went on to stat his past season and found that 80% of his teams points came from principled basketball. Only 20% came from set plays and yet in practise, his team set spent 80% of the time on only 20% of the total point production!

Exploratory Testing is like the Read and React offense. It allows a creative (heuristics based), flexible (adaptable) approach (principles) to software testing that enables a tester to test a product with a broader mindset.

On the other side of the coin, writing test scripts (or if you like, using set plays)  is a very common testing practise which enables the tester to set out in advance, the steps he or she will follow.

One of the dangers of following a script is that the tester becomes a verifier of the steps as opposed to finding bugs or flaws or issues within the product.

And yet isn’t finding bugs the goal of testing?

Finding bugs is the value add testers bring to a project because by finding bugs and getting them fixed, the project team begin to increase the reliability of the system and potentially the quality as well.
This is nothing new. Glenford Meyers in his 1979 book ‘The Art of Software Testing’talks about his definition of testing

 “Testing is the process of executing a program with the intent of finding errors.”

It is not saying that testing should ensure that the product performs as specified or some such similar activity.

This is an important distinction – having the relevant mindset will steer us in the relevant direction. If we are looking to confirm that the product meets the specifications then it is likely that we can do this but will miss bugs. If, however, we are looking for bugs then we will find them (and along the way we will have false alarms or ‘non-bugs’ but isn’t that potentially better than missing some important bugs?).

Professor cem Kaner (Florida Institute of Technology) talks about this in the course Bug Advovacy  and also in his slide set that extends on his book Testing Computer Software. Prof. Kaner refers to what is called Signal Detection Theory. SDT quantifies the ability to discern between signal and noise and is a way in which psychologists measure the way decisions are made under conditions of uncertainity. When we are testing, there is nothing more uncertain as software we are have been just been given!

This of course can be influenced by the rules or limits or bias we set on ourselves or the group of testers we look after. Wikipedia has an excellent example of this bias

“Bias is the extent to which one response is more probable than another. That is, a receiver may be more likely to respond that a stimulus is present or more likely to respond that a stimulus is not present. Bias is independent of sensitivity. For example, if there is a penalty for either false alarms or misses, this may influence bias. If the stimulus is a bomber, then a miss (failing to detect the plane) may increase deaths, so a liberal bias is likely. In contrast, crying wolf (a false alarm) too often may make people less likely to respond, grounds for a conservative bias.”

In testing, if we influence testers to make sure the product conforms to requirements then we steer the bias in that direction. If we influence the bias towards finding bugs then that is what will happen and as Glenford Meyers has already pointed out, we begin to add value (potentially at a greater add than if we are looking to confirm that the product meets requirements).

Coach Rangi struck an interesting dilema at one practise. He asked his team to run a full court drill involving the speed dribble and read and react principles. This is what happened…

Coach : “OK Ladies we’re going to do a minute using the Speed dribble. Read the ball and react accordingly”

Players : “Yes Coach!”

Point Guard brings the ball to the top from our 2-man fast break. Our Wing running the outside lane, get her wing position and almost without hesitation cuts to the basket. So I stop the drill and pull her up.

Coach : “OK, What was your Read?”
Player : “Ah that was the speed dribble coach”
Coach : “OK So you made the cut although X actually hadn’t started the speed
dribble towards you”
Player : “Yeah, I was anticipating her doing the speed dribble at me”
Coach : “Why would you be anticipating it? You should be reacting to what she
does? What would happen if she drove or wanted to make a pass?”
Player : “But she wouldn’t do that Coach”
Coach : “And why is that?”
Player : “Cause you said we were running Speed Dribbles for a minute”

What an interesting sequence! Look at how Coach sets or influences the drill’s bias (just like following a script). Then the team interprets his instructions and follows the “script” to achieve the aim of the drill (“OK Ladies we’re going to do a minute using the Speed dribble. Read the ball and react accordingly”). The player then inteprets the instruction without question and becomes inflexible and doesn’t adapt to what the point guard was doing.

Coach Rangi then went on to say…
“…So after practice, I reviewed our training and was able to determine that the drills suffered from having a pre-conceived outcome based on a known condition eg we’re doing pass and cut for a minute then speed dribble for a minute then natural pitch etc. We needed to remove the pre-conception and make it random forcing the Wing to work.”

Fantastic! Much like in software testing where we have an expected result based on a known condition, our ability and effectiveness to analyse, think critcally and discover bugs is reduced by the bias surrounding our testing (test scripts or in basketball, set plays). We can become almost paralysed by following and completing each step in the script (been there, done that) and lose potential ideas, thoughts and creative ways in which to discover bugs (i have personally experienced both mindsets probably as most testers have at one stage or another).

How then did Coach Rangi fix this…

“We now have a new drill called “You make it up 2-man break”. We run 2 minutes using Circle movement options only – Dribbler drives, Dribbler drives and pitches, Dribbler drives and pivot pass to Safety valve. Then we run another 2 minutes using the other options – Pass and Cut, the Speed and Power Dribble. We also instigated a rule that says the next pair to go cannot do the same move as the pair in front has just done ensuring a different option each time down the court.”
Coach Rangi then finishes his blog by saying…

“In hindsight I should’ve seen this coming but there is nothing like getting it on the floor and letting players find the flaws for you. And honestly, I’m glad they did because it just made us a better basketball team!”

Much like in software testing, Exploratory testing is an approach that can help us become alot more flexible and help us avoid the “Cause you said we were running Speed Dribbles for a minute” syndrome!

The Power of Two

I am currently watching and listening to colleagues perform Exploratory Testing simultaneously. Instead of one working the keyboard and the other gathering oracles and recording paths, they are testing the application at the same time on different PC’s.

WOW! What a synergy! There is a flood of ideas, debates, discussions, agreements and the beginnings of their conclusions on this particular application.

The idea that Exploratory Testing is a cheap approach to find quick, superficial bugs is completely untrue….I’ve just in the last 30 minutes seen the converse to that argument! I am watching a creative collaboration of minds – coverage obtained – yes (i know that application enough to understand the coverage of functionality) diverse – yes, depth  – yes – Superficial – NO.

I have been involved in Exploratory Test sessions where the creative juices just absolutely flowed – to those that oppose Exploratory Testing with superfluous arguments like ‘its monkey testing with a million monkeys at the keyboard’ – miss the point (maybe its because they want to quantify creativity but can’t …somehow…fit the square peg…into the…round..hole).

The point to Exploratory Testing is that the mind is the key to testing for it is the mind that allows inspiration and ideas to be generated and therefore expressed onto the ‘canvas’. It’s not ‘touchy-feely’ and to suggest otherwise may also suggest that the spark of creativity is missing from that person.

Otherwise, how do you explain music? How do you explain that feeling of ‘being in the zone’? How do you explain the artist that adds the touches to their work of art guided by their inner feelings?

Testing may be part of computer science but that doesn’t mean we need to conform to the discipline like robots. Testing doubles its effectiveness when its couple with intelligent thought processes.

I’ve just seen it!

The Art of Championing Bugs – The Bug Advocacy Course

Well its been awhile since i’ve last had the opportunity to post and there are a couple things that i will comment on in due course. The first of these is the BBST (Blackbox Software Testing) course 200A – Bug Advocacy. This course is part of the Association of Software Testing’s course curriculum (http://www.associationforsoftwaretesting.org/drupal/courses/schedule).

There are a number of positives aspects to the method of delivery and to the content contained within the course. First of all, you (as a student) are connected with software testers around the world (i have ‘met’ testers from Australia, India, New Zealand, Sweden and of course the United States) and learning starts straight away. This is because my testing context in New Zealand may differ from someone in India and will differ from other’s in the US. This is valuable because you are now connected to some real thought leaders and people who have different experiences ground in practicality.

Second is the quality of the instructors – Professor Cem Kaner (a leader in the testing world) and Scott Barber (a guru in the Performance testing sphere) coupled with other quality instructors such as Doug Hoffman, Pat McGee et al (refer to the Association for Software Testing website for the course instructors and then google their names for context). The instructors have *been around* (excuse the term 8) ) and are willingly to share their knowledge and understanding freely. They critique with validlity meaning that what they have to say has substance and credence (i would cite the many examples from the course but that may detract from future opportunites of growth for the next crop of course participants) and allows the student to actually learn.

I can’t do that from a multi choice tickbox with no feedback given.

Thirdly, the questions in the exams/quizzes are designed to be read throughly and applied to the context at hand. I struggled with this. I could say that because i haven’t been to University and received a degree in anything (other than life!) my exam taking skills are outdated …. but that didn’t matter. See, you don’t need to have a degree to be successful in this course – just listening eyes, observant ears (yes that’s exactly what i mean) and a thinking mind. I struggled because i’m a jump in and do person – stepping back and thinking things through come second…

While i didn’t overcome this tendancy i did make progress and we as students got some great instructor led/peer feedback so learning was maximised through collaboration and guidance.

And lastly, working together as teammates in some course exercises (and this may be dependent on the course content) allowed us to utilise other testers thoughts, points of view and experiences together with our own ideas to deliver a stronger, better framed answer to some of the questions we were given.

Learning was therefore continual, learning was shared and learning was amplified. The AST courses are some of the best courses i had ever been on and i highly recommend them (…and they are free!)

Part of my email to Cem Kaner and Scott Barber capture my thoughts thus…

“…I have learnt alot from this course and i feel that i’ve gone better this time around compared to Foundations. Cem, the recent discussion on grading and call of questioning was like a big light bulb going off in my head when i read it….being someone that has not attended University, these ideas were ‘foreign’ to me but refreshingly interesting (i think my mind has ‘expanded’ during these two courses).

Scott, your insights and answers were ones that i learnt alot from and was drawn to (as well as Jeff’s, Dee’s and Anne’s) – you were like a stealth instructor/student…i’m sure that if you were my PM, i would flourish under your guidance! The discussion of Question 5 was gold!

 Bug Advocacy and Foundations – I have learnt more, made more mistakes, kicked myself, got mad at the questions but came away with a feeling of actually learning something and achieving it. I compare this to a certain certification that is now prevelant in the marketplace (well in this marketplace). I sat the course and pass the multi choice questioned exam very, very well….but i don’t remember alot of it (except the V-model which is now ingrained in my head despite the fact that i don’t know if i’ve ever worked in a V-model environment) and I’m not sure if i learnt much.

That certificate for me is, at this stage, my commercial ticket (in this marketplace) but the BBST courses are, for me, where the real growth and learning have come.

Thank you both, thank you Doug and Pat for your time and also all the participants on the bug advocacy course!

Exhaustive Testing

exhausted.jpg

 The following is  a response i sent to Kit who commented on my blog on ‘Insufficient Testing’ ….

Thanks for your comment. It’s almost a catch 22 situation. One of the principles of testing (according to ISTQB) is that Exhaustive Testing is impossible – I agree but the question is how much do you test and when do you know enough is enough?

For a complex system my thoughts would center around risk and priorities as your starting point. The approach or method used would ultimately rest on what level of auditability you must provide to the Business (they ultimately make the decision to go or no go.) Personally I would still use Exploratory Testing (if I was ‘allowed’ to) because in my experience I would be more likely to find something of value more often than through scripts.

However, in saying that, if the test team is involved right at the beginning of the project through walkthroughs, reviews or inspections (or any other type of review)than clarification and understanding will no doubt increase amongst the testing team with regards to the system.

After doing a Wikipedia search on Dr. Deming, one of his quotes is quite applicable to software testing… “Acceptable Defects: Rather than waste efforts on zero-defect goals, Dr. Deming stressed the importance of establishing a level of variation, or anomalies, acceptable to the recipient (or customer) in the next phase of a process. Often, some defects are quite acceptable, and efforts to remove all defects would be an excessive waste of time and money.” It is known that major commercial software often ships with known (and unknown) defects – MS Windows, Firefox v2.0 etc – its is reasonable then for the business to decide how much of the ‘risk’ they wish to carry. Testers should provide the necessary information to enable business to make that decision (good or bad).

At one New Zealand bank that I worked in, the test team I became involved with tried hard to exhaustively tested everything in a very complex application. The upshot was that one release took almost 12 months to ‘complete’ testing (there were other factors involved – personnel, political and management)BUT I guarantee that they could not say that that application was bug free. So I guess that leads to the second question – how much is enough?

James Bach says “When I exhausted the concerns of my internal critic (and external critics I asked to review my work), I decided it was good enough” (refer http://www.satisfice.com/articles/how_much.shtml).

NASA’s software safety standard (http://satc.gsfc.nasa.gov/assure/nss8719_13.html) NASA-STD-8719.13A September 15, 1997 – Section 3.4.5 says “The test results shall be analyzed to verify that all safety requirements have been satisfied. The analysis shall also verify that all identified hazards have been eliminated or controlled to an acceptable level of risk. The results of the test safety analysis shall be provided to the ongoing system safety analysis activity.” What then is an acceptable level of risk and acceptable to whom? Risk is then defined in this document as “…As it applies to safety, exposure to the chance of injury or loss. It is a function of the possible frequency of occurrence of the undesired event, of the potential severity of resulting consequences, and of the uncertainties associated with the frequency and severity.” Also in the document under section 1.4 Tailoring it says “….The tailoring effort shall include definition of the acceptable level of risk, which software is to be considered safety-critical, and whether the level of safety risk associated with the software requires formal safety certification.” Therefore at the end of the day , it’s a business decision taken within context of the business. As testers, we can test complexity within the context of the project and report back our findings – it is then up to those charged with making the ‘big’ decisions, to make them – or not!

Insufficient Testing

F-22 RaptorsIs a test team ‘liable’ if the product/software fails in some way? A recent post to the Software Testing Yahoo groups forum brought this to light and got me thinking.

Jared Quinert – a proponent of ET from Australia said “…a lack of testing – that insufficient testing requires some co-conspirator to cause a project to fail?
Sadly, nothing stops people trying. Googling ‘”insufficient testing” project failure’ goes some way to demonstrating this.”

So i did….try googling “insufficient testing” and see what comes up. There are, according to Google, 493,000 references to insufficient testing. This then begs the question – What is insufficient testing?

I worked recently within a test group that was fixated on exhaustive testing – they literally wanted to test everything and anything (and with good reason i might add – the situation i.e. context – surrounding them was NOT conducive to a co-operative approach. The harder the test group tried the more they got blamed.) It was hard to changed that mindset because they had litteraly been burnt in the past. What this meant was a huge overhead in terms of time. This group is the opposite of insufficient testing because they wanted to do everything.

However, it is a fact of life (this has been well documented in a number of articles, blogs etc) that software testers cannot find everything. Software is complex (ask NASA), software can be daunting and despite testing things do go wrong – just ask the US Air Force

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Recent_developments )

“While attempting its first overseas deployment to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, on 11 February 2007, a group of six Raptors flying from Hickam AFB experienced multiple computer crashes coincident with their crossing of the 180th meridian of longitude (the International Date Line). The computer failures included at least navigation (completely lost) and communication. The fighters were able to return to Hawaii by following their tankers in good weather. The error was fixed within 48 hours and the F-22s continued their journey to Kadena”

Was this fault because of insuffcient testing or was it the result of other factors? In my experience of failed projects, insufficient testing usually isn’t the cause rather a lack of cohesion between PM, vendor, BA’s, developers, testers – each group assumed a territorial stance and placed their ego in the way.

As Gen. Colin Powell (ret) says ” never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.”

Often there was some sort of conflict or barrier (whether declared or otherwise) that existed in which the leadership group was unable to break through. Disharmony in a project team will definitely achieve less with more.

So then is insufficient testing clearly a fault of the test team?

 Sometimes it is.

If the team was not aligned to the Project goals and was off on their own agenda then yes. However, if there are external influences involved then insufficient testing may be a symptom of a bigger problem.