Skip to main content

If you don't believe it, why should anyone else?



The question of what skills do testers need intrigues me. 

This always occurs to me when engaged in the search for 'good' people to hire. We (as in the technical sphere) tend to hire predominantly on 'skills.' Very rarely do we look for behaviours, even rarer we consider beliefs.

After some consideration (and no little practical finger-burning), starting with skills is often a false position, starting with beliefs can be much more powerful.

The following question always strikes me, when I consider this context. How many testers you know can give you explanation of what they believe the essence of testing is? I know relatively few. In fact, I often received the look of a startled rabbit when I lead with this question. You do it every day, but you can't tell me what you believe it is?

To not be compelling with what you believe testing to be puts you and your chosen vocation at a significant disadvantage when interacting with those who are sceptical about its value. To be not compelling when most reasoning is done for argumentative purposes (to convince, not necessarily to make better decisions) further underpins the disadvantage.

So, when I ask myself the golden question, I begin with this:

'Testing is the skilful exploration of an entity for information about its quality, where quality is value to some person.'

To decompose:
  • I believe testing is a skill not 'just an activity';
  • I believe testing is exploration, more than it is deterministic;
  • I provide information about quality to aid decisions about risk;
  • I believe quality is most meaningfully expressed from the point of view of 'some person', who is important in context. 

Does it fly? I think so. Well, is there a 'right' answer is a more pertinent question. Perhaps the urge to be 'right' (or the desire not to be seen to be 'wrong') prevents people from venturing their thoughts.

Is it different to the next tester? I hope so. Will it change as I learn and grow. I hope for that too. Does it lift the ideas of others in a way that appeals to me? (Nods to Jerry Weinberg). Damn right.

However, when I discuss testing I have an advantage, I have questioned myself and my beliefs about my vocation and talk in a compelling manner. To be less than sincere with what you believe testing to be is to enter into a struggle which you may well lose more often than not.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Lone Tester at a DevOps Conference

I recently had the chance to go to Velocity Conf in Amsterdam, which one might describe as a DevOps conference. I love going to conferences of all types, restricting the self to discipline specific events is counter intuitive to me, as each discipline involved in building and supporting something isn't isolated. Even if some organisations try and keep it that way, reality barges its way in. Gotta speak to each other some day.

So, I was in an awesome city, anticipating an enlightening few days. Velocity is big. I sometimes forget how big business some conferences are, most testing events I attend are usually in the hundreds of attendees. With big conferences comes the trappings of big business. For my part, I swapped product and testability ideas with Datadog, Pager Duty and others for swag. My going rate for consultancy appears to be tshirts, stickers and hats.

So, lets get to it:

3 Takeaways

Inclusiveness - there was a huge focus on effective teams, organisational dynamics and splitt…

Wheel of Testing Part 2 - Content

Thank you Reddit, while attempting to find pictures of the earths core, you surpass yourself.
Turns out Steve Buscemi is the centre of the world.

Anyway. Lets start with something I hold to be true. My testing career is mine to shape, it has many influences but only one driver. No one will do it for me. Organisations that offer a career (or even a vocation) are offering something that is not theirs to give. Too much of their own needs get in the way, plus morphing into a badass question-asker, assumption-challenger, claim-demolisher and illusion-breaker is a bit terrifying for most organisations. Therefore, I hope the wheel is a tool for possibilities not definitive answers, otherwise it would just be another tool trying to provide a path which is yours to define.


In part one, I discussed why I had thought about the wheel of testing in terms of my own motivations for creating it, plus applying the reasoning of a career in testing to it. As in, coming up with a sensible reflection of real…

The Team Test for Testability

You know what I see quite a lot. Really long-winded test maturity models. 

You know what I love to see? Really fast, meaningful ways to build a picture of your teams current state and provoke a conversation about improvement. The excellent test improvement card game by Huib Schoots and Joep Schuurkes is a great example. I also really like 'The Joel Test' by Joel Spolsky, a number of questions you can answer yes or no to to gain insight into their effectiveness as a software development team.

I thought something like this for testability might an interesting experiment, so here goes:

If you ask the team to change their codebase do they react positively?Does each member of the team have access to the system source control?Does the team know which parts of the codebase are subject to the most change?Does the team collaborate regularly with teams that maintain their dependencies?Does the team have regular contact with the users of the system?Can you set your system into a given state…