There are subtle but serious problems in the testing business right now, and if we don’t attend to them they will lead to bigger problems. The core problem I’m attending to today is confusion between testing and quality engineering. Engineering Let me start by saying I believe that quality engineering is a good thing. Or rather, I believe that engineering is a good thing. As Billy Vaughan Koen said in … Read more
Please remember: there’s a big difference between quality and testing; and so there’s a big difference between a quality strategy and a testing strategy. Understand the Nature of Quality The essence of quality is value to people. A quality strategy is a set of guiding ideas for building a product or service, in order to achieve the goal(s) of providing value to people. To develop a successful product, the people … Read more
This post is a (more detailed) response to a post on LinkedIn by my good friend and colleague Antti Niittyviita. My intention is not to chide or scold him. Instead, I want to shine light on a problem in the way many people talk carelessly about the craft of testing, and to express my ongoing dismay. It’s not a new problem, but it sure is a persistent one. Antti says… … Read more
It’s common these days to hear people say that they don’t want to focus on finding bugs; they want to focus on preventing bugs. They want to focus on “building quality in”. Let’s face it: building quality in is a pretty great idea, and preventing bugs from reaching customers is a really good thing. On this, reasonable people agree. To prevent bugs from reaching customers, you’ll have to become a … Read more
(This post is adapted from my recent article on LinkedIn.) Out there in the world, there is a persistent notion that “preventing problems early in the software development process will lead to higher-quality products than testing later will”. That isn’t true. It’s untrue, but not for the reason that might first occur to most people. The issue is not that addressing problems early on is a bad idea. That’s usually … Read more
My good friend Keith Klain recently posted this on LinkedIn: “Why didn’t we catch this in QA” might possibly be the most psychologically terrorizing and dysfunctional software testing culture an organization can have. I’ve seen it literally destroy good people and careers. It flies in the face of systems thinking, complexity of failure, risk management, and just about everything we know about the psychology involved in testing, but the bully … Read more
As a tester, I try to represent the interests of users. Saying the user, in the singular, feels like a trap to me. There are usually lots of users, and they tend to have diverse and sometimes competing interests. I’d like to represent and highlight the interests of users that might have been forgotten or overlooked. There’s another trap, though. As Cem Kaner has pointed out, it’s worth remembering that … Read more
This is an expansion of some recent tweets. Do automated tests (in the RST namespace, checks) measure the quality of your product, as people sometimes suggest? First, the check is automated; the test is not. You are performing a test, and you use a check—or many checks—inside the test. The machinery may press the buttons and return a bit, but that’s not the test. For it to be a test, … Read more
There’s a flaw in the way most organizations classify the severity of a bug. Here’s an example from the Elementool Web site (as of 14 January, 2015); I’m sure you’ve seen something like it: Critical: The bug causes a failure of the complete software system, subsystem or a program within the system. High: The bug does not cause a failure, but causes the system to produce incorrect, incomplete, inconsistent results … Read more