Skip to main content

My EPIC Process ASS

Recently a couple of my colleagues have asked me to comment on process that they're setting up. As usual, the problem was less what to suggest and more what to keep back to avoid the well-intentioned but often understandably poorly-received feedback carpet bomb (FCB).

Fortunately, in the blogosphere you can't hear your readers scream, so here's an FCB of heuristics and aides-memoire that I use when setting up processes, guidelines, checklists and the like. They're most appropriate when intended to be used on projects with multiple people, probably across teams, to manage collaboration on something that is considered valuable by a person or people who matter.

There are usually a handful of roles:
  • customers - the people who want the process, perhaps with quite specific demands
  • owner - the person/s responsible for setting the process up
  • manager - the person/s responsible for ensuring it is used as intended
  • agents - the people participating in the process
Some of the same people might be in more than one role at various times. For simplicity, I'll assume we're taking the role of the owner/manager here and when I say process read it as communal instructions of some kind. And, yes, this is mostly based on hard-won experience.
  • The customers are not the only stakeholders. Anyone working with the process and anyone who interacts with it has a stake in it. 
  • Be clear to yourself and the stakeholders what problems you're trying to solve or avoid and what goals you have for the new process.
  • Try to make the first implementation something that you think is viable.
  • Consider basing it on an existing process if there is one. (Either an iteration or a rejection of it).
  • Especially at the start, try to involve sympathetic staff, champions of the project, or those with vested interests in seeing it succeed

  • Try to make the process as close to the minimum you're prepared to enforce as possible.
  • Try to avoid the temptation to add in reports, requirements, checks and balances that you and/or your customers don't really need. 
  • Anything that you know you'd bypass in an emergency is a candidate for cutting.
  • You will probably have to enforce every step you define. 
  • Be prepared to do that.
  • For your process to work for your stakeholders, you need your stakeholders to believe that you will make it work for them.
  • Do eat the dog food. Be an agent in your own process for some of the time.
  • Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Be prepared to question the process if you feel your customers have it wrong.

  • If you design the process it's more credible if you're also the owner and manager (at least initially).
  • If you're the owner it's more credible if you're also the manager (at least initially).
  • There will be questions. Deal with them in a timely fashion.
  • There will be objections. Deal with them in a timely fashion.
  • Changes may need to be made. Deal with them in a timely fashion, and ensure all participants are aware of them.
  • If documentation is needed keep it up to date. 
  • Make sure that the people working in the process can see that you are keeping it up to date.
  • Solicit criticism and comments and take them seriously.
  • Make it clear that you will make changes if anything is not working (well enough).
  • Actually do make changes if it's not working (well enough).
  • Be clear about why you're not making changes if you decide not to.
  • Don't necessarily stop thinking about improvement when the process is bedded in. For instance, once everyone understands the process are there bits you can safely remove or automate?

  • Initially, monitor very closely.
  • If you can test it out on a small scale before putting it into production, do so and gather feedback on it from all participants.
  • Pay particular attention to interfaces. For example, where does control pass between two parties? What material is required at that point? What format? What other conventions?
  • Make templates for stuff that can be usefully templated. Consider this particularly for critical stuff that, if missing, would block a downstream stage.
  • Don't demand templates where there's no need or where it would stifle creativity or productivity.
  • Look for standard approaches/tools where standards can be useful. For instance, what can you do to make sure that project time is not spent learning how to work in a project?
  • Where possible, use tools to report status, provide a framework for moving a process through whatever stages you have.
  • Think about how you can tell the process is working? is there a metric you care about?

Too much information? Could I distill all that mess into some kind of compact advice weapon that's more direct than the full FCB? Sure, here's what I like to refer to as an acronym-based surgical strike (ASS):
  • Engineer: to make it efficient, smooth, workable.
  • Propose: to seed discussion, and then gather and act on the feedback.
  • Impose: because sometimes, someone has to have the final say or force the right or required thing to happen.
  • Care: about getting it right for all of your stakeholders.
With thanks to the Dev Manager for suggestions and comment (delivered only after I'd formatted the draft in his approved tool's esoteric format, submitted a change request ticket and had it verbally approved by his line manager - written approval to follow by fax).


Popular posts from this blog

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Enjoy Testing

  The testers at work had a lean coffee session this week. One of the questions was  "I like testing best because ..." I said that I find the combination of technical, intellectual, and social challenges endlessly enjoyable, fascinating, and stimulating. That's easy to say, and it sounds good too, but today I wondered whether my work actually reflects it. So I made a list of some of the things I did in the last working week: investigating a production problem and pairing to file an incident report finding problems in the incident reporting process feeding back in various ways to various people about the reporting process facilitating a cross-team retrospective on the Kubernetes issue that affected my team's service participating in several lengthy calibration workshops as my team merges with another trying to walk a line between presenting my perspective on things I find important and over-contributing providing feedback and advice on the process identifying a

Testing is Knowledge Work

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

Risk-Based Testing Averse

  Joep Schuurkes started a thread on Twitter last week. What are the alternatives to risk-based testing? I listed a few activities that I thought we might agree were testing but not explicitly driven by a risk evaluation (with a light edit to take later discussion into account): Directed. Someone asks for something to be explored. Unthinking. Run the same scripted test cases we always do, regardless of the context. Sympathetic. Looking at something to understand it, before thinking about risks explicitly. In the thread , Stu Crook challenged these, suggesting that there must be some concern behind the activities. To Stu, the writing's on the wall for risk-based testing as a term because ... Everything is risk based, the question is, what risks are you going to optimise for? And I see this perspective but it reminds me that, as so often, there is a granularity tax in c

Agile Testing Questioned

Zenzi Ali has been running a book club on the Association for Software Testing Slack and over the last few weeks we've read Agile Testing Condensed by Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin. Each chapter was taken as a jumping off point for one or two discussion points and I really enjoyed the opportunity to think about the questions Zenzi posed and sometimes pop a question or two back into the conversation as well. This post reproduces the questions and my answers, lightly edited for formatting. --00-- Ten principles of agile testing are given in the book. Do you think there is a foundational principle that the others must be built upon? In your experience, do you find that some of these principles are less or more important than others?  The text says they are for a team wanting to deliver the highest-quality product they can. If we can regard a motivation as a foundational principle, perhaps that could be it: each of the ten pr

The Great Post Office Scandal

  The Great Post Office Scandal by Nick Wallis is a depressing, dispiriting, and disheartening read. For anyone that cares about fairness and ethics in the relationship that business and technology has with individuals and wider society, at least. As a software tester working in the healthcare sector who has signed up to the ACM code of ethics through my membership of the Association for Software Testing I put myself firmly in that camp. Wallis does extraordinarily well to weave a compelling and readable narrative out of a years-long story with a large and constantly-changing cast and depth across subjects ranging from the intensely personal to extremely technical, and through procedure, jurisprudence, politics, and corporate governance. I won't try to summarise that story here (although Wikipedia takes a couple of stabs at it ) but I'll pull out a handful of threads that I think testers might be interested in: The unbelievable naivety which lead to Horizon (the system at th

Testing and Semantics

The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years .   This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts.  --00-- In this series so far we've looked at words and syntax. In both cases we've found that natural language is an imprecise medium for communication. We might know the same words and grammar as others ... but they will have their own idea about what they mean ... and even where we agree there is ambguity ... and all of us, the world, and the language are evolving ... all the time. Today we'll add semantics which, in a pleasing twist, is itself ambiguo

Leaps and Boundary Objects

Brian Marick  recently launched a new podcast, Oddly Influenced . I said this about it on Twitter: Boundary Objects, the first episode of @marick's podcast, is thought-provoking and densely-packed with some lovely turns of phrase. I played it twice in a row. Very roughly, boundary objects are things or concepts that help different interest groups to collaborate by being ambiguous enough to be meaningful and motivational to all parties. Wikipedia  elaborates, somewhat formally:  [boundary objects are] both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites ... The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds. The podcast talks about boundary objects in general and then applies the idea to software development specifically, casting acceptance test

Personal Development

The other day I got tagged on a Twitter conversation between a couple of my colleagues, Ben Dowen and Dan Ashby , which ended with Ben citing me as an example: But there is a trap, in that a Dev who Tests, or Tester who codes both risk becoming Test Automators ... The counter argument is Testers who code can do as @qahiccupps does, and use and build tools to explore. A jumble of thoughts tumbled out as I read it and here they are, in no particular order. It is flattering to be mentioned but I'm far from the only person doing this. Maaret Pyhäjärvi   and Rob Sabourin are vocal about the value it can bring and go out of their way to tell and teach others how to get it. Ben is right when he says I use coding as a tool, and as a tool factory. It's a means to an end. Coding itself doesn't give me a lot of pleasure. Having created a useful thing gives me an enormous amount of pleasure. I am not a great developer. But then I rarely need to be.   Yes, I have made bug fixes that