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).
Image: http://flic.kr/p/6P4iAJ

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Can Code, Can't Code, Is Useful

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 , Mastodon , 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-- "If testers can’t code, they’re of no use to us" My first reaction is to wonder what you expect from your testers. I am immediately interested in your working context and the way

Meet Me Halfway?

  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 , Mastodon , 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-- "Stop answering my questions with questions." Sure, I can do that. In return, please stop asking me questions so open to interpretation that any answer would be almost meaningless and certa

Testing (AI) is Testing

Last November I gave a talk, Random Exploration of a Chatbot API , at the BCS Testing, Diversity, AI Conference .  It was a nice surprise afterwards to be offered a book from their catalogue and I chose Artificial Intelligence and Software Testing by Rex Black, James Davenport, Joanna Olszewska, Jeremias Rößler, Adam Leon Smith, and Jonathon Wright.  This week, on a couple of train journeys around East Anglia, I read it and made sketchnotes. As someone not deeply into this field, but who has been experimenting with AI as a testing tool at work, I found the landscape view provided by the book interesting, particularly the lists: of challenges in testing AI, of approaches to testing AI, and of quality aspects to consider when evaluating AI.  Despite the hype around the area right now there's much that any competent tester will be familiar with, and skills that translate directly. Where there's likely to be novelty is in the technology, and the technical domain, and the effect of

Testers are Gate-Crashers

  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 , Mastodon , 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-- "Testers are the gatekeepers of quality" Instinctively I don't like the sound of that, but I wonder what you mean by it. Perhaps one or more of these? Testers set the quality sta

Postman Curlections

My team has been building a new service over the last few months. Until recently all the data it needs has been ingested at startup and our focus has been on the logic that processes the data, architecture, and infrastructure. This week we introduced a couple of new endpoints that enable the creation (through an HTTP POST) and update (PUT) of the fundamental data type (we call it a definition ) that the service operates on. I picked up the task of smoke testing the first implementations. I started out by asking the system under test to show me what it can do by using Postman to submit requests and inspecting the results. It was the kinds of things you'd imagine, including: submit some definitions (of various structure, size, intent, name, identifiers, etc) resubmit the same definitions (identical, sharing keys, with variations, etc) retrieve the submitted definitions (using whatever endpoints exist to show some view of them) compare definitions I submitted fro

Build Quality

  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 , Mastodon , 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-- "When the build is green, the product is of sufficient quality to release" An interesting take, and one I wouldn't agree with in general. That surprises you? Well, ho

Make, Fix, and Test

A few weeks ago, in A Good Tester is All Over the Place , Joep Schuurkes described a model of testing work based on three axes: do testing yourself or support testing by others be embedded in a team or be part of a separate team do your job or improve the system It resonated with me and the other testers I shared it with at work, and it resurfaced in my mind while I was reflecting on some of the tasks I've picked up recently and what they have involved, at least in the way I've chosen to address them. Here's three examples: Documentation Generation We have an internal tool that generates documentation in Confluence by extracting and combining images and text from a handful of sources. Although useful, it ran very slowly or not at all so one of the developers performed major surgery on it. Up to that point, I had never taken much interest in the tool and I could have safely ignored this piece of work too because it would have been tested by

Am I Wrong?

I happened across Exploratory Testing: Why Is It Not Ideal for Agile Projects? by Vitaly Prus this week and I was triggered. But why? I took a few minutes to think that through. Partly, I guess, I feel directly challenged. I work on an agile project (by the definition in the article) and I would say that I use exclusively exploratory testing. Naturally, I like to think I'm doing a good job. Am I wrong? After calming down, and re-reading the article a couple of times, I don't think so. 😸 From the start, even the title makes me tense. The ideal solution is a perfect solution, the best solution. My context-driven instincts are reluctant to accept the premise, and I wonder what the author thinks is an ideal solution for an agile project, or any project. I notice also that I slid so easily from "an approach is not ideal" into "I am not doing a good job" and, in retrospect, that makes me smile. It doesn't do any harm to be reminded that your cognitive bias

Test Now

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 , Mastodon , 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-- "When is the best time to test?" Twenty posts in , I hope you're not expecting an answer without nuance? You are? Well, I'll do my best. For me, the best time to test is when there

Play to Play

I'm reading Rick Rubin's The Creative Act: A Way of Being . It's spiritual without being religious, simultaneously vague and specific, and unerring positive about the power and ubiquity of creativity.  We artists — and we are all artists he says — can boost our creativity by being open and welcoming to knowledge and experiences and layering them with past knowledge and experiences to create new knowledge and experiences.  If that sounds a little New Age to you, well it does to me too, yet also fits with how I think about how I work. This is in part due to that vagueness, in part due to the human tendency to pattern-match, and in part because it's true. I'm only about a quarter of the way through the book but already I am making connections to things that I think and that I have thought in the past. For example, in some ways it resembles essay-format Oblique Strategy cards and I wrote about the potential value of them to testers 12 years ago. This week I found the f