Skip to main content

Listens Learned in Software Testing

I'm enjoying the way the Test team book club at Linguamatics has been using our reading material as a jumping-off point for discussion about our experiences, about testing theory, and about other writing. This week's book was a classic, Lessons Learned in Software Testing, and we set ourselves the goal of each finding three lessons from the book that we found interesting for some reason, and making up one lesson of our own to share.

Although Lessons Learned was the first book I bought when I became a tester, in recent times I have been more consciously influenced by Jerry Weinberg. So I was interested to see how my opinions compare to the hard-won suggestions of Kaner, Bach and Petttichord.

For this exercise I chose to focus on Chapter 9, Managing the Testing Group. There are 35 lessons here and, to the extent that it's possible to say with accuracy given the multifaceted recommendations in many of them, I reckon there's probably only a handful that I don't practice to some extent.

One example: When recruiting, ask for work samples (Lesson 243). This advice is not about materials produced during the  interview process. It is specifically about bug reports, code, white papers and so on from previous employments or open source projects. I can't think of an occasion when I've asked for that kind of thing from a tester.

Of the 30 or so lessons that I do recognise in my practices, here's three that speak to me particularly today: Help new testers succeed (Lesson 220), Evaluate your staff as executives (Lesson 213), The morale of your staff is an important asset (Lesson 226).

Why these? Well, on another day it might be three others - that's what I've found with this book over the years - but in the last 12 months or so our team has grown by 50% and we've introduced line management structure. This triplet speak to each of those changes and the team as a whole, as we work through them.

When bringing new people into our team we have evolved an induction process which has them pair with everyone else on the team at least a couple of times, provides a nominated "first point of contact", a checklist of stuff to cover in each of the first days, weeks and months, a bunch of introductions to the Test team and company (from within the team) and to other parts of the company (from friendly folk in other groups). We also have the new person present to the team informally about themselves and their testing, to help us to get to know them, develop some empathy for them, to give them some confidence about talking in front of the established staff. Part of the induction process is to provide feedback on the induction process (this is not Fight Club!) which we use to tune the next round.

Until this year, I have conducted all annual reviews for all of the testers in my team. This affords me the luxury of not having to have externalised the way in which I do it. That's not to say that I haven't thought about it (I have, believe me, a lot) or that I haven't evolved (again, I have) but more that I haven't felt the need to formally document it. Now that there are other line managers in the team I have begun that process by trying to write it down (almost always a valuable exercise for me) and explaining it verbally (likewise; particularly when doing it to a bunch of intelligent, questioning testers).

How to assess the performance and development needs of your team (fairly) is tricky. The notion of executive in Lesson 213 is from Drucker - "someone who manages the value of her own time and affects the ability of the organisation to perform" as Lesson 211 puts it - and essentially cautions against simple metrics for performance in favour of a wide spread of assessments, at least some of which are qualitative, that happen regularly and frequently. It recommends paying attention to your staff, but contrasts this with micromanagement.

Past experience tells me that there is almost never consensus on a course of action within my teams and I rarely get complete agreement on the value of an outcome either. However, it's important to me to be as inclusive and open and transparent as possible about what I'm doing, in part because that's my philosophical standpoint but also because I think that it contributes to team morale, and that is crucial to me (Lesson 226) because I think a happy team is in a position to do their best work.

When planning and going through the kind of growth and restructuring that our team has in the last 12 months, morale was one of my major concerns - of the new hires, of the existing team members, and also of myself. It's my intuition that important aspects of building and maintaining morale in this kind of situation include providing access to information, opportunity to contribute, and understanding of the motivation.

I didn't want anyone to feel that changes were just dropped on them, that they weren't aware that changes were coming, that they had no agency, that they hadn't had chance to ask questions or express their preferences or suggestions, and that I hadn't tried to explain what options were being considered and why I made the particular changes that I did, and what my concerns about it are, and that my full support is available to anyone who wants or needs it.

The lesson of my own that I chose to present is one I've come back to numerous times over the years:

  If you can, listen first.

Listening here is really a proxy for the intake of information through any channel, although listening itself is a particularly important skill in person-to-person interactions. Noticing the non-verbal cues that come along with those conversations is also important, and likewise remembering that the words as said are not necessarily the words as meant.

Since reading What Did You Say? I have become much more circumspect about offering feedback. Feedback is certainly part of the management role - any manager who is not willing to give it when requested is likely not supporting their staff to the fullest extent they could - but feeling that it's the manager's role to dispense feedback at (their own) will is something I've come to reject.

These days I try to practice congruent management and a substantial part of that is that it requires understanding - of the other person, the context and yourself. Getting data on the first two is important to aid understanding, and listening - really listening, not just not speaking - is a great data-gathering tactic. The Mom Test, which I read recently, makes essentially the same point over and over and over. And over.

Listening isn't always pleasant - I think, for example, of a 30-minute enumeration of things a colleague felt I hadn't done well - but I try to remember that the other person - if being honest - is expressing a legitimate perspective - theirs - and understanding it and where it comes from - for them - is likely to help me to understand the true meaning of the communication and help me to deal with it appropriately.

And that's a lesson in itself: managing is substantially about doing your best to deal with things appropriately.
Image: Wiley


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