Skip to main content

Better Averse?




What is testing? In one of the sessions at the Cambridge Software Testing Clinic the other night, the whole group collaborated on a mind map on that very question.

I find it interesting how the mind can latch on to one small aspect of a thing. I attend these kinds of events to find something new, perhaps a new idea, a different perspective on something I already know, or something about the way I act. In this case, under a node labelled mindset, one of the participants proposed risk-averse. I challenged that, and counter-proposed risk-aware. You can see them both on the map on this page, centre-left, near the bottom. And that's the thing I've been coming back to since: accepting that there is a testing mindset (with all the sociological and semantic challenges that might have) is it reasonable to say that it includes risk aversion or risk awareness?

Let's start here: why did I challenge? I challenged because the interpretation that I took in the moment was that of testers saying "no, let's not ship because we know there are problems." And that's not something that I want to hear testers who work for me saying. At least not generally, because I can think of contexts in which that kind of phrase is entirely appropriate. But I won't follow that train of thought just now.

But do I even have a decent idea what risk-aversion is? I think so: according to Wikipedia's opening sentence on the topic risk-aversion "is a preference for a sure outcome over a gamble with higher or equal expected value." In my scenario, not shipping is a more certain outcome (in terms of risk that those known problems will be found in the product by customers) than shipping. But I can think of other aspects of shipping that might be more certain than in the case of not shipping. Perhaps I'll come back to them.

But then, do I have a decent idea what the person who suggested risk-aversion meant by it? In all honesty, no. I have some evidence, because they were keen on risk-awareness when I suggested it, that they overlap with me here, but I can't be sure. Even if they were with me right now, and we could spend hours talking about it, could we be certain that we view this particular conceptual space in the same way? A good question for another time.

So what did I mean by risk-aware? I meant that I want testers who work for me to be alert to the risks that might be present in any piece of work they are doing. In fact, I want them to be actively looking for those risks. And I want them to be able to characterise the risks in various ways.

For example, if they have found an issue in the product I'd like them to be able to talk to stakeholders about it, what the associated risks are, why this matters and to who, and ideally something about the likelihood of it occurring and something about impact if the issue was to occur. I'd also like my testers to be able to talk to stakeholders in the same way about risk that they observe in the processes we're using to build our product, and also in the approach taken to testing, and in the results of testing. If I thought harder could I add more to this? Undoubtedly and perhaps I will, one of these days.

While we're here, this kind of risk assessment is inherently part of testing for me. (Perceived) risk is one of the data points that should be be in the mix when deciding what to test at any given time. Actually, I might elaborate on that: risk and uncertainty are two related data points that should be considered when deciding what to test. But I don't really want to open up another front in this discussion, so see Not Sure About Uncertainty for further thoughts on that.

Would it be fair to say that a tester engaging in risk-based testing is risk-averse to some extent or another? Try this: through their testing they are trying to obtain the surest outcome (in terms of understanding of the product) for the stakeholders by exploring those areas of the product that are most risky. So, well, yes, that would seem to satisfy the definition from Wikipedia wouldn't it?

Permission to smirk granted. You are observing me wondering whether I am arguing that a tester who is risk-aware, and uses that risk-awareness to engage in risk-based testing, must necessarily be risk-averse. And now I'm also thinking that perhaps this is possible because the things at risk might be different, but I time-boxed this post (to limit the risk of not getting to my other commitments, naturally) and I've run out of time.

So here's the thing that I enjoy so much: one thought blown up into a big claggy mess of conceptual strands, each of which themselves could lead to other interesting places, but with the knowledge that following one means that I won't be following another, with an end goal that can't be easily characterised, alert for synergy, overlap, contradiction, ambiguity and other relationships, and which might simply reflect my personal biases, with the intellectual challenge of disentanglement and value-seeking, all limited by time.

Hmm. What is testing?
Image: Cambridge Software Testing Clinic

Comments

  1. If you are in an environment where the decision on whether to ship or not rests with your testers, then testers WILL be risk-averse!

    In my view, the decision on whether to ship or not always rests with business managers. The testers can advise on detected issues; they should be able to articulate clearly what risks those issues pose; and that advice should be listened to and acted on by business managers. That's risk awareness, and that's a good thing.

    A couple of times, I've identified bugs in new features under development; but I'm also aware that my personal policy is to record all the bugs I find, so that they can be fixed at a time that the business determines that they are worth fixing. Show-stoppers are show-stoppers, no doubt about that. But below that in the hierarchy of issues are bugs that won't affect performance or functionality, and it should the be business that decides if those are worth expending time, effort and (ultimately) money on fixing. (That's not to say that minor presentational bugs, such as typos, aren't worth fixing. I've seen and heard of instances where typos in an application reflect badly on an organisation, such as an egregious typo in a graphic put over the top of the CEO's audio message in an introduction to an on-line tool, or the company name misspelt in its own logo - and those I would argue strongly with any business manager need fixing NOW and pretty much qualify as show-stoppers as much as any failure of functionality.)

    But if testers are actually being given the responsibility of "signing off" releases, that's not a good corporate practice in my book.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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