Skip to main content

Managing to Test

Earlier in the year Lena Wiberg posted an interesting challenge on Twitter: 

I would like to pair up with other writers and do a series of pair blog posts. So we agree on a topic, we both write a post on our own blogs and publish at the same time. 2 perspectives for 1 topic! Any takers?

Swaps are fun, so I signed up and Lena asked me for a topic. After some consideration I proposed "testing skills I use in management" for the selfish reasons that I'm interested to hear what she has to say on it and also to collect thoughts that I've had over the years into one place. 


I spent quite some time early in my managerial career observing how I went about my work, finding what I liked and what I didn't, and deciding what my guiding management principles appeared to be and should be. This is what I came up with:
  • Be clear and present
  • Be congruent 
  • Provide motivation, organisation, information, and the occasional jiggle.

To gloss these a little, I want to:
  • be open about what I think, what I will do, and why; be available, approachable, and responsive (see e.g. Clear and Present Manager)
  • in any situation, take into account the interests of the people involved, myself, and the wider context (see e.g. What Did You Say? in Book Notes)
  • try to find ways of working that suit the team and the task (see e.g. Naomi Karten's MOI paper)

When I cast it this way, management skills and testing skills don't seem so far apart. In both cases I want to gather data and understand something about where it came from, when, how, and so on. I then want to integrate it with other data I have from other sources and decide where I should go next. I want to think about how I'm working, be transparent about why, and open to suggestions for change. I want to be prepared to explain the reason for actions I've taken, and to take those actions in a balanced way.

Let's look at an example. As a manager, I am regularly criticised by members of my team. Amongst other things I'm sometimes accused of being overly logical or too analytical. The subjective nature of "overly" and "too" give me leeway to dismiss this assessment as a matter of degree, viewed from a jaundiced perspective, should I choose to. But I don't choose to; instead I regard it as data. (And, yes, I am aware of the potential irony there.)

It's valuable information when someone on the team is feeling sufficiently strongly to tell me to my face that I have the wrong take on an issue. (Aside: finding out that someone is saying it to others but not me is also valuable, but different.) I will always by default respect it as given honestly with good motivation. 

For me, this is data from a known source in a particular context and is to be integrated with other data from other known sources in their particular contexts. Other sources include me and the team and the company, and other contexts include mine and the team's and the company's. 

I am likely to want to ask questions to try to understand what is beneath an observation which is critical of me. (The data question, due to Jerry Weinberg e.g. Perfect Software is "What did you see or hear ... that led you to that interpretation?") I think that, over the years, I have got better at doing it in a way that is both non-judgemental and non-defensive and, crucially, comes across that way too.

On any given issue, I will want to give individual pieces of data different weights depending on the context they come from and the problem at hand.

But, and this is a big one, the kind of data gathered this way is rarely quantifiable. It's usually messy and incomplete and it's often tangled up with other issues in complex and non-visible ways. We are human, after all. 

This feels a lot like testing to me.

In testing, I find, data comes from all sorts of disparate sources with different motivations, including the stated requirements, the market conditions that make these requirements relevant now, the level of understanding of the problem we're solving for the customer, the informal conversations with stakeholders, the developer's personal opinions on the approach requested and their personal preferences, the technology stack's prejudices, what the software tells you when you engage with it, and so on and so on.

How do I, as a tester, balance this data? I use critical thinking and heuristics based on experience and social interaction and investigation and research and modelling and empathy and pragmatism and numerous other skills. My overriding aim is that of pursuing relevant incongruity, by which I mean helping the project to be the best that it can be within the known constraints that it has, by targeting my efforts and finding issues and potential issues that threaten it. 

And as a manager? Well, in all honesty, this is how I approach management problems too. 

So where is the difference between being a manager and a (cough) individual contributor? For me, I think it's in the degree of responsibility for people and wide-scope decisions. As a manager there are many bucks that stop with me which intimately involve other people whose happiness, career, and actions I'm responsible for.  As a tester I'm generally only responsible for my own decisions and actions.  

See also:

Testing Skills I Use in Management is Lena's post on the same topic over at her blog. We agreed to swap comments too, so you can find mine with her piece, and her thoughts on what I said here:

I did what I shouldn’t and instinctively messaged James after reading with: “So interesting! Completely different takes!” Funny enough, he thought we had come  to very similar conclusions. Which of course had me read his comment before writing this, thus influencing me. So, I cannot write a completely unbiased comment. But  on the other hand I can now try to analyse why I felt we had so different takes while James felt we ended up so alike.

First of all, I haven’t known James long. And I’ve mostly gotten to know him through his blog posts, his twitter and through our work on board for the Association for Software Testing. My view of  him has been that he is very calm, methodical, well spoken (and written) and with a great sense of humour. I have gotten a lot of inspiration from his blog posts in my own writing and I have very much appreciated our discussions both in real life and online. 

When I read his post my gut reaction was that ours were completely different but analysing it a bit more I can see why James feels we ended up in the same place. Because we did, just by different routes. I write a lot about feelings, James writes a lot about data - our conclusion however seems the same: A lot of skills from testing are definitely transferable to managing. Reading our posts it is clear to me that the way we used to approach testing probably spilled over to how we chose to approach management.  I can see that we have the same goal, we care about the same things but the road we would choose would probably look completely different. Thank you so much James for giving me your perspective!


Popular posts from this blog

The Ideal Test Plan

A colleague pinged me the other day, asking about an "ideal test plan" and wondering whether I could suggest something. Not without a bit more information, I said. OK, they said. Who needs the plan, for what purpose? I asked. Their response: it's for internal use, to improve documentation, and provide a standard structure. We work in a medical context and have strict compliance requirements, so I wondered aloud whether the plan is needed for audit, or to show to customers? It's not, they replied, it's just for the team. Smiling now, I stopped asking questions and delivered the good news that I had what they were looking for. Yes? they asked, in anticipation. Naturally I paused for dramatic effect and to enhance the appearance of deep wisdom, before saying: the ideal plan is one that works for you. Which is great and all that, but not heavy on practical advice. --00-- I am currently running a project at the Association for Software Testing and there is a plan for

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

69.3%, OK?

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-- "What percentage of our test cases are automated?" There's a lot wrapped up in that question, particularly when it's a metric for monitoring the state of testing. It's not the first time I've been asked either. In my

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 —

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

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

The Future of Testing? GRRrrr!

I really enjoy lean coffee conversations. I am energised by the rapid-fire topic switches and love it when I get exposure to multiple perspectives. The time-boxed aspect of the activity is a turn-off for some, keeping things relatively shallow, but it's one of the great advantages of the format for me: I know that I'm only investing a certain amount of my time, and it's usually small enough that the return is worth it. All of which is background context for my experience at the first Cambridge Tester Meetup event for over a year , an online lean coffee, this week. I died a little inside when I saw The Future of Testing ticket placed on the board. I felt the pain of internal necrosis spreading as it was voted up. I winced while my pre-frontal cortex withered into a tiny blackened stump at the precise second that Devops, automation, and quality champions were tossed into the discussion. The? Future? Of? Testing? GRRrrr! For as long as we are build

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Fail Here or Fail There

The First Law of Systems-Survival, according to John Gall, is this: A SYSTEM THAT IGNORES FEEDBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF TERMINAL INSTABILITY Laws are all-caps in Systemantics . Not just laws, but also theorems, axioms, and corollaries. There are many of them so here's another (location 2393-2394): JUST CALLING IT “FEEDBACK” DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY FED BACK There was a point when I realised, as the capitalised aphorisms rolled by, that I was sinking into the warm and sweetly-scented comforting foamy bathwater of confirmatory bias. Seen, seen, seen! Tick, tick, tick! I took the opportunity to let myself know that I'd been caught in the act, and that I needed to get out of the tub and start to challenge the content.  Intervening at that moment was congruent: I was in a context where I would accept it and prepared to change because of it. Of course, I enjoyed the deep irony of nodding along with Gall when he talked about

Be a Quality Detector

  I've just finished reading Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows. It's not a new book but I'd managed to be unaware of it until recently when Marianne Bellotti mentioned it on her podcast, Marianne Writes a Programming Language .  Bellotti is writing a programming language (duh!) for modelling system behaviour using the concepts of stocks and flows, inspired by Meadows' book. The image at the top gives an idea of how such models can work, notably making explicit the feedback relationships for resources in the system, and allowing modellers to reason about the system state under different conditions over time. I have been aware of systems models similar to this since I first saw Diagrams of Effects in in Quality Systems Management Volume 1: Systems Thinking by Jerry Weinberg. Weinberg's book, and other reading I was doing early in my career as a tester, inspired me to look deeply at the systemic context in which the software I'm working on sits and