Skip to main content

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 that too (2456-2458):

Feedback is likely to cause trouble if it is either too slow or too prompt. It must be adjusted to the response rhythms of the system as well as to the tempo of the actual events — a double restriction.
So what might I challenge?

  • The lack of data to back up claims.
  • The overwhelming landslide of those upper-case one-liners.
  • The desert-dry commentary that weaves dangerously along the line between sniper sharp-shooting and sniping foot-shooting.

Looking around, I see that other readers have made similar observations. Cristiano Rastelli's review notes that everyone else he has spoken to about the book thought it was bullshit and simply stopped reading.

But I liked it despite its flaws. As a collection of practical, cynical, and even pathological heuristics it's a useful reminder of the power systems to do their own thing, to be realistic about the extent to which we can influence them, and to note again that all complex systems run broken:

IF IT DOESN’T FAIL HERE, IT WILL FAIL THERE (1562-1563)

I've pulled out a few quotes on topics that speak to my experience, including:

  • iterate systems into existence
  • seek the minimum necessary process
  • restrict only what must be restricted
  • align with natural tendencies if you can
  • make small changes where possible
  • pause to observe the effects of changes, emergent and intended, local and remote
  • remain humble about what you understand and the extent to which you understand it

--00-- 

Systemantics ... is almost a form of Guerilla Theater. It is the collection of pragmatic insights snatched from painful contact with the burning issues and ongoing problems of the day. (463-464)

NEW SYSTEMS MEAN NEW PROBLEMS (504-505)

COMPLEX SYSTEMS EXHIBIT UNEXPECTED BEHAVIOR (631-632)

Most people would like to think of themselves as anticipating all contingencies. (652-653)

A LARGE SYSTEM, PRODUCED BY EXPANDING THE DIMENSIONS OF A SMALLER SYSTEM, DOES NOT BEHAVE LIKE THE SMALLER SYSTEM (686-688)

SYSTEMS TEND TO OPPOSE THEIR OWN PROPER FUNCTIONS (703-704)

THE GHOST OF THE OLD SYSTEM CONTINUES TO HAUNT THE NEW (847-848)

In general, the larger and more complex the System, the less the resemblance between a particular function and the name it bears. (886-887)

THE SYSTEM ITSELF DOES NOT DO WHAT IT SAYS IT IS DOING (902-903)

A SYSTEM IS NO BETTER THAN ITS SENSORY ORGANS (1011-1012)

THE BIGGER THE SYSTEM, THE NARROWER AND MORE SPECIALIZED THE INTERFACE WITH INDIVIDUALS (1033-1035)

THE END RESULT OF EXTREME COMPETITION IS BIZARRENESS (1199-1200)

BIG SYSTEMS EITHER WORK ON THEIR OWN OR THEY DON’T. IF THEY DON’T, YOU CAN’T MAKE THEM (1257-1258)

Even today, the futility of Pushing On The System is widely unappreciated. (1273-1274)

THE MODE OF FAILURE OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM CANNOT ORDINARILY BE DETERMINED FROM ITS STRUCTURE (1472-1473)

The problem of evaluating “success” or “failure” as applied to large Systems is compounded by the difficulty of finding proper criteria for such evaluation. (1366-1367)

The idea that Bugs will disappear as components become increasingly reliable is, of course, merely wishful thinking. (1557-1557)

ONE DOES NOT KNOW ALL THE EXPECTED EFFECTS OF KNOWN BUGS (1587-1589)

NEW STRUCTURE IMPLIES NEW FUNCTIONS (1645-1646)

The designers had built a machine with that capability, but they knew not what they had wrought. . . until Experience demonstrated it to them. (1642-1644)

AS SYSTEMS GROW IN SIZE AND COMPLEXITY, THEY TEND TO LOSE BASIC FUNCTIONS (1663-1664)

THE MEANING OF A COMMUNICATION IS THE BEHAVIOR THAT RESULTS (1879-1880)

We must not assume that a message sent will automatically go to a central Thinking Brain, there to be intelligently processed, routed to the appropriate sub-centers, and responded to. (1992-1994)

The student proficient in the Creative Tack asks such questions as: What can I do right now and succeed at it? For which problem do my current resources promise an elegant solution? (2170-2172)

DO IT WITHOUT A NEW SYSTEM IF YOU CAN (2186-2186)

AVOID UNNECESSARY SYSTEMS (SYSTEMS SHOULD NOT BE MULTIPLIED UNNECESSARILY) (2187-2189)

LOOSE SYSTEMS LAST LONGER AND FUNCTION BETTER (2264-2265)

A System represents someone’s solution to a Problem. The System itself does not solve Problems. Yet, whenever a particular problem is puzzling enough to be considered a Capital-P Problem, people rush in to design Systems which, they hope, will solve that Problem. (2521-2525)

How many features of the present System, and at what level, are to be corrected at once? If more than three, the plan is grandiose and will fail. (2584-2586)

IF IT’S WORTH DOING AT ALL, IT’S WORTH DOING POORLY (2603-2604)

IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE, AN INTERVENTION MUST INTRODUCE A CHANGE AT THE CORRECT LOGICAL LEVEL (2689-2690)

It seems clear enough that changing actors does not improve the dialogue of a play, nor can it influence the outcome. Punishing the actors is equally ineffective. Control of such matters lies at the level of the script, not at the level of the actors. In general, and as a minimal requirement: (2686-2689)

Exploratory behavior constitutes a series of probes, each of which elicits a piece of behavior from the System. The accumulation of those pieces of behavior allows the rat (or person) eventually to obtain a perspective as to the range of behaviors the System is capable of exhibiting in response to typical probing behaviors. (2714-2716)

ALWAYS ACT SO AS TO INCREASE YOUR OPTIONS (2724-2724)

THE SYSTEM IS ALTERED BY THE PROBE USED TO TEST IT [...] THE PROBE IS ALTERED ALSO (2774-2775)

All reference locations are from the Kindle edition.
Image: Wikipedia

Comments

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

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

Testing and Words

  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 The Complete Plain Words , Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that: What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas. It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged. We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons . The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse. But lexic

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a