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

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 answ...

How do I Test AI?

Recently a few people have asked me how I test AI. I'm happy to share my experiences, but I frame the question more broadly, perhaps something like this: what kinds of things do I consider when testing systems with artificial intelligence components . I freestyled liberally the first time I answered but when the question came up again I thought I'd write a few bullets to help me remember key things. This post is the latest iteration of that list. Caveats: I'm not an expert; what you see below is a reminder of things to pick up on during conversations so it's quite minimal; it's also messy; it's absolutely not a guide or a set of best practices; each point should be applied in context; the categories are very rough; it's certainly not complete. Also note that I work with teams who really know what they're doing on the domain, tech, and medical safety fronts and some of the things listed here are things they'd typically do some or all of. Testing ...

The Best Programmer Dan Knows

I was pairing with my friend Vernon at work last week, on a tool I've been developing. He was smiling broadly as I talked him through what I'd done because we've been here before. The tool facilitates a task that's time-consuming, inefficient, error-prone, tiresome, and important to get right. Vern knows that those kinds of factors trigger me to change or build something, and that's why he was struggling not to laugh out loud. He held himself together and asked a bunch of sensible questions about the need, the desired outcome, and the approach I'd taken. Then he mentioned a talk by Daniel Terhorst-North, called The Best Programmer I Know, and said that much of it paralleled what he sees me doing. It was my turn to laugh then, because I am not a good programmer, and I thought he knew that already. What I do accept, though, is that I am focussed on the value that programs can give, and getting some of that value as early as possible. He sent me a link to the ta...

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...

Reasonable Doubt

In Your job is to deliver code you have proven to work Simon Willison writes: As software engineers we ... need to deliver code that works — and we need to include proof that it works as well. He is coming at this from the perspective of LLM-assisted coding, but most of what he says applies in general. I think this is a reasonable consise summary of his requirements for developers: Manual happy paths: get the system into an initial state, exercise the code, check that it has the desired effect on the state. Manual edge cases: no advice given, just a note that skill here is a sign of a senior engineer. Automated tests: should demonstrate the change like Manual happy paths but also fail if the change is reverted. He notes that, even though LLM tooling can write automated tests, it's humans who are accountable for the code and it's on us to "include evidence that it works as it should." Coincidentally, just the week before I read his post I told one of my...

On Herding Cats

Last night I was at the Cambridge Tester meetup for a workshop on leadership. It was a two-parter with Drew Pontikis facilitating conversation about workplace scenarios followed by an AMA with a group of experienced managers. I can't come to work this week, my cat died. Drew opened by asking us what our first thoughts would be as managers on seeing that sentence. Naturally, sadness and sympathy, followed by a week ? for a cat ? and I only got a day for my gran! Then practicalities such as maybe there's company policy that covers that , and then the acknowledgement that it's contextual: perhaps this was a long-time emotional support animal . Having established that management decisions are a mixture of emotion, logic, and contingency Drew noted that most of us don't get training in management or leadership then split us into small groups and confronted us with three situations to talk through: Setting personal development goals for others. Dropping a clange...

Great Shot, Kid

This week I've been playing with altwalker , a model-based testing tool. To get the hang of it, I attempted to build a very simple model of a workflow that is supported by the service my team owns. Hacking away at the example code, and looking frequently at the docs, I was able to get up and running in a few hours, creating: a basic model: nodes for system states, edges for operations simple assertions: mainly consistency checks on the states client: HTTP client to implement the operations against the service's API I configured this so that altwalker will perform a random walk of the model, starting state data is randomised, and the client will choose randomly whenever offered an option. Why so much randomness? Because it means that, over successive runs, more of the infinite space of possible workflow executions will be covered. Once I had that basically working I wrote a shell script that would run this loop a number of times: call altwalker ...

Bottom-up or Top-down?

The theme at LLEWT this year was Rules and constraints to ensure better quality. My experience report concerned a team I'd been on for several years which developed (bottom-up) a set of working practices that we called team agreements. The agreements survived "natural" variation such as people leaving and joining and even some structural reorganisation which preserved most of the team members but changed the team's responsibilities or merged in a few people from a disbanded team. The agreements did not, however, persist through a significant round of (top-down) redundancies where the team was merged with two others. I'm interested in thinking about the ways in which constraints on how people work affect the work and whether there are patterns that could help us to apply the right kinds of constraints at times they are likely to be useful. I'm going to use this post to dump my thoughts. My starting po...

LLEWT 2024

This weekend I was at LLEWT 2024, a peer conference on Anglesey , north Wales, discussing communication. Given the day jobs of the participants, it was no surprise that the experience reports and the conversations that followed them mostly focussed on software development contexts. Notes from my presentation are in Express, Listen, and Field . I made sketchnotes (below) for each presentation and a mindmap (above) to try to summarise the whole. Without much reflection yet, I guess I would pull these common high-level threads from the day: There are multiple reasons that communication fails ... like, duh! ... but having multiple strategies for framing a message can help ... and having multiple tactics for delivering a message can help too. Understanding what you want from an interaction is key ... so setting the context to make that more likely is wise ... which might mean meta-conversation, being transparent, or changing your approach...

My Adidas

If you've met me anywhere outside of a wedding or funeral, a snowy day, or a muddy field in the last 20 years you'll have seen me in Adidas Superstar trainers. But why? This post is for April Cools' Club . --00-- I'm the butt of many jokes in our house, but not having a good memory features prominently amongst them. See also being bald ("do you need a hat, Dad?"), wearing jeans that have elastane in them (they're very comfy but "oh look, he's got the jeggings on again!"), and finding joy in contorted puns ("no-one's laughing except you, you know that, right?") Which is why it's interesting that I have a very strong, if admittedly not complete, memory of the first time I heard Run DMC. Raising Hell , their third album, was released in the UK in May 1986 and I bought it pretty much immediately after hearing it on the evening show on Radio 1, probably presented by Janice Long, ...

Hiccupps

Search This Blog