Skip to main content

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 TwitterLinkedInSlack, 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?


"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 experience, it comes when someone has latched onto automating test cases because (a) they've heard of it, (b) test cases are countable, and (c) they have been tasked with providing a management-acceptable figure for the "Testing" value in a Powerpoint deck of several hundred slides mailed monthly to a large number of people who will not look at it. 

If that sounds cynical ... well, I suppose it is. But any cynicism over this particular measure doesn't mean I'm not interested in understanding your need and trying to help you get something that fulfils it. Can we talk about what you're after and why?

We can? Great!

I'll start. Some of the issues I have with the question as it stands are:

  • it seems to be perceived a measure of our testing
  • such a number would say nothing about the value of the testing done
  • the definition of a test case is moot
  • ... and, whatever they are, test cases are only a part of our testing
  • there's an implicit assumption that more automation is better
  • ... but automation comes with its own risks
  • ... and, whatever automation means, automated test cases are only a part of our test automation

If I look at how we test, and what we might call test cases, I can think of three ways I could answer your question right now:

  1. We don't have test cases in the sense I think the question intends. All of our ongoing testing is exploratory and, while we might document the results of the testing with automation, there is no sense in which a manual or scripted test case existed and was then automated. We score 0%.
  2. For the purposes of this exercise, I would be prepared to describe each assertion in our regression test suites a test case. As they would be our only test cases, all of them are automated. 100%!
  3. OK, we do have some items in a test case management system. These are historical release-time checks that (mostly) people outside the test team run through before we ship. I like to think of them more as checklists or jumping off points, but I'm realistic and know that some of my colleagues simply want to follow steps. Relative to the number of "automated test cases" there are few of them but if we include them in our calculation we'd bring the score down to, say, 99%.

Those answers don't seem very satisfactory to either of us do they? 

To me, at very best, this kind of metric covers a small slice of what we do and the assumptions underlying it are very questionable. To you, the metric matters less than some plausible number representing how well the testing is going to include in that monster Powerpoint deck.

I have some thoughts on that too:

  • testing, for me, is knowledge work and so notoriously hard to measure in simple numbers
  • testing does not exist in isolation from other product development activities
  • good testing can be done without the creation of artefacts such as test cases
  • metrics imposed without conversation and justification are likely to be viewed with suspicion
  • metrics are likely to be gamed when (perceived to be) used as a target, or to judge
  • starting with a list of artifacts (test cases, bug tickets, etc) is cart-before-horse
  • ... it's much better to ask first what you want to measure and why

So, for example, is the desire to measure customer satisfaction with the product? Is it to measure the testing contribution to that? Is it to see where time is being spent on certain kinds of activities that the business wants to stop? Is it to look for bottlenecks? Or something else?

If we do agree some kind of metrics, how can we reassure testers that they are not being judged, and that they should not pervert their working practices just to make the numbers look good?

We'll need something more than glib words.  Imagine you were told your performance would be judged on how many emails you sent. How would you react? Would you scoff at it but send more emails anyway? Would you send emails instead of having conversations? Would you care about the potential detrimental effects to you, others, the business? How could someone convince you to behave differently?

Finally, is there a real desire from you to look into sensible metrics with good intent and to act on the findings?

If so, then I will do all that I can to assist in getting something that is justifiable, that has explicit caveats, that is equitable, that is transparent, that acknowledges the messiness involved in its collection, that can be derived efficiently from data that we have, that sits within agreed error margins, and that reflects the work we're doing.

If not, then I'll ask you what kind of number will pass the cursory level of inspection that we both know it will receive, and I'll simply give you that: let's say 69.3%, OK?


  1. [[Pingback]]
    This article was curated as a part of 25th Issue of Software Testing Notes Newsletter.

  2. Very good points and eloquently communicated message.


Post a Comment

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

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

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

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