I have a concern. We online testers have one thing in common: we care enough about our craft to take the time and read these blogs. That’s all very fine. However most testers, and this is based on my perception not research, most testers do not read blogs, or articles, or books or go to conferences, to workshops or follow a course. Well some of those testers do, but only when they think their (future) employer wants them to. And when they do they go out for a certificate that proofs they did so.
Becoming a tester
Regardless of where we start our carreer, be it in software engineering, on the business side or somewhere else, most testers start out with some kind of introductory test training. In the Netherlands, where I live, most of the time that means you’re getting a TMap, or sometimes an ISTQB training. And my presumption is that you get a similar message on what testing is everywhere:
- Establishing or updating a test plan
- Writing test cases (design; procedures; scripts; situation-action-expected result)
- Define test conditions (functions; features; quality attributes; elements)
- Define exit criteria (generic and specific conditions, agreed with stakeholders, to know when to stop testing)
- Test execution (running a test to produce actual result; test log; defect administration)
But there are likely to be exceptions. For instance at the Florida Institute of Technology where Cem Kaner teaches testing.
Granted neither TMap nor ISTQB limit testing solely to this. For instance TMap starts of by defining testing as: “Activities to determine one or more attributes of a product, process or service” and up to here all goes well, but then they add “according to a specified procedure”. And there is where things start to go wrong. In essence the TMaps of the world hold the key to start you testing software seriously. But instead of handing you down the knowledge and guide you to gather your own experiences they supply you with fixed roadmaps, procedures, process steps and artifacts. All of which are obviously easy to use for reproduction in a certification exam. And even this still could still be, as these methods so often promote, a good starting point to move on and develop your skills. Unfortunately for most newbies all support and coaching stops once they passed the exam. Sometimes even facing discouragement to look beyond what they have learned.
To make matters worse the continuing stance to make testing a serious profession has brought line managers, project managers, other team roles and customers the message that these procedures, processes and artifacts not only matter, but they are what testing is about. These items (supposedly) show the progress, result and quality of testing being undertaken. Line and process managers find it easy to accept these procedures, processes and artifacts as measurement items as they are similar to what they use themselves according to their standards. So if the measurements show that progress is being made and that all artifacts have been delivered they are pleased with the knowledge that testing is completed. Customers or end users go along in this but face limits in their belief of these measurements as they actually experience the end product. Like testers they are more aware that testing is never really ended and about the actual information about the product and not about testing artifacts.
New methods and approaches such as agile testing have brought the development roles closer together and have created a better understanding for the need and content of testing to both the team and the stakeholders. Other approaches, like context driven testing, focus more on enhancing the intellectually based craftsmanship of testing, emphasizing the need for effective and efficient communication, the influence of context on all of this and that software development is aimed at solving something. And thus the aim of testing is shifting from checking and finding defects to supplying information about the product. Regardless of this however and inspite of how much I adhere to these approaches I think they have a similar flaw as the traditional approaches. Like TMap or ISTQB neither of them go outside of their testing container enough to change the management and customer perception. They still let management measure testing by the same old standards of counting artifacts and looking at the calendar.
I think we as a profession should seek ways of changing the value of testing to our stakeholders. To make them understand that testing is not about the process or procedure by which it is executed nor about its artifacts, but about the information and value to achieve business goals it supplies.
I myself cannot give you a pret-a-porter solution so I challenge you, my peers, to discuss with me if you agree on this vision and if you do to form a new approach for this together. I will gladly facilitate such a discussion and deliver its (intermediate) results to a workshop or conference at some point.