Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Software Quality Assurance Engineer... Happiest job?!?

If you haven't seen this article, you want to read it:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/secrets-toyour-success/happiest-jobs-america-173044519.html

About half way down it says:
The happiest job of all isn't kindergarten teacher or dentist. It's software quality assurance engineer. Professionals with this job title are typically involved in the entire software development process to ensure the quality of the final product. This can include processes such as requirements gathering and documentation, source code control, code review, change management, configuration management, release management, and the actual testing of the software, explains Matt Miller, chief technology officer at CareerBliss.
With an index score of 4.24, software quality assurance engineers said they are more than satisfied with the people they work with and the company they work for. They're also fairly content with their daily tasks and bosses.

These professionals "typically make between $85,000 and $100,000 a year in salary and are the gatekeepers for releasing high quality software products," Miller says. Organizations generally will not allow software to be released until it has been fully tested and approved by their software quality assurance group, he adds.
So I have a bunch of comments:
  1. I guess I don't know what a "Software Quality Assurance Engineer" is -- or this Matt Miler guy doesn't. 
  2. *If* anyone "ensures the quality of the final product" in software, it's a PM or higher.
  3. I don't think I've met anyone with that title who smiled and told me how much they love their job.
  4. I'm certain I've never met someone with that title that makes that much money. 
  5. I think I'd rather shoot myself in the head than have those tasks... even at such a generous salary.
I could go on, but I'll stop.  I want to see these questions, & I want to know the demographics of the people surveyed, & I want to see the titles actually reported by respondents that got rolled up under "Software Quality Assurance Engineer." I'd also like to have a word or 73 with this Matt Miller dude... CTO to CTO, 'cause lets face it, we all know that testers wouldn't be caught dead bragging about how *happy* their job makes them, or how *satisfying* it is. Testers tend to love the act of testing, but not their jobs, or their bosses, or their companies -- and if this ain't referring to testers, I wanna know why these process people are apparently so happy about being forced to do the actual testing on top of their "real" job.


Feel free to share your thoughts, but this strikes me as "not *even* wrong" to a degree that I can't seem to even reverse-engineer a single measurement dysfunction that could account for all the ways in which this article strikes me as "just not right".

 
--
Scott Barber
Chief Technologist, PerfTestPlus, Inc.
Director, Computer Measurement Group
About.me

Co-Author, Performance Testing Guidance for Web Applications
Author, Web Load Testing for Dummies
Contributing Author, Beautiful Testing, and How To Reduce the Cost of Testing

"If you can see it in your mind...
     you will find it in your life."

Friday, March 23, 2012

Trust is a Cornerstone to Delivering Business Value

In my last post about Metrics I introduced the notion of trust as it relates to Business Value by stating:
"Failing to trust 'the Business' does NOT add Business Value"
I'd like to generalize that statement further to say "A lack of trust that individuals or groups involved in the project are primarily focused on helping the business succeed undermines business value".

Now, I can only imagine the reaction many testers are having while reading this. For instance "If I trust the developer when they say 'This is fine, you don't need to test it', we'll have major bugs make it to production." And anyone thinking that would be absolutely right -- because that is not the *kind* of trust I'm talking about.

When I say trust, I don't mean "Trust others to tell you how to do your job" or "Trust others to do what you believe is correct/best" or even "Trust others to be successful in accomplishing what they have been assigned to accomplish on time, on mission, on quality, and on budget"

When I say trust, I mean "Trust others to approach their role with integrity" and "Trust that others are doing the best they can to make the decisions or take the actions appropriate to their role and responsibilities based on the information they have" and "Trust that if you haven't been assigned to do or to be the decision maker about something, that task or decision is better handled by someone else -- whether or not *you* have the information necessary to make sense out of why.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Business Value of (Software Test) Metrics

I was *totally* in the middle of another blog post when I came across the latest from Cem Kaner on context-driven-testing.com and after reading it, I (cognitively speaking) had no choice, but to save that other post as a draft and write this one -- and by that I mean, there's no way I was going to be able to focus on anything else until I got this down and out.

So, click the link below and read the post... no seriously, it's required reading for what I have to say. (Ok, if you want you can start at the line prior to the 2 bullet points about half-way down the screen -- the backstory is optional reading)

Metrics, Ethics, & Context-Driven Testing (Part 2)

Did you read it? No? I mean it. Go. Read. I'll wait.

Monday, March 19, 2012

10 Take Aways from STP Summit on Agile Transitions

I had the pleasure of hosting the fourth Online Summit, delivered by Software Test Professionals: Agile Transitions.  The online summit format consists of 3 sessions each for 3 consecutive days.  The sessions for this summit were:
One of my duties as host was to try to summarize the most valuable nuggets of information from across all of the presentations into a "top take aways" list.  This is what I came up with:

Scott's Top 10 Take Aways from:

Friday, March 16, 2012

Business Value of Testing: Find Bugs ≠ Mission

My introduction to software testing was as a performance tester. Before the completion of my first project, I had a firm understanding of the primary mission of performance testing. That understanding has changed very little to this day, though I have improved how I communicate that mission. Currently, I phrase the (generic) primary mission of performance testing as:
"To find how many, how fast, how much and for how long; to assist business w/ related technical and/or business decisions and/or; to support related improvement activities as prioritized by the business."
That certainly doesn't mean that all performance testing efforts include every aspect of that mission, but I'm hard pressed to imagine something that I'd call performance testing that includes none of the aspects of that mission. It is also true that I have experienced all manner of secondary missions as part of a performance testing effort (missions related to fail-over, and denial of service attack security, for example). Those combinations, permutations, variations and additions are all where context comes into play.

However; when I was first asked to help out with some functional testing, I quickly realized that I didn't really know what was expected of me, so I asked. As you might imagine, folks looked at me like I'd grown a second head... a green one... with scales and horns. After about the 4th time I asked the question, got a funny look, watched as it became clear I was serious and received some variant of the answer:
"Find bugs"

Monday, March 12, 2012

Processing may take up to 60 seconds?!?






Seriously?!? This was a simple ccard transaction for a storage unit! Admittedly, it only took about 20 seconds, but it was still long enough for me to push the button, read the text, exclaim "You've *GOT* to be *KIDDING* me!!", my 12 y/o son to ask "What?", me to respond "60 seconds to process a payment on line, " him to reply "That's stupid", me to launch snipping tool & grab a capture before it processed my payment.

Grrr.... Hey, I've got an idea, why don't they give me a unit free for the next 10 years in exchange for 25 hrs of performance testing/tuning (and that would *still* be less than my typical bill rate) so that other folks don't have to deal with this crap.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Context-Driven Testing Crossroads: Addendum

I guess I wasn't as done talking about this as I thought. Earlier today, I posted the following comment (except with a few extra typos that I chose to fix below) on Tim Western's blog in response to his post Is the Context Driven School of Testing - Dead?:
"A point that I think many miss is that this is not just about individual testers.

50 years ago (more or less) testING began fighting a rather arduous battle to establish an identity separate from developMENT. This, eventually, led to testERS establishing an identity separate from developERS.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

A Context-Driven Approach to Delivering Business Value

This is Part IV in a series of entries inspired by the following quote from the "about page" of context-driven-testing.com hosted by Cem Kaner:
"...However, over the past 11 years, the founders have gone our separate ways. We have developed distinctly different visions. If there ever was one context-driven school, there is not one now..."
And James Bach's blog update (Context-Driven Testing at a Crossroads):
"I’m the last of the founders of the Context-Driven School, as such, who remain true to the original vision. I will bear its torch along with any fellow travelers who wish to pursue a similar program."
If you haven't done so already, I recommend starting with:


So far I've established that I'm a Context-Driven guy. For completeness, I should also share that I'm a guy who is most comfortable operating as part of a healthy team that embraces Agile principles, but who recognizes that Agile is not the most appropriate or effective answer for all organizations, teams, or situations.

I've also noted that I find the notion of "product" in both Context-Driven and Agile principles to be too subtle of a reference to the fact that the propensity of software is developed in a business context for my tastes. This is mostly due to many, many personal observations of individuals involved in the process of developing and delivering software emphasizing some aspect of the software over business value -- from individuals who self-identify as Context-Driven, Agile or neither.

The reality that I have lived in since beginning my career as a technologist is that, business is the primary context-driver behind the development of the propensity of software and that money is the primary context-driver behind business (yes, I know, that's a broad generalization, with somewhat ambiguous qualifiers -- I'm going to ask you trust that I'm happy to support and specify that statement if needed, but for the time being, please accept the premise... at least while reading the remainder of this post.)

2 Cents on Ethics

I really had no plan to chime in on the blog conversation between Michael Bolton and Cem Kaner, but after the amount of time I've spent today having email discussions with folks who (apparently) were interested in my 2 cents, I've decided to go ahead and share. I feel it important to point out that as I have spoken to neither of them regarding this conversation, I most certainly don't want to give the impression that I am speaking for either of them.

(As a side note, I'm seriously beginning to wonder if I shouldn't just add a "Notes and Disclaimers" box to my blog... then again, that would be about the same as prefacing all my notes and disclaimers with "Allow me to provide some context" -- which would seem rather redundant coming from me. {grin})

Anyway, it would seem that it all started with Michael's post Why Pass vs. Fail Rates Are Unethical (Test Reporting Part 1) that, if not inspired, certainly contributed to Cem's post Contexts differ: Recognizing the difference between wrong and Wrong which, unsurprisingly, triggered the following post by Michael I Might Be Wrong (But Not For Me)

Ok, all caught up? Good. Lemme share what I think might be happening here and while I'm at it share my model for approaching ethics-related situations in business environments (testing or otherwise).

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Context-Driven School (of thought): "I'm not dead yet... I feel happy!"

This is Part III in a series of entries related to the following quote from the "about page" of context-driven-testing.com hosted by Cem Kaner:
"...However, over the past 11 years, the founders have gone our separate ways. We have developed distinctly different visions. If there ever was one context-driven school, there is not one now..."
If you haven't done so already, I recommend starting with:


Ok, so maybe not "happy" but I couldn't resist the Monty Python reference.

James Bach stated on his latest blog update (Context-Driven Testing at a Crossroads):
"I’m the last of the founders of the Context-Driven School, as such, who remain true to the original vision. I will bear its torch along with any fellow travelers who wish to pursue a similar program."

Thursday, March 1, 2012

With the Context-Driven School "closed" what's next?

This is Part II in a series of entries related to the following quote from the "about page" of context-driven-testing.com hosted by Cem Kaner:

"...However, over the past 11 years, the founders have gone our separate ways. We have developed distinctly different visions. If there ever was one context-driven school, there is not one now..."
If you haven't done so already, I recommend starting with Part I: Is Testing Dead? Dunno, but the Context-Driven School Is


Much like when one completes an educational program at one institution and ponders whether or not to enroll in another program (and if so, which one), or to enter the workforce and continue their learning along the professional development or self-education path, I think it's fair for those who have come to self-identify as members of the Context-Driven School to be asking themselves similar questions.

And much like completing an educational program does not equate to losing the lessons learned (as opposed to the lesson's taught) in the program, the Context-Driven Principles and the lessons many of us have learned by studying in (or, for that matter, rebelling against) the Context-Driven School remain despite Cem's announcement that (in my words) the school is now closed.