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.

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).

10 Things About Testing That Should Die

I've taken some heat for discussing the whole "is test dead" concept due to a feeling that I was validating the concept of testing being unnecessary. Allow me to clarify my position. I do not believe, for one heartbeat, that testing as an activity is in any way unnecessary. I do believe that there are things related to the current state of and common beliefs about testing that should die. With that said...

Scott Barber's Top 10 Things About Testing That Should Die: 

10. Egocentricity

Face reality testers, neither the product nor the business revolve around you. Think about it. No business, no product, no developers => no need for testers. In fact, if developers wrote perfect code, there'd be no need for you. You are a service provider and your primary clients are the managers, developers, and/or executives. Your secondary clients are product users and investors. So stop whining and stomping your feet when your clients don't make decisions you like with the information you provide. It's not your call. If you want it to be your call, get on track to become a project manager, product manager, or executive, otherwise, get right with the fact that you provide a service (hopefully a valuable one) and get back to providing it.

On the Alleged Death of Testing

Out of respect for your time, I'll give you the bottom line up front as a simulated interview that I privately hoped for, but never came. After the mock interview is a supporting narrative for those of you more interested in my thinking on the matter.

Q: There's been a lot of talk recently about testing being dead, so my first question is testing dead?
A: No.

Q: Some of those talking about the alleged death of testing are saying that it's not that testing as a whole is dead, but that testing as it is commonly understood today dead. Is it?
A: No.

Q: Ok, so is testing as it is commonly understood today dying?
A: Not that I can see.

Q: Then why all the talk about testing "as we know it" being dead?
A: IMHO? Wishful thinking.

Please, no new "certifications"

I just saw an advertisement for this Building a Certification Testing Program - Cutting through the hype to see how it really works on LinkedIn, and I couldn't stop myself from adding the following comment:

Please make it stop. We don't need more "certification" programs -- not unless you are going to be the first organization that allows itself to be held legally and financially accountable when people you "certify" can't do what you "certified" they can.

Otherwise, conduct all the training you want. Assess student performance if you want. Only "pass" students who "pass" the assessment if you want.

Just do us all a favor and *STOP* calling it certification until you are willing to do things like:

• reimburse hiring expenses to employers who hire folks you certified as being able to X who can't X
• implement periodic re-assessment to enforce some bar of continued knowledge/skill/ability over time
• implement some way to revoke certifications of folks who fail to demonstrate knowledge/skill/ability in the workforce

The list goes on, but I know it's pointless. The certification machine will continue no matter how loudly, or how frequently I point out the ways in which it is frequently (at least arguably) unethical and fraudulent - at least in "testerland."

Seriously, this drives me insane.  Others can make stands about content, assessment methods, etc. -- I have my opinions on those things, but honestly that part of the topic bores me.  People decide what university to attend, what to major in, what electives to take, etc. for their degree programs ... they can decide on whether or not the content of some professional development program (with or without "certification" program) is worth their effort.  What I want to see is the "certifying bodies" being held accountable for complying with the claims they make about the individuals they "certify."

I mean, seriously, have any of you seen any data that you'd consider either statistically significant, empirical (vs. anecdotal), or free enough from obvious experimental design flaws to support the claims we see from "certifying bodies"?  If you have, please share the data with me and I'll list it in line -- unless of course, it's flawed, in which case, I'd be happy to point out how and why the data doesn't support the conclusion.

Otherwise, please, please, please don't engage in creating more of these things.  Please.

--
Scott Barber
Chief Technologist, PerfTestPlus, Inc.
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."

Is Junosphere the world's first cloud testing environment? Not really - IT in Context

Is Junosphere the world's first cloud testing environment? Not really - IT in Context

I don't get too irked by companies coining new phrases to make subtle marketing distinctions in services, but when they do it so they can make first/best claims flips my bozo bit. Seriously, if your service is so bland or weak that you need to invent a new term so you can claim that it's the "best the best thing called blah" without being called out for fraud, maybe you should just improve your service.

--
Scott Barber
Chief Technologist, PerfTestPlus, Inc.
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."