Old Northwest to the Pacific Northwest: At PNSQC, Part 1

I live in Michigan.

Michigan is one of the states made up of what was once called the Northwest Territory.  Well, yeah, this was back in the late 1780s an early 1790s, but no matter.  If you are an American and ever took an American History class, you may possibly remember something about the Northwest Ordinance.

Brief History Lesson

What I remembered from my history courses was how it divided up the territory into grid-like sections and mapped out some basic boundaries and things of that ilk.  It did things like establish baselines where survey measurements were to be taken from and mandated that there would be schools available and whatnot.  Its kind of a blur, but that's OK.

I came across some thing in Gordon Wood's massive book Empire of Liberty which covers US history from 1789 to 1815.  It is part of the Oxford History of the United States and comes in with a mere 738 pages, not counting the index and bibliographic essay.  Wood put forth that the Northwest Ordinance was the single most important piece of legislation passed by Congress before the adoption of the Constitution. It defined a process for how territories could eventually join the Union as full-fledged States.

It is kind of a daunting idea when one thinks of it. 

How do you make a plan for bettering society when you know that most of the people who will benefit will be living their lives long after you are dead and gone and most likely forgotten?  

For example - who accepted the legislation for the Northwest Ordinance that was passed into law?  The President, of course.  But George Washington was not yet President.  So, the President of Congress was the one who signed the law and he was, ummm, ah, hmmm. Yeah. That guy.

These were among my thoughts and I boarded a plane and flew West to Portland a couple of weeks ago for the 30th Annual Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference - PNSQC.

The Beginning

I had been contacted about being an invited speaker for the conference and joining my colleague and sometime partner-in-crime Matt Heusser in presenting a full-day workshop as part of the conference.  This was kind of a big deal for me.  While a regional conference, I looked over the list of previous invited speakers and workshop hosts and thought "Whoa.  Those are some huge shoes to fill.  What can I bring that will be on a similar level of what those folks have done?"

I admit, I had a brief moment of questioning myself.  Well, not so brief.  It kind of kept coming back.  I had a couple of ideas on topics to present - other than the workshop that is.  I drew on some thoughts of what I could address to the theme of Engineering Quality, and considered where the ideas led me.  So I submitted two proposals and essentially said "Pick one."

This resulted in some delightful emails and discussions. It seems one of my submissions had a similar title to the proposed keynote being given by Dale Emery.  It may have been fun, but alas, I reconsidered the topic and we agreed on the second one - on User Experience as a model for test development.

My Approach

People who have heard me present at the local meetup or conferences or company lunch and learn type things  know that I tend to avoid the "All your problems will be solved if you do ."  Partly this is because I never believe people when they tell the stuff like that.  

They can give examples of how they did and were successful, but I tend to think "Great. That is one or two times. How many times have you done this?  Total?"  

The result is I tend to prefer presenting around times that were a total train-wreck (do software long enough and you have a lot of those examples), what I learned from that and how I would (and sometimes did) do things differently the next go-round for that software.  I also try and talk about how I've applied those lessons more broadly beyond that, looking for truths I can carry with me, possibly as models for heuristics. 

Then I try and encourage discussion - get people in the room involved.  Why do I do that?  Because sometimes they have great insights from their own experience.  Sometimes they have comment or thoughts or observations that leave me gobsmacked. 

What I Learned

I sometimes have my doubts with that approach, particularly when I'm presenting at a conference or meeting or whatever, I have never presented at before.  I have memories of sessions that were themselves train-wrecks.  The anticipated "discussion" never happened - or was a total of two or three comments.

People did not want to discuss.  They wanted a lecture.  They wanted a power-point slide deck with answers, not with things that made them think things.  They wanted the spoken words to match the words on the slide deck and they wanted them to reaffirm their beliefs.

(Yo.  If that is the case, do you really want to go to a session where the word "discussion" appears at least twice in the abstract?)

I was assured that people would be willing to discuss pretty much anything during the conference sessions.  So, I took a deep breath and planned the session around that.

Ya know, when you get a bunch of people together who are smart and passionate about what they do, sometimes all you need to do to get them going is say something and then ask "What do you think?"  Then look out - they will most likely tell you.

The sessions I attended, where conversation/questions-and-answers were part of the plan were quite enjoyable.  There was a fair amount of good discussion that continued into the hallway.  Other sessions were more conventional - presentations, lecture, a few questions and answers.  Generally, these were informative and well presented.

Overall - I had a marvelous experience.  I learned a lot and met some astounding people.  I'll describe that more in another post. 

On Value, Part 4: Testers Rising to the Challenge

This is the fourth  post which resulted from a simple question my lady-wfe asked at a local tester meeting recently.

This blog post described problems with value in testing.  The second blog post looked squarely at perceptions of testers as unskilled, non-knowledge workers and the lack of response from a large number of testers.  The third post looked more closely at the source of such perceptions on testers being unskilled, non-knowledge.  This post is a discussion of what testers can do in response to such perceptions.

How many people do we know who collect a paycheck for "testing software" who can not be bothered to do any more than their collective bosses tell them?

Story 1

I know one manager who is active in the community who went so far as to offer for pay for his team to go to any conference or training event they wanted to go to.  He offered to pay for AST's BBST courses (which absolutely rock, by the way).  He offered to send them individually where ever they wanted to go to learn, confer, whatever.  Not one person expressed any interest.

That is a problem.

Story 2 - one of my own

I remember one team I worked with.  I asked them what defects were being reported by customers of the software.  They responded with a long list of "Well, there's this and this and this and that and then this weird thing and..."  I asked if maybe we needed to reconsider how we tested.  UNIVERSAL RESPONSE:  "Why would we do that?  They are using the software wrong.  If they used the software right, they would not have those problems."

Story 3 - another one of my own

I remember another team I worked with.  That team, on the first day I was there, not just the boss, but the TEAM said "We have a problem with our testing.  We're doing the best we know to do and we catch a lot of stuff but there are still defects getting through and being found by customers.  If you have any ideas on how we can test better, let's talk about them."

Guess which team was a lot more fun to work with?  Guess which team saw broader product examination and evaluation?

These teams demonstrate precisely what I see as the problem with the majority of people in software testing today, and as long as I have been involved in software.  One group wants to learn more, does not know where to begin and dives in headfirst to learn.

The other group is perfectly justified in their minds that they need to change nothing.  The boss they had 3 bosses ago said "Just do it like this."  They do.  Now, several years on, they have not changed.  They added more people to do more of the same.

A Problem

In the stories above, the folks in story 1 demonstrated precisely one aspect of the problem.  The folks in story 2 demonstrated another.  The third group was the antithesis of both - and a hopeful sign.

While many people in many lines of work expect nothing more than they are given, in training, understanding, pay or ambition, others expect to be told precisely where they fit.  Anyone looking to develop them as craftsmen was a threat - upsetting the status quo is a, well, problem.

People want to walk in 2 minutes before starting time, do their thing and go home.  Ideally, they don't want to think about anything work related until its time to walk in the office door the next morning.

Fine.  I can really empathize with that.

I'm not talking about thinking about your job I'm talking about your profession - your chosen trade and craft.  Alas, it seems some folks don't think that way.

Upshot of That Problem

If you or people you know are in that camp, I fear you might want to look for another line of work.  I might suggest you look for a line of work that requires you to not do outside study, on your own, at your own expense.  Off the top of my head, I suggest you not look at these lines of work, all of which require you to do precisely that, if you wish to become good:

• Teaching (anything at any level);
• Law (anything related to law);
• Computer Software (that one is kind of obvious);
• Project Management (more than just software projects, lots of things need project managers);
• Accounting/Accountancy;
• Show Production (Music, Stage, Theater, Television, Motion Picture);
• Advertising;
• Distribution Center Management (that's how to run a warehouse);
• Commercial Truck Driving (or lorry driver);
• Commercial (other) Driver (bus, taxi, car-for-hire);
• Restaurant Manager/Owner (that one is really harder than most folks think);
• Chef (not a cook, but a proper Chef);
• Carpenter/Joiner;
• Construction Contractor/supervisor;

You get the idea.

Jobs that require you to do no development on your own are jobs that will go away - at least from you.  They may get sent to some other country where labor rates are lower - and low enough to off-set the cost of transporting the components or finished product back to end-market areas.  OR it will go away because a machine will do it instead of a human person.

We're big on buggy-whip analogies when we want to make a point about people not keeping up with changing times.  Well folks, Swiss Watches fell into the same boat as buggy-whips.  Not anachronistic, just too expensive and a function that can be done by a commodity item, instead of the product of an artist.

As I See It...

You can make all the cases you want about what value testing bring to a software organization.  You can talk about how your testing improves the quality of the software product.  You can talk about all this stuff.

It does not matter.

If someone or something can do the same thing you are doing, with about the same results, and it costs the organization less money, they will replace you.

Ask the thousands of manufacturing workers who lost their assembly-line jobs in the US starting, well, in the 1970's.  As the shipyard workers in Belfast and Glasgow in the 1950's and 60's.  Ask any of the miners anywhere, mining for anything, that have been displaced by machinery.

And that is the problem.

We, as a profession, have failed miserably in demonstrating that the Tayloristic management theory does not apply to software development - which includes testing.  

Why is this?

We have failed to address the solidly formed and closely held management belief that repeated practices will ensure quality products.  Concepts developed for assembly-line workers, when applied to knowledge work, fail.  Full stop.

Why is that?


Because no human being thinks in a linear manner.  We simply are not built that way.  Knowledge work requires a level of cognitive insight and practical experience to draw on to inform that insight when it is being done well.

Having everyone think about a problem in the same, precise, linear way is only possible if everyone involved has the same experiences, understanding, thought processes an bias. 

Introduce one variable that is different and the wheels fall off.  The model fails.

Addressing the Problem

After great thought, many conversations, and now at least four blog posts mapping my consideration of my lady-wife's question, what has been determined?

OK - I've edited this 4 times.  This is take #6.  And its also the most polite.

The simple fact is, we're pretty clueless when it comes to what testing is, how it is done and why we do it.  A fundamental failure.  The vast majority of people involved in software simply don't get it.  This is true of many people who are supposedly professional testers, their bosses, their bosses bosses, project managers, subject matter experts, developers and - anyone who works with them.

Testers MUST educate themselves.  If they rely on the company they work for, that will be a mistake.  They don't get it either.  They THINK they do, and they usually don't. 

I can give my definition for testing.  Some of you may say "Ah! He has clearly been influenced by the work of ... a bunch of people."  Some of you may say "Pete, you're wrong and here's why..."  Others might just say "Meh, whatever." 

That's fine.  But talk about it.  You don't need to agree with everything I say or what someone else says.  You do need to think.  Then you need to communicate.  Then you need to think some more.

Find many, many sources of information - then share them with others.   Talk about them - agree, disagree, whatever.  Share ideas and learn.

When we as testers limit what we do by some narrow definition or purpose, every project, every time, what are we really doing is boxing testing into a corner. 

When we do that, we limit what testing is.

When we do THAT we fail to be true knowledge workers.  We fail to think fully, and we walk right into the self-fulfilling prophesy that started this series.  Testing is treated as a commodity.  Many testers have been participants in that disservice.

When we fail to to broaden ourselves, we limit ourselves. 

Broadening Testing

We must broaden ourselves, our profession, our views, our colleagues views, our employers views.  We must engage directly in combating the "just test this" mindset.  We must confront the "anyone can do this attitude" that is so pervasive in so many circles.

If you are reading this, thank you.  I believe that the this is a start.  Reading blogs, papers, articles and anything where people are sharing ideas and thoughts around software testing is a start. 

Then write your own.  Spread the word.  Don't care if you are not an expert.  I'm not an expert.  Most folks I know are not experts.  Some people THINK those folks are experts or authorities, and they simply don't consider themselves as experts. 

They do care about what they do.

You can to.

That makes you an expert. 

If you have a blog on testing, please leave a comment below with how we can find it. Thanks.

On Missing the Mark or What Bagpipe Bands Taught Me About Software Testing

For the third year in a row, I am not where I spent some 30 Memorial Day Weekends.  The Alma Highland Festival is a two day affair on the campus of Alma College, in, Alma, Michigan.  At one point in my life, I took the Friday before off from work, loaded my kilt, drum(s), coolers of adult beverages, anda small cooler of fruit and sandwich makings into the car and drove the 90 minutes or so that it took to get there.  I'd then camp out in the parking lot until we could get into the digs that would be ours until Sunday evening.

There is a two-day pipe band contest, one Saturday and one Sunday.  At one point they had enough bands to stretch from end-zone to end-zone on the football field, with bands lined up every 5 yards or so.  This year they have some 25 or 30, divided into 5 "grades" or levels of experience and expertise.  . 

I got an excited text message yesterday from a band I have been helping out by teaching their drummers once a month or so this last year.  They had played really well and were looking forward to hearing the results at the end of the day.  There were a total of 10 bands in the grade they were competing in and they hoped for a good placement, at least in drumming, if not overall.

A few hours later, I got a very sad text message.  "What do I know?" wrote the sender.  "We ended 9th drums. I thought we did better."

I have a response that has become almost "canned" I have used it so often with so many beginning bands.  It goes something like this:

I would not be surprised that you played well.  You have been working really hard and the improvement shows.  What we don't know is how hard the other bands have been working.  Since it is hard to listen objectively while playing yourself, then comparing yourself to every other band, how do you know you did not do the absolute best you could?  Even if you did, how do you know that the other bands did not do the same?  What if their "best" was simply better than your best for the day?  If you were pleased with how you played, accept that as part of the reward for the hard work.  Recognize that the real point is to improve your level of play and be able to know you gave nothing away for the other bands to capitalize on, and beat you.  If they outdrummed you today, congratulate them, have and {adult beverage} with them and a laugh or two, then work all the harder to get ready for the next contest.

It is a model I've used for years, with every level of band I've played with or worked with from the absolute beginners to Grade 2 - one step away from the god-like heights of Grade 1, the top of the field.  Sometimes, it is hard, other times, it makes things a bit easier to take.  A fair number of times, it is also true.

What does this have to do with software testing?

It is reasonably related - No matter how hard you try and no matter how carefully you work, you will not find every defect in the system.  Full Stop.

No software tester or test team can find every defect.  That is a simple fact.  Some folks feel devastated when a defect "gets away" and is found by the customer or users.  What information did you miss that lead to you not exercising the exact scenario?  Was there any reason to suspect you should exercise that exact sceanrio?  If the choice was to exercise that scenario and not others, what would be the impact of doing so?  What bugs might have been released instead of the one that was?  How can you know?

Contrary to those who cite "defect free" as the target of good testing, you can not possibly exercise every scenario, every combination of environment and every combination of variables to cover everything.

Learn from the defects that get through, examine your presumptions then see if, given what you know now, and the results of the decisions made, would you have made the same decisions you did about testing?  Can you apply these lessons in future projects?  If so, have a nice cold {adult beverage} and move on.

When the results are less than optimal in pipe bands or testing, if you learned something apply that and move on.  Berating yourself or your fellows does no good.

On Managers and Mothers and Bush Trimmers

As I'm writing this, it is the evening of Mother's Day in the US.  Because the weather was lovely, much time was spent in the garden this weekend mowing the lawn, trimming bushes, preparing the vegetable garden for the summer. I then took my lady-wife and mother to dinner where we had a lovely meal with nice conversation, a very drinkable bottle of wine and cannoli for the mothers in the party.

It has been a remarkable spring. 

The apple blossoms are done - no surprise there.  This is fairly normal for us.  The pear blossoms are done.  This is unusual.  Lilacs are done - not terribly unusual.  The tree peony are done.  Tulips are done - again not that unusual as they often are.  Its a little odd that the late blooming variety are done as well, but, that is not far from the realm of possibility.  Let's see.  Hmmm.  Oh yeah, iris are in bloom and there are peony ready to bloom.  Those two are unusual for mid-May in Michigan.  July is closer to the expected.

Oh, the stuff that is done?  They all bloomed within a few days of each other.  By mid-April.  That is not only unusual.  It is remarkably unusual.

Right then.  What does this have to do with anything?

On Shrubbery

Well, a few years ago, some friends were over visiting a day or so after I had trimmed the bushes in front of the house.  He (Dan, the male in this married couple, and father of a bright boy, married to the boy's mother)  made a comment, asked a question really, "Who trimmed the bushes?  They look very... zen."

I had.  I tend to do that a couple of times a year, three depending on the particular year and how much the bushes have grown.  You see, left to their own devices, shrubs - there are a couple of good-sized arbor vitae, a healthy juniper and a couple of others that I have no idea what they are.  The thing is, when it comes to trimming bushes, shrubs whatever, some of them can be trimmed into shapes really easily and will do quite well.  Others will struggle, sicken and eventually die.

As a shrub grows,and is untended for some time, it will do what ever it pleases.  It will stretch for light and water and... right you get the idea.  The thing is, if the thing is left alone, it will grow quite... big,  These were quite large the first time I tried to prune them.  How do you prune something that is probably larger than most people have them, and still allow them to be healthy and thrive whilst doing what they are supposed to do?

How does one get the most out of anything, help it develop to its full potential and achieve the goals one sets for it?

Well, with bushes, its pretty easy.  You can trim the recent growth, prune the large branches that are sticking up and neaten up the edges.  Maybe give it a nice round shape.  The thing is, from this point you can direct its growth from this point by trimming given branches one way or another - yet always allowing the bush to be a bush. 

So, this got me thinking.  It is, after all, Mother's Day.  Never having been one you see, how does a Mother guide her children in their development, growth, etc.?  I have my ideas, but, like I said, I'm not a mother - grandpa, yes, dad - well, I've played one now for an awful lot of years.  But, how does one teach young people to grow into, well, mature, positive people?

On Mothers

How does a good mother raise children?  Well, I can talk from observation of how the lady-wife and my mother tried - they focused on getting the best from their kids all the time, encouraging them to try things, if they wanted, and sticking through the commitment after starting.  Backing out after starting when things are hard or unpleasant or, boring, was discouraged.  Firm, yet loving might be a good short description.

My siblings and their spouses are using (or have used) this general approach with their kids.  Other folks we know are trying as well. Finding the balance is a challenge.  Learning what will motivate people and what gets them all excited can be a challenge - as any mother (or dad) with more than one child.  The fact is, one-size-fits-all style approaches simply do not work for raising kids - or bushes for that matter.

Some folks tell us that mothers always will do the right thing for their children.  Maybe in a movie.  I don't know.  There are plenty of examples of mothers who did a terrible job and were amazingly horrible at being mothers.  Let's face it - some people are not cut out to be mothers.  (Same with fathers, but my mind was wandering around on mothers today.)  They may want to be mothers, or think they do, but really, they have not considered what it means to be a mother at all, how much work it is and how long that work will continue.

The lady-wife tells people that becoming a mother is a life-changing event that will continue for the rest of their lives.  Once they become a mother, as long as they are alive they will be a mother.  Its a pity that some who chose to do so are not very good mothers.  I think sometimes people forget what their role is.

This got me thinking.

On Managers

Why do some managers try the one-size-fits-all when it comes to career-development, professional-development and generally assisting their staff to improve and grow?  Why do some people believe that the motivational devices that work for one or two people will work for everyone?  Yes, I know - it is up to the employee to seek out and strengthen their career - it is their career after all.  Still, managers can encourage them and show support to them for learning more and broadening their skill-sets, even if it includes learning concepts that may not be directly applicable to what they are doing right now.   After all, the way technology changes, what is to prevent them from learning something that will be helpful to them, the team and the broader company on the next project or a future project? 

Compared to mothers, managers have it easy.  They can become an "un-manager" by changing jobs, quitting, retiring, getting fired... lots of ways.  I wonder if people who want to be managers before they actually are managers would still want to be a manager after they learn the  reality of how much work it is.  Then again, if becoming an un-manager was as difficult as becoming an un-mother after being a mother (or a manager) I wonder if that would change how badly people want to be managers.  

Still, we have our own bias, don't we?  A fair number of people presume that because they wanted to become a lead and then a manager and then some higher level of boss, that the really good testers want to do the same.  Possibly the really not-so-good testers do as well.  I suspect this is because we see this path (novice >  experienced > really experienced > lead > manager > bigger manager > knight > Earl > King) as the only way to measure success.  Because "moving up" in the organization is what we are told is what we want to do - and some people really DO want to move up - then that is what everyone wants to do, right?

Or are biases and personal views getting in the way.  Mom wanted to take ballet when she was a little girl so darn it, her daughters will take ballet.  They only THINK they want to do soccer or karate.  But that can't be part of the one-size-fits-all thing right?  I wanted to be a manager so Joe must want to be a manager too!  I'll get him going and he can move up instead of being just a tester.  That is not part of the one-size-fits-all thing either.  Right?

So, Managers and Mothers - consider what it is that you want for your people - either staff or children.  Is that what you want or is that what they want?  We can't always get everything we want - I know - there's a song about that, right?

The question boils down to this - are we trying to shape out children and our staff in a way that they can be shaped or are we trying to force them into something they can not be?   Shaping and pruning them to enhance their growth will result in an amazing thing of beauty - a well-formed person.  If we force things they can not support, there is a chance they will wither and never achieve the potential that is theirs.

To all the good mothers in the world, I salute you.  Likewise all the good managers.

Bushes, shrubs and hedges?  My hedge clippers and pruning shears are cleaned and sharpened for the next time I need them. 

On Learning and Learning and, well, Learning

The last few weeks I have had the honour of being an assistant instructor for the current Foundations course in the AST's Black Box Software Testing (BBST) course. 

Going in, I was a little nervous.  Partly, I think, because I had agreed to be a "contingency instructor" for the course.  That is, should one of the other instructors not be able to, well, instruct, I'd step in.  Well, that happened.  On top of that, the day-job is going nuts and I'm way behind on other writing (which is why I'm taking a minute to write a quick blog entry - don't tell anyone.)

Oh, I have presentations and a paper to prepare and.. well, never mind.

Some 20+ students dove in, and the instructors dove in with them.  And the fun began.  Really.

Exercises and reading and lectures and learning and group exercises and... thinking.  Lots of thinking.  And learning.  When I took the course it was like trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant.  Massive amounts of information and ideas and, well, huge learning.

You know what I've learned as an instructor?  Lots.  Huge learning.  Massive amounts.  I half expected this from teaching drumming and drumming workshops, but, whoa. 

So, we are about to start the final lesson, then the exam. hooo-boy.

What have I learned most?  If you want to really learn something, try explaining it to someone else.

Janus Part 2: Looking Ahead 2012

Last year was really incredibly busy for me.  Work stuff happened that was crazy hectic, then the "speaker" thing moved from 1st to 2nd gear. Then the broader community expanded a bit more - or maybe my awareness of it did.  The local testing group moved from "once in a while" to "monthly meetings".

What am I looking forward to in 2012?  That is an interesting question.

Personal/Professional Development

This is something that is kind of included in the following areas.  There is much I want to learn and much I want to participate in - to help learn and see how things work in the world and not just in the theory/idea stage.  Broadly, I want to "engage closer" in the local test community, the broader community of thinking testers, a variety of projects and meetups and... life.

So, a little more detail...

Projects, Writing, Work.

The day-job is the day-job.  Yeah, there will be some interesting projects there, including a cool mobile device project.  The projects I mean here are some interesting side-projects - things with other people.  There are some cool initiatives with Matt Heusser that are interesting.  Matt is a bundle of energy with lots of ideas.  I'm flying as his wing-man on some items coming up (more on that as they get closer on the horizon.)

I'm looking into doing more writing.  Writing is cool.  It is work I can do anywhere and still have some semblance of a home life.  Its funny - the more you write on a topic, the more you find there is to learn about on the same topic.  So, if I can continue the process of writing/learning/sharing - so much the better.  There are some magazines I've decided I want to approach about article submission - and follow-up on some contacts from late in 2011.  Look for more on this in the near future.

This past August, I expressed an interest in getting more involved in the EdSIG - Education Special Interest Group of the Association for Software Testing.  Aside from a few emails, I've been really lax in that.  I want to change that this year.  I'd like to become more involved with, and as a result learn more about, training software testers - helping them learn and think and grow as craftsmen.

Two interesting factors here - First is the announced Test Coach Camp the weekend before CAST - the Conference for the Association of Software Testing.  This year's conference theme is The Thinking Tester - its going to be cool.  The Coach Camp though is a new addition and it looks fantastic - a peer conference to talk about improving how we coach testers.  I'm excited about that.

The second interesting factor is I volunteered to be a "contingency" instructor (I kind of missed the rush of people signing up to be "assistant" instructors because I let non-work email slip a bit while wrapping a project) for the BBST Foundations Course this March.  I don't know if it will balance out, but I'm looking forward to it. 

Community

Aside from the education and learning stuff, there are other aspects I'm looking forward to engaging (OK, note, don't try and write something after watching "Office Space" and trying to sound "professional").  The local tester group is up and running - next meeting is in two weeks and on a topic that should bring about good discussion - we're talking metrics.  Oh yeah, pass the popcorn. 

Toward the end of 2011, I began attempting to be more helpful in online forums - I'm afraid some folks consider my approach "annoying" - others seem to realize I'm asking questions to help me form an answer, and will "play along". 

There are, of course, a pile of conferences out there - the mentioned CAST conference in July.  STPCon Spring, I'm afraid I can't make work, but there are other possibilities out there.  It will be a busy, fantastic year that way, I think.

Cool People

There are many folks out there that I spend time with as much as I can.  There are others that, if I can, I want to spend more time with, learning from, learning with, sharing ideas and getting a clue.  Now, some are broadly spread - over North America, Europe, some in India... So, kind of a "I'd like to and I'm not sure I can make it work, but I want to" list. 

In generally alphabetical order, people I really want to find a way to hang with and learn from this year...

Perze Ababa   Ajay Balamurugadas   Bernie Berger   Paul Carvalho  
Salena Delesie   Markus Gaertner    Paul Holland     Phil Kirkham  
Micahel Larsen   Darren McMillan   Catherine Powell   Mark Tomlinson
And of course, the folks I enjoy learning from already, although meetings are sometimes few and far between, and often only by Skype - Fiona Charles, Michael Bolton, James & Jon Bach, Griffin Jones, Nancy Kelln, Lanette Creamer, Matt Heusser, Mel Bugai, Lynn McKee... and all the rest.

For all you have done to help me learn, thank you.  I look forward to learning with you all this year.

Janus Part 1: Looking Back 2011

One of the benefits of taking four years of Latin is that you pick up all kinds of interesting things that many other folks may miss.  Then again, an awful lot of people don't worry too much that "i.e." is an abbreviation of "id est" or, "that is".  Just like "etc." is an abbreviation of "et cetera"  - even though they may even SAY et cetera, I wonder how many know what it means?  I'm mean enough to not say here, and say "look it up" - unless you remember your Latin as well.

Janus, for whom the month of January is named, looked both forward and back.  That is a bit of what I want to do with this post and the next.  The post I wrote last night was a precursor to these couple of posts, partly because the things described yesterday laid the foundation for this past year and the year to come.

What I wrote January 1, 2011:

The Road Ahead...

The interesting thing is I've been thinking about the future. Well, not THE future, but what lay ahead for me professionally and how that may impact the family. It would seem there are several items that are possibilities for the coming year. One path would be to look for new work opportunities, either as a contract/consultant or as a full time, permanent employee. Yeah, as if "permanent" means much.

A bunch of folks commented privately, "Dude, pretty gutsy to say you'll be looking for work when you're still employed."  What I could not say then, was that in December, the entire staff of the company I worked for was told, in essence, that the company leadership was negotiating the sale of the company.  We did not know to which other company, nor what the terms would be.  Many of us speculated that the only reason we were told at that point, was because they needed us to sign releases of our stock options in case the sale closed before the end of the year. 

It was not a bold move to make such a prediction - I simply knew there was a likelihood that I'd be looking for work. When one company assimilates, well, acquires, another company, "long term employment" prospects for the staff of the acquired company are not terribly high.

As it was, I was not let go.  I was retained.  One colleague resigned after accepting a new position.  His last day, we had a farewell luncheon for him.  By the end of the next day, myself and another tester were all that remained of  our team.  One other person, a developer, had been transferred from the development staff to testing.  although others on the team

We are continuing, and moving forward.

Community

Another option is to become more involved in the testing community. Actually, I started working on that as well in 2010. What I mean is that reading blogs other folks write is a good way to learn what they're thinking is. Reading and participating in on-line forums is another way to both learn and become involved. Well, doing that as much as I can right now.

Of course, more actively engaging in both of these types of activities is on my list of things to do this coming year. Ya know, the funny thing is, the more I talk with folks about things I learn and have learned, the more I learn myself.

This continues.  I've been writing.  Alot.  STP Magazine and TechTarget's SearchSoftwareQuality both have run articles I've written.   my  more in my blog, and more engaged in forums than ever before. 

I expect this to continue and grow in the coming year.  That would be way cool.
 

Local Testing Groups

Another thing, the local testing group, GR Testers, has been going in fits and starts for a while. Meetings have been sparse of late. The most recent one, December, was kind of fun. There were a bunch of us sitting around a table, lots of wings, good beer and folks talking about testing. Good way to spend an evening. There's another meeting coming up Monday, 3 January. It makes it the first time in quite a while that there were back to back monthly meetings. Normally, they are officially held every other month. It seems that as more people are showing an interest, the meeting frequency will pick up.

I wonder how many other local testing groups are out there that have a meeting schedule based on "whenever" instead of "We meet at this time, and here are the next couple of topics we're focusing on at these meetings..." I believe that the more people know about local groups, the more they are invited to participate and the more information that is available about them, the more active and the stonger the community there is.

I think that pretty well sums up what I'm looking to do with the local group. I believe that getting more people involved and talking about testing is vital to improving not only our individual tradecraft, but the abilities of the local community. Sharing well reasoned ideas can do nothing but good, presuming all are allowed to learn and ask questions

The GR Testers, the local testing group, is up and running strong. The group has met monthly since that January post.  I've made it to most of the meetings. The ones I missed, I was out of town, usually at a conference. Cool.

Personal Development

Now, I realize that any of the above activities can lead to improving any individual participating. What I mean here is something a bit more. I had been signed up for the BBST Foundations course offered by the Association for Software Testing for a session in in the fall of 2010. Things happened and that session was cancelled. I could not take the session offered as an alternative.

The GOOD news, for me, is I am signed up to take the Foundations course this spring. YEAH! I am really looking forward to this. Everyone I know who took the course raves about it. Big-time excited.

I've continued reading blogs and articles and books and talking with people and... everything else. My goal is to continue learning and to continue to share what I learn.

For conferences, I'll be attending and presenting at STPCon in March in Nashville. I bought myself a birthday present and renewed my AST membership in October. If I can work it out, I'll be attending CAST in August in Seatle.

This happened beyond my wildest dreams.  I took and passed the BBST Foundations course.  Then, even though the schedule did not permit me to take the Bug Advocacy course - that is on the list for next year for me.  I also took the Instructor's Course from AST.  We'll see how the schedule works out this coming year.

Conferences.  I presented at STPCon (Spring) in Nashville.  I gave a joint presentation with my (then) boss, Kristin Dukic, as well as a presentation and lightning talk on my own.  I then was flattered, and honored, to attend and participate in CAST.   With Matt Heusser, I helped organize the Emerging Topics track, where a self-organized group selected topics submitted via a wiki - then ran for 20 minutes, every 25 minutes.  It was astounding.

After CAST, I had the opportunity to present at STPCon Fall in Dallas.  Matt Heusser and I did a day-long workshop (excerpts are on the Software Test Professionals site, under Podcasts) - then a joint track session on "Complete Testing".  THAT was a lot of fun. I also presented a track session on my own as well as a lightning talk.  Matt just gave a keynote.

Then since I was not busy enough, I presented at TesTrek in Toronto in November. 

Whew.

Other Stuff

Scads of people have encouraged me this year.  Among them, Matt Heusser, who put me in contact with the folks at TechTarget, and made the case that he could not do Emerging Topics at CAST on his own - which is how I got in.  Cool, heh?  THEN - Matt had so much fun with that, he asked if I'd be interested in doing a joint workshop in Dallas.  Oh yeah.  The interesting thing is that he's really a nice guy - as the folks who know him will attest. 

Also - Fiona Charles is supportive and encouraging.  She is really an amazing person who is willing to offer suggestions and ideas on how to improve articles, presentations, whatever.  She also is way cool.  She was one of the very first people that I consider a "Name" in testing, to ask for comments on a paper - the list me in the acknowledgements.  Humbling. 

Catherine Powell whom I met in person at STPCon in Nashville always has encouragement and good suggestions.  Michael Larson is a great guy.  He's got a great outlook on life and testing.  His blog is inspiring.  Doug Hoffman was the Head Instructor for the BBST Foundations course.  What a smart guy.  Nice as the day is long.  We had several very nice chats both at CAST or at STPCon Fall.  If you get a chance to see him present - DO.  Cem Kaner - yes DOCTOR Kaner - the drive behind the BBST Courses.  An ongoing inspiration.

There are more - Michael Bolton, Lynn McKee, Griffin Jones, Nancy Kelln, and many more.  These are the people I look to for inspiration and mental reinvigoration.

And of course, my lady-wife, Connie. 

I do not know what the future will bring.  I will discuss what I hope for the future in the next post. 

Rising From the Ashes or Finding Motivation in Disaster

This has been an interesting year.  There have been many fantastic things happen this year that at times it seemed like I was an observer, and not the one participating.  I've presented at more conferences this year than I attended any year before this.  People write emails asking questions, looking for insight or help with a sticky problem, as if I'm an expert. 

I've written before about not feeling like an expert.  This is not about that. 

While preparing for STPCon this past October I had an interesting in a couple of thoughts.  While working on the presentation, and a couple of papers, I mentioned one of these thoughts to a fellow member of the GR Testers group.  We chatted (cyberly) for a moment on how failure can be a great motivator.  We talked about people who had overcome problems and adversity to rise to great things.

Of course, there are also many examples of people who break under adversity.

I don't know what the differences are in those scenarios.  I don't know why some people crumble, others recover and come back to where they were and others rise to greater success than they have ever known.  The last group, to me, resembles space capsules, like the old Apollo capsules, that would whip around the moon to accelerate even faster than they were going.  Yeah, in Star Trek Kirk did the same thing with the Enterprise around the Sun.  Cool, no?

The second group, I kind of think of as being a bit like a rubber ball.  Not a fancy "Super Ball" that used to be sold with the assurance that it would bounce higher than where it was dropped from (and rarely did as far as I know) but a plain bouncing ball.  Comes back to where it was, but somehow not quite the same.

The first group, like I said.  I don't know why people fail to recover.  The just don't for a variety of reasons. 

Me.  Hah.  I was moving up.  I had left one company where I was simply unhappy, and joined another company as a Test Lead.  There were "issues" there.  I was hired to improve testing and change the way testing was being done.  Well, things were not working out.  I had a series of "those meetings" and the last one was handing me a package and me walking out the door.  (I'll be happy to give more details over adult beverages sometime, if you really want to know.)

So, I went home, popped in a video, cracked an adult beverage and said "What happens next?" 

Short term, I knew what had to happen - I needed to get ready to teach drum lessons that evening.  So, I had a single beer, watched a movie, fried some bacon and eggs and felt sorry for myself for 3 hours.  Then I made a strong pot of tea because I had work to do. 

I made a list of what I was good at and what I was not good at (no PC here, not right then.)  I went through the list of what I was good at that and highlighted those I liked to do and those I wanted to get better at doing. 

I then went through the list of what I was not good at. I split that list into "so what?", "consider improving" and "fix it".  I then considered a list of things I had read about and had done very little with or knew very little about.  I also made a list of things I knew nothing about, but I'd seen mentioned in articles and blog posts and said "this might be worth looking into." 

I then went on and read what I could, learned what I could and did some serious soul-searching on what I really wanted to do.  I then looked at how I would fix the stuff I really needed to fix.  This was hard - really, really hard.

This led me to the next step - Updating the resume, looking at what I wanted to do and where I wanted to do it.  I knew that (at the time) West Michigan was not a hot-bed for top-flite testing jobs, project management jobs and my development experience was not in technology that was in demand.  On top of that, the economy was beginning its downward slide.  So, I figured it would be a good likelihood that I would need to relocate. 

I looked and I looked... and I looked some more.  One month, I applied to 158 jobs. All over the US, Scotland, Ireland and Australia.

I learned a lot.  I've been applying those lessons ever since.

First - Be involved.  Online, locally, within the company, within the team.  Look for ways to learn and improve.  If someone looks for advice, guidance or a sympathetic ear - do what you can.  If something sounds familiar to a situation you were in, talk with them about your experience.

Second - Share.  Now, in some ways, this is similar to the first lesson.  Write.  Blogs, forum posts, responses to posts or online articles.

Third - Learn.  Keep learning, keep reading, keep thinking.

Four - Dare.

Five - Repeat.

Four years ago, the foundations for these really, really simple ideas were where I started.  I landed a job after a stack of interviews.  Some I knew would not be a good fit.  Others, well, they decided it would not fit.  I was ok with that.  When I landed the gig I landed, I talked with people. I learned.  I learned their applications, their methods and their personalities.  I learned how they worked and did things. 

I shared ideas and experiences. I contributed when I could and asked questions when I did not understand. 

Then people began asking me questions - How can we learn more about... Have you ever run into...

As a result of one series of these conversations, I landed at TesTrek in Toronto, where I met Fiona Charles and Michael Bolton in person, for the first time.  I also met a whole slew of people I had never met before, Nancy Kelln, Lynn McKee and slew of other bright folks. 

That week in Toronto resulted in me getting more involved, helping revitalize/reinvigorate the GR Testers, then scrap my drumming blog and move to writing on testing.  That helped with presenting at conferences... and that led to, well, this most astounding year.

Where did this come from?  Getting fired.

You don't need to get fired/sacked/down-sized/happy-sized/whatever to do the same.  If you want to grow, then do it.  If you want to get involved, do it.

The fact is, doing these things may not make you a leader or a superstar or being called an expert.  But, if the world comes tumbling down around you, if you have been doing these things, others can step up and help.  If you have established connections and a reliable cadre of people, they can help just as you can help them.

Team Building Or Putting the Fun Back in Dysfunctional

We've all seen these annoying "team building exercises" where someone dreams up something "fun" that will help everyone "learn to work together." 

They can range from the "trust building" thing where one person, blind-folded, follows the directions of someone to get them to a goal.  Then there is the slightly more dangerous (hence fun to watch when things go pear-shaped... and they are almost certainly going to go pear-shaped) version where the blind-folded person crosses their arms and falls backward to be caught by another person. 

Now, upper body strength may play a role in the success of this version.  As does, well, paying attention and at least a rudimentary understanding of physics... and gravity.  Usually things combine into a series of "oh my" type moments.  Sometimes, well, they end with a little bump on the noggin.  (Once in a while its a big bump.)

Then there is the version of "ice-breaker/team-building" thing where two people sit on the ground, back to back with their arms linked.  Then, they work together to stand up.  The idea is they support each other while using their legs to stand up.  Things work just fine as long as both people apply equal pressure at the same rate.  If they don't, well one stands up and the other gets dragged along for the ride.  Or there's the fun alternative - where they mostly push against each other and end in a heap.

The thing is, most of these efforts strike me as artificial.  Translated, they may "work" in some form or other.  Most of the time, I see people l go through the motions because the boss told them to, or HR or, someone.  They don't see the point.

Sometimes , when teams are "created" or "formed" or "built" or, whatever, you see the same kind of exercises.  In these cases, they are even more artificial.  People will go through the motions because if they don't, they figure they'll be fired.  Fear is a great motivator, at least on some level.

What I don't understand is why so many people think it works. 

Its like, oh, I don't know, boss-types throw people together and expect it to work by magic.  Well, maybe not magic.  I think maybe they expect it to work like a high school chemistry "experiment."  You know the type - combine certain items in specific amounts in a specific sequence - POOF!  Stuff Happens!

Well - Humans don't act that way.  But, when you consider people as "resources" it strikes me as, well, demeaning at best.  So, why, when we expect/need people to work together, do we act as if it will just "work."

Most of us will try and work it out and do the "team" thing.  Its part of being a grown-up, mature, professional - right?  We kind of expect it - and they kind of expect us to do it.  So we do the whole storming-forming-norming thing and figure out what we need to do to do the job. 

Then, how many times have people seen this?

About the time we sort out how to tolerate each other and actually work and get stuff done - GOOD stuff, not just the bare minimum - someone waves a wand and reorganizes the company (or department or whatever) and expects things to work at the same peak performance as before the change.

Then there is the "optimizing resources" version of that.  Most of us have seen or heard of that version of the reorg game.

Someone looks at two departments or divisions or, for the "major league" players of that game, subsidiaries, and says "look at the cost savings we can get by combining X with Y!" 

There may be real savings, as in total net savings when the dust settles.  How long it takes the dust to settle is, in my mind, the question.  This is a variation on the "team building games" but instead of a handful of people, its a bunch of people who may very well know little or nothing about what the other people do. 

When this game gets played, I am afraid it is usually for a short-term gain - something to impact the financial statements this quarter or next quarter, with the promise of "real savings/benefits" five quarters in the future.

Then there is the really high-stakes version of the game: Borg, Inc assimilates Minuscule, Ltd.

Well, OK, that may be a slight overstatement.  And, to be fair, I've worked for companies playing both parts.  Still, for those in the company being acquired, the uncertainty of what is coming can be a bit unnerving.  When questions get asked up-stream in the new "organization" and there is no response, then a couple of messages are being sent:  1) We're too busy to respond to your meaningless request for information; 2) Your future is your own (and it probably won't be here). 

Now, those may not be what is intended to be sent, but usually that is what gets received by the "non-response."

What I see happen in those situations is a large-scale version of those team building exercise-games I was on about.  I usually see a mix that has some posturing, some maneuvering, some "hoping for the best" and some resigned to fate.  In the end, there may likely be "staff realignment" actions - meaning some folks get assigned to new groups and others get assigned to "pursuing new interests". 

And the game starts again.

So, the hard part is, how do you make that tolerable, if not palatable?  Can the people who are still there get by without gritting their teeth and going just a tad crazy?  Can the people making the decisions over what the teams, either reorganized or made from those who survived the staff reduction/realignment? 

Maybe, to both.

First, the players in the game - the rank and file folks like I have been for most of my working life - YOU are a crucial part of the mix.  YOU can directly impact how the game gets played.

Here are some thoughts around what I mean. 

People on other teams, groups, departments, whatever are probably not villains in their own mind.  They may well be trying their best in circumstances they find challenging, at the least.  They may very well see you as the villain.

How can you find out about that?  Can you see if they are really villains?  Can you see if they are as clueless as you have been told or come to believe? 

Maybe.  I can't be certain if you ever will.  However, if they work in the same building or general location as you do, try this simple thing:  Walk up and introduce yourself.  :"Hi I'm Pete (well, only say that if your name is "Pete" - try putting your name in there instead) I work in department X.  Can I join you?"

Talk with them.  See what makes them tick.  It may take many conversations, but it is worth a start.  After all, you may also be able to dispel the myth that you have horns, a tail and cloven hooves for feet. 

If they have a similar job function that you do, try talking with them about the problems they run into and how they get over/around them.  Oh, and be willing to share what you are encountering as well.  Make it a mutual learning experience. 

Pretty simple, eh?  I found it works pretty well.  Not all the time and not 100% - but generally, it helps people see that other folks are, well, people too.  It may also give you some insights as to why Tezm Z can't seem to turn out anything your team can work with.  And the folks on Team Z may find out that you don't really mean to be a butt-head.

Things kind of work both ways like that. 

Managers, Leaders, Bosses - you can play a role in this, too.  Before "realigning" groups, have a thought to what the people in those groups are good at.  Find strengths that complement other people's strengths.  Combine them when you can.

I know - most of you believe you are giving it your best effort.  A fair number of you do.

Others, admit it, if only to yourself, are looking to hit the target for head-count or "employee expense" (payroll) or "employee cost-reductions" (sacking high-paid folks) that you were told to hit.  Wel,, you, boss, or whoever set those targets, is a boss too.  Talk to them about this.  Try anyway.  Don't whine,

I call that the "penny-wise/pound-foolish" managenment style. Sure Jane makes a pile more money than these three people - what skills does she have, what knowledge does she have - do the others have those skills or knowledge?  Do they together?  What is the impact to the product (hence customers, hence sales, hence bottom line) if we sack her and leave them?  What if we sack her and one of the other three?

Of course its not easy.  Back when I was in school, the argument was that managers, directors and bosses were paid a pile more money than other folks because they could and would make "hard decisions."  HELLO!  That concept constitutes a "hard decision."  Going with the simple "she makes more than the others, get rid of her" is not a "hard decision."  If that is how you are operating, stop!  Really.

OK, now a scary point.  This is for line managers and staff - rank and file folks like me.

When you get "reorganized" you have an option.  Agree to the terms or pack it in and find another gig.  Simple.  "But the economy is bad!  Things are really tight!  I just did my nails!" 

It is your career and your life.  Manage it.  If you wait for other people to tell you what you can do, you may well be waiting a long time.  If you don't like the terms or what you'll be doing after the reorg, update the resume and get it on the street.  Sooner rather than later.  It weill be better for everyone.

Line managers and leads.  This is for you. 

Find out what your people like to do.  What makes them tick.  I know that you generally try.  The thing is, asking them flat out may be the least efficient way of finding out!  These are people who are testers, right? They analyze and think about things, right?  That means nothing is ever what it seems to them - RIGHT?  So don't be surprised if the answer they give to the question about what they like doing or what they want to be doing in X years/months/whatever, is what they think YOU want to hear and not what they really would answer if talking about this over a beverage with teammates.

Work with your people to learn what they are like.  I know, it can be really hard when you work hundreds (or more) of miles away from people who are supposed to be "direct reports".  Still, make the effort to learn them - not just about them, but learn what they are like, how they respond and how they handle different forms of pressure. 

I saw a really good example of this a couple of weeks ago.  Ironically enough it was at a "team building"exercise.  Some two dozen people were having an outing.  They all worked in the same office and "knew" each other enough to generally associate a face with the corresponding name - at least first name.  After lunch they had some games.

They were divided into two teams, very diplomatically.  They reached into a bag and pulled out a necklace of plastic beads.  Whatever color beads they pulled out, that was what team they were on.

The games they were to play were essentially children's games - some skill, some memory, some, a little of both.  OK, there were some basic rules - some games took 2 people from each team, some took 1.  No single person could play more than 2 games.  Everyone had to play at least 1 game.  After the teams were identified, they had 15 minutes to sort out who would do what games.

One team got together and debated on a name - what are they going to call themselves.  That took several minutes.  Then one person said "I'm really good at X and Y, but not so good at Z. So, I'll do X, I'll be the "partner" for Y, but (pointing at someone else) you do Z."  He then assigned other people to other games.  People just kind of blinked and did not really argue.

The other team took a different approach.  The first question was "Who is good at what games?"  Several people were good at multiple games, some were not sure, some said "Its been so long since I've done any of these, I just don't know."  So, they tried the games.  Yeah, they looked to see who was really the best players for each of the challenges. 

After finding people for the hardest "skill" games, they were sorting out who would do the memory games and who would be the second players on the mutliple player games.  The interesting thing was, those who had a game selected/assigned stayed by that game to make it easier for everyone else to see what games still needed people assigned to them. 

About this time, the FIRST team realized what they were doing and declated it "cheating".  Alas, it was time for the first challenge.  Team 1 had a hard time remembering who was to do that game/challenge.  They took a few minutes to get that sorted.  Then they decided that writing down who would do what was a good idea. so, they began writing things down.

After being trounced in the first game/challenge, Team 1 had, concerns over who was to do the second challenge.  It seems they had people assigned to three challenges and some people were not assigned to any.  One brave soul stepped up for the second challenge (a 1 player game) and was likewise trounced by the Team 2 player. 

This pattern continued.  In one memory game, Team 1 took advantage of a mistake by the Team 2 player and won that game.  In Jenga, Team 1 got very lucky when the Team 2 player bumped the table slightly when moving a pieve, sending the tower of blocks down.  These were the only 2 "wins:" Team 1 had. 

The other games all went to Team 2 - convincingly. 

How does this apply to real work?  I see an awful lot of knee-jerk reactions to situations - kind of like the Team 1 approach in general.  Don't do that if at all possible,  Really.

Find out what your people are good at, and find out what they like doing.  If at all possible, accomodate those skills and preferences.  If there are people who are willing to learn new skills, encourage them - let them practice the "game" the have an interest in.  Encourage others to practice "games" as well.  If there are skills that people don't have, and are needed to do what your group is assigned - ask the people who would be willing to learn the new skill - the new "game".  Give them the option first.

Encourage your people and encourage them to help and support each other,

The next time the "sides" get chosen for the next game, they may not end up in the same Team 1 or Team 2 that they were on this time.  Give them skills to move forward and make their new team better. 

Put the fun back in what we do.

Conference Attendence 201 - Learning While Confering, Continued

I've written on this idea before.  Here in fact.  Many other people have written passionately about it as well. As I am fresh from presenting at STPCon Fall 2011 in Dallas and am getting my notes and reviewing my presentation for TesTrek 2011 (http://www.qaitestrek.org/2011/)  in a couple weeks in Toronto, I wanted to take a moment and beat this drum one more time.

When you are at a conference, CONFER with people.  Talk with them, ask question.  Answer questions.  Express opinions.  Be open to learning.  If you disagree with someone, let them know politely - and why.  Maybe you are closer than you might realize and simply are stating the same thing different ways.

One really important point.

When the "official" sessions wind down and the "official" "networking opportunities" wrap up - look around for people just hanging from the conference.  Then ask if you can join them.  Ask what they do, where they do it, what they like about it.  You may well learn really valuable ideas you can take back to the boss.

If you see a group of people from the conference sitting in the hotel bar/lounge/whatever, a quick scan will give you some idea of the conversation(s) going on.  If it is vaguely related to software and/or testing, ASK IF YOU CAN JOIN THEM!

I know from my own experience, that if I have ANY energy left and no absolutely pressing duties elsewhere, I like to talk with other test professionals and learn.  Yeah.  I learn a lot just from talking with people.  This last conference, I had some fantastic conversations with Doug Hoffman, Fiona Charles, Tony Bruce, Scott Barber, Dawn Haynes, Lanette Creamer, Catherine Powell, Robert Walsh, Dani Almog... the list goes on - Those are the folks that popped into my mind immediately.  Testing Heavyweights all - and I gained insight, if not actionable information, from each conversation. 

So, I invite any TesTrek Symposium attendee.  If you see me sitting in a chair in the hallway sipping the web, or in the conference center lounge, please feel free to join me.  Really.  I like meeting people and sharing ideas, experiences and viewpoints. 

I'm there to learn, too.  Please help me learn.

Out of the Mouths of Babes or Testing Lessons from a Three Year Old

While recently in Seattle (spot the CAST reference!) my lady-wife and I had a little time for sight-seeing and visiting and what not.  A friend of the daughter and her husband live in the area with their two children, aged 9 months and 3 years.  So, on touching base to say "hello" we get invited over for an evening - and jump at the chance. 

We brought over a pecan pie fresh from a Cajun place down at Pioneer Sqaure, downtown (amazing food by the way - and the pie was straight from the oven) and a couple of bottles of wine and age appropriate presents for the two children.  While visiting with the daughter's friend and playing with the kids (waiting for her husband to come home) I found myself engaged in an informative mentoring session with the 3 year old - Aidan. 

Brilliant kid.  You can tell his parents are terribly bright and spend a ton of time with him.  

Now, most people with children, or have ever had dealings with children, will know that there is a key word in every 2 and 3 year old's vocabulary:  "Why?"

Well, not Aidan.  He looked right at us and asked "What happens?"  Well, sometimes he said "What happened?" but he did so in the right context. 

For example, a ballon popped "What happened?"  "Well, I think it bumped against a stick or a pricker in the grass and that popped the balloon."  (We were playing in the yard with a balloon.)  "What happens?"  "Well, sometimes if a balloon touches something sharp that can pop the balloon."  "Oh."

So then it was time for him to play with his hard-hat and be a builder.  "Can you build me a big building?"  "Yup." (he leaves then comes back)  "Is it done?"  "Yup"  "Great.  Can you build me a barn now?"  (he goes away and comes back.)  "Is it done?" "Yup."  "Great! Can you get some hay and straw and get a cow and a horse and some chickens for the barn?"  "What happens?"  "Well, then the animals can live in the nice bard you built."  "Oh.  What happens?"

About that time, Dad got home and Aidan went to go play with HIM until dinner was ready. 

The rest of the evening and on the drive back to the hotel, that stuck with me.  Not "Why" but the next best question a tester can ask:  "What happens?"

CAST 2011 Emerging Topics and Wrap Up of Thoughts

I started out looking at my previous several posts and realized how many times in each of them I used the work "amazing."  I promise I will do my best to not let my still spinning head succumb to such a word in this post.  The thing is, I find it really hard to NOT use that word when I've been inundated with intellectually stimulating ideas. 

Emerging Topics

After opening up to opportunity for anyone attending CAST to submit an idea to speak on, we then allowed anyone who was interested to comment, rank or otherwise ask questions around the proposals.  Matt Heusser and I reviewed these comments, rankings, questions (and their answers) to pull together a program from the ideas submitted.  Many of the proposals were from people who had not spoken at a conference before.  Personally, I found that exciting.  Why?

We were opening up venues for people to speak to one of the more challenging conference audiences I have ever encountered.  People who think, and who may not agree with some of your points, are not only encouraged to speak up and ask questions (or challenge the speakers) but are expected to do so. 

When Ben Yaroch let us know that there was a strong likelihood that we'd be able to stream the ET sessions live, that got me even more excited (yeah, right, as if I could get more excited.)  Adam the Volunteer (I never did get his last name) was a big help getting things going Monday afternoon.  That left me free to make sure the presenters were ready and we had their slide decks (presuming they had some) available.  Thanks Adam!  I do appreciate it. 

When Monday rolled around and we kicked off right after lunch, then the fun began.  The ensuing afternoon was much what I expected - a variety of speakers on a broad range of topics, all packed into 15 minute slots with 5 minutes saved for questions.  Some of the speakers were a little un-polished.  We did not care - It was the crisp thoughts they had (not crisp Powerpoint skills) we were interested in. 

Personally, I liked how many speakers used no slide decks at all, instead they focused on the flip chart in the room, using markers to interact with the people in the room.  Coolness - no Death by Powerpoint here!  :)

What was the best?  Hoo boy.  How do I choose? 

Michael Larsen gave an interesting presentation on EDGE (a cool Boy Scout acronym) and how that can be applied to testing.  Anna Royzman gave an experience report on how she got a mixed community of people to work together and apply exploratory approaches to improve UX and overall testing. Lanette Creamer gave a very very brave demonstration of testing on the fly around using tools everyone "knows" in new ways.  Neil Thompson and Felipe Knorr Kuhn both gave interesting talks (hard playing facilitator when the topics draw you in, not my most shining moment.)  Robert Berqvist gave an interesting comparison on the groove of music and the groove in testing  - yeah, drummers love that kind of stuff.  Ben Yaroch spoke to a packed room on leadership ideas drawn from the military, and how they can be applied to testing.  Finally, the most challenging presentation for the day was Geordie Keitt's presentation on "Complexity Quandary, or Why Certified Testers Continue to be in Demand."  This seemed almost tailor-made to draw on ideas in Michael Bolton's keynote, and to serve as a bridge between James Bach and Doug Hoffman's debate on the idea of Schools of testing being divisive.  We gave him a double long session (45 minutes) and the discussion went over that.  I was too busy moderating to tweet - great stuff though.

Tuesday, Eric Jacobsen kicked things off by talking about combatting Tester Fatigue (as I was still recovering from the flight and the excitement that comes from CAST, I thought it appropriate for me!)  Bill Matthews gave a good session on Myth Busting for Testers.  Frankly, I hated cutting both of them off when I did as I thought it was good stuff, and I only wish he had time for more.  Just before lunch, I gave a short version of "Messy Integration Testing" and how things that seem to be unrelated probably were not and needed to be considered in testing.  That was well received, I thought.  

After Lunch, Todd Mazierski gave a short overview of Sinatra.  This was followed by Geordie Keitt's All-Star Tester Revue (OK, I made that name up)  Geordie stood up and played guitar and sang songs around a testing theme (it helps when you write them!)  Then brought in a panel of Michael Bolton, Lanette Creamer, Dee Ann Pizzica who did some interesting improv comedy around a testing theme.  Capped off by Lanette singing a song, with Geordie backing her on guitar - and Geordie closing the session with another original composition.  What a great time.  Matt Heusser wrapped the ET track with a lesson in communicating with "Agilistas" drawn from his experience. 

We then turned the room over to Lightning talks - and I had the chance to go catch up with people. 

One of the people I kept running into during the conference was Adam Yuret.  No, not Adam the Volunteer mentioned before.  He and I have met cyberly for some time, banter on Twitter and various on-line forums.  All in all he's a good guy with ideas to consider. 

Keynotes 'N Stuff

I was looking forward to hearing Cem Kaner's keynote this year.  I missed him speaking last year as I was "otherwise engaged."  Unfortunately, he had to cancel and was not able to attend CAST, so the workshop he was scheduled to teach got shuffled, and Michael Bolton slid into the keynote spot where Cem was scheduled to speak.  Michael's keynote was astounding (avoiding the word "amazing" can ya tell?)  He covered things I have been trying to express for some time.  The minor issue encounterd, and gamely dealt with, was the projector simply did not work.  The result was Michael gave a very academic-like reading of his document which was absolutely chock-full of ideas around the history of scientific thought and how it related to testing and the idea of context driven testing. 

James Bach gave a keynote that, in my mind, was a solid argument on the benefits of avoiding processes that so many people advocate, and were challenged time and time again.  All in all, it was a call-to-arms to reject the set-piece examples and practices that are part of so many people's views of "best practices."

I was sitting with two different groups on Monday and Tuesday.  An amazing thing about CAST, so many people are welcoming and willing to engage in conversation no matter the topic or if you were a "famous" person.  Based on comments around the table, both were well received.

A couple of things stand out at this point in my rambling narration.  First, the hall was absolutely packed.  When the requisite question "How many are at CAST for the first time?" it seemed to me that half the people in the hall raised their hands.  It was an astounding sight.  The first time attendees I met all very readily engaged in the spirit of the conference and actively participated.  This bodes well for the future.

EdSIG - Education Special Interest Group

Tuesday night I participated in the discussions of the Education Special Interest Group.  Topics on the table included getting more instructors for the BBST courses up and active, the upcoming next installment in the series, Test Design, ideas around why there are so many fewer students taking Bug Advocacy than are taking Foundations, branching out (reaching out?) to people who want to help but are not certain where to go to help.  So, there are a stack of issues, including creating a "what to expect in this course" video for Foundations - hopefully so that the amount of work is not overwhelming to the student. 

There is more, but much (for example Michael Bolton's workshop on test framing) is worthy of its own blog post. 

I do want to thank the folks who organized the conference - I know James and Jon Bach were up to their eyebrows - but also Doug Hoffman, Ben Yaroch, Dawn Haynes (who is an all around trooper) - all the people who made all the big ideas (live web streaming for example) move from "idea" to "its happening now."

CAST 2011, General Observations

I'm writing this the evening of Wednesday, August 10.  This is the evening after the Workshop day of CAST 2011 in Seattle.  Overall, this has been an amazing experience.  The whole experience was highly rewarding in many ways. 

James and John Bach took an unconventional approach to putting together the program.  Speakers were chosen on reputatuon, not on submission topic.  Yeah, it was different.  At the same time, I had the opportunity to work closely with Matt Heusser on putting together the Emerging Topics track.  This was a cool idea, an experiment, and overall, it came off well.

Another experiment was the live webcasting of the keynotes, the ET sessions, lightning talks and "tester interviews."  The discussions were astoinding - no experiment there - certainty was closer to it.  I personally appreciate the great conversations Neil Thompson, Bill Matthews, Fiona Charles, Paul Holland, Dawn Haynes (who is a terrific person and hard worker who does not get nearly enough credit for making things just work)

Oh - I met more people from Sweeden at a testing conference this year than I can imagine!

OK, other people I met whom I have not mentioned - yeah, there were a stack, but these stood out ... Lets see - Christin Wiedemann was in my class today, then - sitting behind me, and next to Michael Hunter was Cathy McBride.  Oh!  Another Alex Bantz was also there.

I had the pleasure of helping with the EdSIG meeting and looking for ways to get the people who were interested in helping in the SIG, and getting involved in BBST, actually involved and active,  The thing is, this is also the same central idea behind keeping any non-profit, volunteer organization - finding tasks that need to be done, matching them up with people with the skills and interest in doing them, and matching them up. 

My experience in Michael Bolton's Test Framing workshop really deserves its own post.  For now, suffice to say it was interesting.

I had intended to decompress, have a quite dinner then get some work done.  Instead, after finishing an adult beverage, as my "take out" dinner was about to come out, Selene Deliesie, Lynn McKee and Nancy Kelln walked into the restaraunt.  What could I do?  We sat down, enjoyed a meal together and had a fantastic conversation. 

Now, it is very late, I'm remarkably tired and have more thoughts running through my head from the last three days and looking forward to more general thought absorption, internalization and a little sight-seeing tomorrow before heading home.

Thank you Seattle and AST for an amazing experience. 

Cross-Pollination or How Talking With Smart People Helps You Learn

I was looking at some of my blog posts over the last 6 or 8 months or so.  That made me wonder so I went back looking at some of my older blog posts.  That made me wonder some more, so I went out looking for blogs from other people I respect.  These people are involved in other groups or go to conferences or, well, just hang out with other testers and tester types. 

I discovered something about myself, and I believe others, that led to this blog post. 

Here's what I learned:  The more you expose yourself to good thinkers and intelligent conversation and engage with them, the more you learn and the more you can learn. 

I can't prove this with any firm science.  What I can do is look at how things have changed since I went out looking for different sources.  I can also see how other people, significant, famous testers, interact and learn from each other. 

I've been fortunate in having the opportunity to go to various conferences the last few years.  This has given me the chance to meet people whose writings I have read and enjoyed and I have learned from.  I also have had the opportunity to meet people whose writings I have read and I disagreed with.  Now, some folks might shake their head and say "They're wrong."  For me, this was an opportunity to understand something I did not understand before.  Possibly, I could learn from that understanding and find something to appreciate and find common ground for future meetings.

What has astounded me, is just how much I have learned and grown from all these meetings.  Ideas I have had for some time and have been trying to formulate have found the form and structure I needed to organize them.  The result has been, among other things, this blog, articles, an inteview, conference presentations.

Do you need to travel all over North America or the world to find the same level of thought provoking conversation?  Hardly.

I bet there are people in your company or your community you can talk with and have the same experience.  I bet there are others in your city or town who are interested in discussing similar things.  Great ideas can come from many sources - not just the famous conference speakers and articles.  They can come from the person in the cube next to you or from someone doing similar work at a different company in your town. 

Want to see if I'm right?  Try an experiment. 

Talk with people at your company about meeting after hours to talk about software and testing.  Then, have those people drop an email to people they know at other companies.  Invite testers, designers, programmers/developers - anyone who works on software.  Then talk.

You don't need a big group, a few people is a good start.  Don't worry about being formal - just try talking with other people with an interest.  Don't worry about being right - instead focus on sharing ideas. 

Thats all.

Try sharing ideas and see what you can learn.  Maybe other people will learn something from you.

Back in My Day: Confessions of a Curmudgeon

When I first got into software for a living, the idea of "structured" anything was the red-hot burning idea that was going to save software from the horrible/bad/evil practices of people who were inept/wrong-thinking/clue-less practitioners of hocus-pocus.  Structure was going to save us.  Then it was CAD.  Then it was Object Orientation.  Then it was blah, blah.  You get the idea.

I heard some folks talking about some "New Ideas" that they had heard about.  Fantastic ideas, I thought.  Instead of centralizing everything on a host server, they could have servers in a bunch of different places and have them all talk to the host.  Then response times would be faster and the users would be able to get faster response.  Astounding, eh? 

Anyone else remember that new idea from, oh, 20 years ago?

Wait, that is sounding really, negative. 

Let me try again.

Back when I was heavily involved in bagpipe bands, there was an amused expression that was reserved for folks who had been involved in pipe bands some years before, and no longer were/

"The older I get, the better I was."

The fact is, people's perceptions will change over time as our experiences inform those same perceptions.  In the pipe band world, it seemed to inflate what the abilities were.

In reality, I have learned, now that I am part of the same "club," is that some folks really REALLY don't like change.  Change in any form is bad.  At the same time, things change as they grow, or they wither and die.  You can't maintain existence without change.  Well, maybe you can, but it is not really existence, it is a museum display - almost a "living history" lesson. 

Change is inevitable. 

Once it was suggested that since I was so "set in my ways" I may not like the changes that were coming and I could have a hard time adapting to them.

I resisted the temptation to look around for my cane and wave it about calling that individual a "young whippersnapper."  For one thing, I don't use a cane or a walking stick.  For another, I sympathized with his perception and lack of life (and maybe professional?) experience that would lead him to say that. 

The thought that crossed my mind was "It is this very experience I have that allows me to see how he could have a view like that.  I have been around a while and I like things a certain way.  I have liked things in different ways before that, too.

When comments like the above are made, or when I think on change and flexibility, my mind sometimes wanders back to the companies I have worked for, the shops I have worked in.  No two were the same, even remotely.  Some were happier than others.  Some were more efficient than others.  Some turned out really good work.  Some were just jobs. 

Some are examples of the same things I mentioned before.  My own experiences shaped my perception of each of those organizations.  As I learned more, I wanted to learn more.  My views changed related to that job as I was working there.  I learned and experienced different things in different areas.

What does all this have to do with anything, let alone each other?

Well, simply put, I read a blog entry by The Maestro a couple of weeks ago.   My first reaction was "YES! EXACTLY"  Then it made me think on some things.

What I discerned from that thinking is that each of these "revolutionary ideas" was intended to address a problem.  Or at least, a perceived problem.  The thing is that many are just that - perceived problems.  I think the real cause is that people, myself included, don't want to do the painful self-examination that is required for real improvement.

It is easier to follow the herd and the glossy marketing people when they hold out a promise than it is to dig down and work on the problem we have.  This leaves us the desperate grasping at the just-out-of-reach silver bullet.

This is, I suspect, the core issue with all the trends over the last 30 years in my experience, and more.

Unless you are willing to face and address your real problems, you will never fix them and will keep grasping at quick-fix solutions that are not.

Well, maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon.

What Can Be So Hard About That? Or, Why Do Some Folk Think Other Folks' Jobs Are Easy?

A funny thing happened the other day.  I overheard some "sophisticated" city-dwelling folks talking about farming.  To be more accurate, it was a group of folks from one of the "more affluent" suburbs of the city I live in.  The kids were a little uncomfortable with their surrounding, a small-town eatery that had opened a really nice "deck" by a river.  This was in a really rural area catering to farmers and their families.  The deck was clearly a "let your hair down" establishment for young folks, farmers kids and younger farm hands to enjoy a cool beverage.  It was also a short drive off the expressway, which is how they, and we, landed there.

So, the lady-wife and I were observing the to-and-fro of the regulars and these self-same sophisticated folks.  One of the women made a comment that made me blink.  "People talk about farming as if it is so hard.  I don't know what they are talking about.  You've seen my garden, that is some work, but really, how much more work can that be than my garden?"

The lady-wife's eyes looked like saucers (she's a Master Gardener and regularly says she's glad to not be a farmer).  For me, I was not surprised.  I was reminded of comments I've heard other people make like "Its just testing!  How hard can that be!" 

To be fair, I've also heard testers say things like "Why don't the developers get it right so we don't find stupid mistakes like this?"

You see, it strikes me that some folks simply don't get it.  Whatever "it" is, they just don't get. 

Here's what I mean.  You've all heard that "a little knowledge is dangerous," right?  If you have a small amount of experience with a tiny portion of what someone else does for a living, there is a tendency to extrapolate that experience to being what those who do this for a living do. 

Many of us testers have run into the developer or project manager or some other manager type who sputters about how much time testers take and how can it possibly take "that long" to test - That it doesn't add anything and just slows the project down and you can get it done faster if you just...

What comes after that varies, but you get the idea, right?

Kind of troubling for those of us whose profession and craft is "just testing."  No? 

Then why do we say the same thing about developers?  (See? I'm being polite.)  A lot of times I'll say something like "software program code writers" since there are far more folks in "software development" than those who write the code.  Yes, I know.  I'm not nice sometimes.  Yeah, sometimes I yank chains.  At the same time, there are many, many more people in software development than the people called "developers." 

I know, I'm kind of off in the weeds. 

But not really. 

When one group sets themselves or their craft above the skills of others as more sophisticated, challenging, difficult, advanced, whatever, it becomes easy to take the next step and raise yourself a notch or two over those who work with you, but are in the "lesser-skilled" trades and crafts.

I've done Project Management and Business Analysis.  I've done programming (which at the time I started working in software included design and requirements gathering and communicating with business users.)  I'm doing testing now.  I've dabbled in DB stuff - enough to know I'd not be a good DBA - no passion or patience for it. 

I do not understand how people can look down on others in a difference craft.  All of them take specific skills, training, focus and discipline.  To do them well, each of them are demanding and challenging and at the same time, they very rewarding. 

There are a lot of instances where you see this mindset - something is easy to master because you can get the basics in 10 or 15 minutes.  Learning to apply them is the hard part.  Learning to master them takes longer.  Just exactly how hard is it to do anything? 

Want to find out? Try it.  If you are a tester without development experience, try learning a programming language then try writing a simple program.  Then test it.  How many bugs did you find?  If you have some development experience, try your hand at project management - at least get a bit of training then try to apply that training at work.  Let's see what happens. 

If you dabble a little bit, or took a course in college X years ago, you're an expert, right?  Maybe the little exercise above will help you understand a tad more.  How hard can anything really be? 

After all, it is just testing, right?  How hard is that?