One of the most interesting persons in American history was mentioned several times on television over the last weekend. It was interesting to me in that one segment described how this man spent the last several weeks of his life, and where.
Hiram Ulysses Grant - General, President (elected twice!), horse breeder and finally writer.
Interesting thing about Grant, when he was appointed to West Point the paper work was wrong - he was told he had to go by the name on the paper work or go home. Hiram U became Ulysses S; the S was for Simpson, his mother's maiden name. Hiram Ulysses Grant became Ulysses Simpson Grant.
Grant's career at West Point was not stellar. He passed, but was not a "model" cadet. He graduated 21st of 39. Almost half the cadets who entered the same year he did dropped out. His classmates called him Uncle Sam, thanks to his initials. After graduation, he was still referred to as Sam by those who knew him at West Point.
After graduation, he was sent West and found himself in the 4th US Infantry Regiment. During the war with Mexico, he was assigned to Quartermaster duties and still found himself in a position to distinguish himself in combat.
Several years after the war, and after several moves to various posts, he resigned his commission so he could be with his wife and their growing family. Seemed a good idea. Except things did not go as planned. The farming did not work so well, neither did the other jobs he tried.
It seemed luck was not with him. Nothing went right. He could not make money no matter what he did.
Then something happened.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President and States began seceding from the Union. The next April, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter. Grant offered his services to the Governor of Illinois as an officer of Militia. He was made a Colonel of Volunteers. His world, and ours, changed.
After some minor assignments done well, we found himself promoted to General of Volunteers - then forced the "unconditional surrender" of Fort Donelson. At Shiloh, a couple of months later, he turned disaster into victory simply by refusing to be beaten. The next year, he besieges and takes Vicksburg, which surrenders on 4 July, 1863 - the day after Pickets Charge fails at a place called Gettysburg. The fall of Vicksburg cut the Confederate States in two. This was a significant achievement and shift in the war's momentum.
In the end, he forced Lee to surrender by "retreating forward" - when setbacks were encountered, instead of withdrawing to a secure base to regroup as his predecessors had, he resupplied and regrouped where he was and then advanced. He proved unstoppable.
In 1868 he was nominated as candidate for the Presidency. He did not campaign. He won in a landslide. After two terms, he left office and went on a grand around the world tour. He becomes a silent partner in Grant & Ward, where his son and another fellow manage to lose all of Grant's savings, as well as massive amounts of money others entrusted them with.
In May of 1884, he has less than $200 to his name. His debts were crushing. He also begins having pains in his throat and neck.
In September, 1884 he is diagnosed with throat cancer. So, what happens next?
When everything is gone, what do you do?
Grant, quite literally, had nothing left. He gave his military service mementos, including uniforms, swords, decorations - everything, to a creditor in lieu of $150,000 he borrowed to try and save the business - which was promptly absconded with by the Ward in Grant & Ward. He had no home to retire to. His wife, Julia, had no money of her own, everything had been invested and lost in the business. They were destitute in terms that people today have no idea of the meaning.
Safety net? There was none.
What could be done?
Grant had been approached by publishers many times to write his memoirs. Until the fall of 1884, he had put them off saying he was not a literary person. An admirer, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), called on him on hearing that Grant might sign a contract for his memoirs. He intervened and saved Grant from one more horrific mistake. Instead, this admirer wrote up his own contract to publish Grant's memoirs through his own publishing house. When Samuel Clemens talked with people about writing, they tended to listen.
Celmens' publishing house promised a flat fee as a guaranteed payment and some 75% of the royalties from book sales. This was unheard of at the time.
Grant wrote his memoirs in long-hand. After writing the first volume - yeah, the first volume - he began dictating the second volume for them to be transcribed and reviewed. What does that mean? It translated to between ten and eighteen thousand words A DAY that he wrote or dictated. Very little revision was needed (which I find amazing.)
As the cancer progressed and he was too weak to speak, he resumed writing. When he finished, he was barely able to work more than a couple of hours a day. He finished his memoirs on July 19, 1885. He died at 8:06 AM, July 23, 1885.
His memoirs sold some 300,000 copies. Julia, his widow was paid $500,000 in 1885 dollars. Millions in today's money.
Grant failed in business. He failed in much of what he did outside of war. He found he had one more mission in life, and he had something to say.
He said it and reestablished his family's fortunes (literally.)
He remained a simple man through his triumphs and in the depths of his worst moments. While at the pinnacle of military power, he dressed simply and had a minimal staff. He ate what the soldiers ate. not out of personal stores. When under artillery bombardment, and a staff officer suggested he move to a safer location. He suggested that a battery of their own artillery be brought up to deal with the Confederate artillery. Where he stood, he could see the battle lines, and did not want to lose that sense of awareness of what was really happening.
There is one recorded instance that I am aware of where Grant actually lost his temper. Crossing a bridge, a teamster (wagon driver) was whipping mules pulling a wagon because they had stopped half way over the bridge. Grant threatened the man with being whipped himself for mistreating animals in such a way. In one account it is said Grant had him tied to a tree to be flogged. I don't know if that is accurate or not.
When his Army of the Potomac heard the news of Lee's surrender, they began firing their cannons in celebration. Grant ordered that stopped. He did not want to crow over his defeated, yet valiant enemies. He had just accepted the surrender of the man who had been his superior in Mexico, and had always treated him with respect. Maybe that had something to do with it.
Or maybe Grant really was a man of that order.
There is a relationship to software testing. That discussion is for another day.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
On Changing Your Corner of the World
A (respected and bright) fellow commenting on the last blog post, the one that a fair number seemed to think was a "kick in the seat" (well, really it was intended to) wrote this:
The thing is, I've lived that. I know how frustrating that is. I know how scary that can be. Scary? No, more like terrifying.
There is a certain cold fear in the thought that if you speak out or make waves or argue too much or whatever, you get fired. You can't take care of your family or pay the car note or the mortgage or rent or presents for the spouse or kids or... any of that stuff.
If that idea does not give you a certain period of pause, you might be independently wealthy, have no responsibilities beyond yourself or, well, you just don't care about the future. There may be something else at work. There may be some ideas that I have not considered. Or, maybe you just don't care.
That is the problem, isn't it?
When we are looking at stuff we know simply does not work, or process models we find abhorrent and dealing with stuff that is more make-work than work, more "best practices" than anything else, doing more dealing with stage gates than staging releases, what do we do?
After all, who do we think we are, right? All the bosses tell us that this is what is needed and what we need to do. Still, things don't seem quite right. We ask questions and are promptly dismissed.
The thing is, we can ask questions. We can think for ourselves. We can read and we can search. We can find others we can learn from. We can talk with people and gain ideas and learn from them. Some things will lead us to ideas we can use, others we can set aside either permanently or saved for future use.
Most importantly, we can experiment.
Finally, we can ask the question that is the beginning of the change that needs to be made. We can ask if the work that is being done is really improving the software we are working on. We can ask if there might be a better way than what seems to be what is in place.
There may be other things that can be done. Indeed, I'd be surprised if there were not. However, I prefer to write from my experience. This is also partly how I landed where I am now. So, be careful if you start this journey.
You may find yourself remaking your corner of the world.
You're a Jr Test Consultant trying to learn your trade.Well, dear respected colleague (and anyone else reading this) I have thought about your question. I have thought on this a fair amount.
You have a daughter to look after, travel expenses, rent to pay
You're assigned to a gov project run by one of the big boys that used to sponsor The Tiger and things are done Their Way.
Your working with their testers who are churning out the factory scripts overseen by managers who are expecting exactly that.
You know it sucks, you know it's a massive waste, you go home feeling your soul has been sucked dry.
What's your advice ?
The thing is, I've lived that. I know how frustrating that is. I know how scary that can be. Scary? No, more like terrifying.
There is a certain cold fear in the thought that if you speak out or make waves or argue too much or whatever, you get fired. You can't take care of your family or pay the car note or the mortgage or rent or presents for the spouse or kids or... any of that stuff.
If that idea does not give you a certain period of pause, you might be independently wealthy, have no responsibilities beyond yourself or, well, you just don't care about the future. There may be something else at work. There may be some ideas that I have not considered. Or, maybe you just don't care.
That is the problem, isn't it?
When we are looking at stuff we know simply does not work, or process models we find abhorrent and dealing with stuff that is more make-work than work, more "best practices" than anything else, doing more dealing with stage gates than staging releases, what do we do?
After all, who do we think we are, right? All the bosses tell us that this is what is needed and what we need to do. Still, things don't seem quite right. We ask questions and are promptly dismissed.
The thing is, we can ask questions. We can think for ourselves. We can read and we can search. We can find others we can learn from. We can talk with people and gain ideas and learn from them. Some things will lead us to ideas we can use, others we can set aside either permanently or saved for future use.
Most importantly, we can experiment.
Finally, we can ask the question that is the beginning of the change that needs to be made. We can ask if the work that is being done is really improving the software we are working on. We can ask if there might be a better way than what seems to be what is in place.
There may be other things that can be done. Indeed, I'd be surprised if there were not. However, I prefer to write from my experience. This is also partly how I landed where I am now. So, be careful if you start this journey.
You may find yourself remaking your corner of the world.
Monday, January 28, 2013
On Making a Difference or Changing the World
It is interesting to me how many people, pundits, whatever, mutter about whatever legislative system the citizens of the country they live in has to deal with. It does not seem to make much difference where you live, the legislature - Parliament, Provincial, Federal, whatever - House of Representatives, US or individual State Houses or Assemblies - Senate, US or State - every legislature seems corrupt or broken or failing by some measure.
Every few years a new crop of bright-eyed idealists run promising Reform - throw the bums out - make a change - represent... whatever. And they start out great guns - NO one will influence them. No "special interest" group will get their vote. No one will corrupt them.
Except that is not how a lot of legislation works - particularly in the US.
People make compromises. I'll support your proposal if you support mine. This can benefit both of our districts. And so it begins. Soon, they are being challenged by some bright--eyed newcomer talking about how corrupt they are. But they are not the corrupt ones! They fought the system and... challenged the status quo and... found out that the real world does not always work the way people want to believe it does.
In order to change the system, you must be willing to fly in the face of opposition. You must be willing to be called an unending string of names. Face accusations, and accusers, and know you are doing the right thing.
Why then, if this is what it takes to change the way legislatures work, do we not think that something similar must happen to change the way that so many organizations view testing?
We cringe at phrases like "QA this" or "as soon as this is QA'd." Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
We might object once or twice - possibly more. Eventually, how many people simply give up that fight?
Then we get heavily documented test processes - the ones where we match test scenarios to requirements from the requirements document and we record in the exception document why we need more than one test scenario to test this requirement. Then we make sure that all the steps and all the expected results for each step in each scenario align with the documented requirements.
Then we find that we are going to do more of the same. Forever. We spend more time documenting stuff than we actually do testing. Then Managers and VPs and Directors scream about the cost of testing and how could we have missed the defects the customer is complaining about.
My dear testers... and QA representatives and analysts and specialists - if this describes your work world, you have no moral right to complain about legislators "selling out." You have as well. You are in the same club.
When was the last time you were proud of the work you did?
What value are you adding?
Consider this...
Every few years a new crop of bright-eyed idealists run promising Reform - throw the bums out - make a change - represent... whatever. And they start out great guns - NO one will influence them. No "special interest" group will get their vote. No one will corrupt them.
Except that is not how a lot of legislation works - particularly in the US.
People make compromises. I'll support your proposal if you support mine. This can benefit both of our districts. And so it begins. Soon, they are being challenged by some bright--eyed newcomer talking about how corrupt they are. But they are not the corrupt ones! They fought the system and... challenged the status quo and... found out that the real world does not always work the way people want to believe it does.
In order to change the system, you must be willing to fly in the face of opposition. You must be willing to be called an unending string of names. Face accusations, and accusers, and know you are doing the right thing.
Why then, if this is what it takes to change the way legislatures work, do we not think that something similar must happen to change the way that so many organizations view testing?
We cringe at phrases like "QA this" or "as soon as this is QA'd." Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
We might object once or twice - possibly more. Eventually, how many people simply give up that fight?
Then we get heavily documented test processes - the ones where we match test scenarios to requirements from the requirements document and we record in the exception document why we need more than one test scenario to test this requirement. Then we make sure that all the steps and all the expected results for each step in each scenario align with the documented requirements.
Then we find that we are going to do more of the same. Forever. We spend more time documenting stuff than we actually do testing. Then Managers and VPs and Directors scream about the cost of testing and how could we have missed the defects the customer is complaining about.
My dear testers... and QA representatives and analysts and specialists - if this describes your work world, you have no moral right to complain about legislators "selling out." You have as well. You are in the same club.
When was the last time you were proud of the work you did?
What value are you adding?
Consider this...
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Triumph of Failure
This last week has been one for the record-books. No, I did not get sacked. To the best of my knowledge, there was not even a concerted effort to terminate my contract early. Instead, I stood my ground and was overrun in the process.
I asked questions that some people would rather not have had asked. I raised the red flag. Not the flag of rebellion, as in Les Miserables, but of THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE! A fair amount of time, I try and qualify that message - there MAY BE a problem here. There MIGHT POSSIBLY be a problem here. Nope. This one was flat out, by all known measures in the context of the organization, THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE.
I had a quiet chat with two big bosses, who ended with nodding and saying I did the right thing. One said something to the effect of "I know this was uncomfortable for you, and I'm glad you stepped up and did what you did." I spent the rest of the week getting lambasted by people for not doing it earlier.
Yeah. It was one of those weeks where no amount of rhubarb pie will take the bad taste away. Nor will any amount of really good single malt whisky or highly drinkable brandy remove the sting of personal words said in public. Ya know what made it worth it?
I was right.
One of my colleagues asked what I was going to do. I said I would wait. I would bide my time. I learned long ago that patience is a strength.
After three days of being told by certain people that I had done everything wrong and that the fault for the project's status was entirely on me, they did what they were supposed to have done in the first place. They began communicating. They began talking with each other and talking with other people involved.
In their mind I was a complete failure. They made noises of not wanting to work with me again. They pointed to the official process model and said 'These are what you are supposed to do! This is what I am supposed to do! Do your job!'
I very quietly asked, "What happens when someone does not understand something?" "Inconceivable! There is no way this can possibly be misunderstood!" Yeah. I then got to use that line from Princess Bride - "I do not think that means what you think it means."
There are at least three people on the project who did not understand the meaning of statement Z. Each of us asked questions and got the answer that it was all documented in the requirements. And yet reading the requirements as documented, the three of us each came away with a different understanding. None of us came away with anything like a warning that there was a problem with the way the software currently worked.
In the end, the problems were resolved and the project moved forward. In the minds of four people, I am a failure. In the minds of others, I did the right thing and confronted poor behavior with proper behavior.
My take away - When confronted with poor, unprofessional behavior, hold fast and do not allow yourself to respond in kind. There comes a point where some response may be required (there is one coming from this, have no doubt) but do so in an appropriate manner.
Remove emotion (as best as you can) and respond with fact.
Don't lose your temper.
Die hard the 57th, die hard.
William Inglis, Lt Col, 57th Regt of Foot, Battle of Albuhera
I asked questions that some people would rather not have had asked. I raised the red flag. Not the flag of rebellion, as in Les Miserables, but of THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE! A fair amount of time, I try and qualify that message - there MAY BE a problem here. There MIGHT POSSIBLY be a problem here. Nope. This one was flat out, by all known measures in the context of the organization, THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE.
I had a quiet chat with two big bosses, who ended with nodding and saying I did the right thing. One said something to the effect of "I know this was uncomfortable for you, and I'm glad you stepped up and did what you did." I spent the rest of the week getting lambasted by people for not doing it earlier.
Yeah. It was one of those weeks where no amount of rhubarb pie will take the bad taste away. Nor will any amount of really good single malt whisky or highly drinkable brandy remove the sting of personal words said in public. Ya know what made it worth it?
I was right.
One of my colleagues asked what I was going to do. I said I would wait. I would bide my time. I learned long ago that patience is a strength.
After three days of being told by certain people that I had done everything wrong and that the fault for the project's status was entirely on me, they did what they were supposed to have done in the first place. They began communicating. They began talking with each other and talking with other people involved.
In their mind I was a complete failure. They made noises of not wanting to work with me again. They pointed to the official process model and said 'These are what you are supposed to do! This is what I am supposed to do! Do your job!'
I very quietly asked, "What happens when someone does not understand something?" "Inconceivable! There is no way this can possibly be misunderstood!" Yeah. I then got to use that line from Princess Bride - "I do not think that means what you think it means."
There are at least three people on the project who did not understand the meaning of statement Z. Each of us asked questions and got the answer that it was all documented in the requirements. And yet reading the requirements as documented, the three of us each came away with a different understanding. None of us came away with anything like a warning that there was a problem with the way the software currently worked.
In the end, the problems were resolved and the project moved forward. In the minds of four people, I am a failure. In the minds of others, I did the right thing and confronted poor behavior with proper behavior.
My take away - When confronted with poor, unprofessional behavior, hold fast and do not allow yourself to respond in kind. There comes a point where some response may be required (there is one coming from this, have no doubt) but do so in an appropriate manner.
Remove emotion (as best as you can) and respond with fact.
Don't lose your temper.
Die hard the 57th, die hard.
William Inglis, Lt Col, 57th Regt of Foot, Battle of Albuhera
Monday, December 24, 2012
Farewell 2012; Rise Up and Be Strong 2013
The last couple of years I have tended to write blog posts at the change of the year. One to summarize the year that is ending and one to list the things I am looking forward to in the coming year. This time it is different. It feels different.
Changes
Much has happened this year. As I was considering how to encapsulate it, I read over the posts on changing from 2011 to 2012. I must admit, I had to smile. Much has happened, still much remains to be done.
What has happened? Well, in August I submitted my resignation to the company where I was working. My "old company" had been bought by a much larger competitor and I found myself in a struggle to keep myself focused on what my goals and values were. I was a little surprised because I had worked for large companies in the past - most of my working life in fact, had been with large companies.
The surprising thing to the person I was a few years ago, was that I resigned without a "company" to go to. I went independent. I struck out on my own with a letter of marque sailing against any and every - oh, no, umm - that is being a privateer - not a working independent test professional. Meh, whatever.
But, that is what I did. The roots for this lie in this post I wrote late in 2011. Looking back, it was the natural progression of where I was going from and where I was going to.
Now, I did have a contract lined up - which has since been extended. This made the opportunity a little easier than jumping in cold-turkey - or deciding to go independent after being let go. I concede this was an advantage.
Of course, now I am working even harder - not simply at "the day job" but in my writing, my learning and my attempts to understand things better. The push from being sacked, as described in the blog post mentioned above, seems to have led me to the point where I hoisted my own flag, and have so far, avoided being hoist with my own petard.
People
I have been very fortunate in my meetings and comings and goings this past year. Given the opportunity to speak in Portland at PNSQC and then in Potsdam at Agile Testing Days, I met a massive number of people I had only read of, or read their words. It was inspiring, encouraging and humbling all at once. In both instances, I found it easy to not be the smartest person in the room. I had a pile of people there I could relate to and learn from.
To each of you, I am deeply indebted. Its a long list - let's see. There's Matt Heusser, who is still a bundle of energy and ideas. Michael Larsen, who is really amazingly smart. Bernie Berger, Markus Gartner, Janet Gregory, Gojko Adzic, Huib Schoots, Sigge Birgisson, Paul Gerrard, Simon Morley, Jurgen Appelo, James Lindsay, Michael Dedolph, Linda Rising, Ben Simo, and.... the list really does kind of go on.
The people I continue to find to be wonderful teachers and gentle instructors (sometimes not so gentle as well) sometimes through conversation, emails, IM/Skype chats, blog posts and articles. They include, in no particular order, Elizabeth Hendrickson, Fiona Charles, James Bach, Paul Holand, Michael Bolton, Cem Kaner, Jon Bach, Catherine Powell, Griffin Jones. There are others, but these folks came to mind as I was writing this.
Community
Wow. This year has been amazing. The local group, the GR Testers, are meeting every month, with a variety of people showing up - not "the same folks every time" but people wandering in to check it out. I find this exciting.
AST - Association for Software Testing
What an amazing group of people this is, and is continuing to develop into. The Education Special Interest Group (EdSIG) is continuing to be an area of interest. Alas, my intention of participating in "more courses" has been impacted by life stuff. I've been able to assist with a couple of Foundations sessions for the BBST course, and offered ideas on some discussions but that is about all.
This past August I was honored to be elected to the Board of Directors of AST. My participation continues to be as much as I can give on a regular basis - including monitoring/moderating the Forums on the AST website (a really under utilized resource, perhaps we can change this in the coming year) and the LinkedIn AST group's discussion forum (mostly whacking spam).
A new and exciting development is the Test Leadership Special Interest Group - LeadershipSIG. This new group is looking into all sorts of interesting questions around Test Management and Test Leadership and - well - stuff - including the interesting question of the difficulty of finding and recruiting Context Driven Test leaders, managers and directors.
CAST is scheduled for August in Madison, Wisconsin. This is going to be good.
Other Conference / Community Stuff
Conferences coming up include STPCon - in San Diego in April. Also in April is GLSEC - Great Lakes Software Excellence Conference - that one is in Grand Rapids. QAI's QUEST conference is also scheduled for the Spring.
There are several conferences I've considered submitting proposals to - and I suspect it is time to do more than consider.
Writing - Oh my. I have several projects I've been working through. I am really excited about some of the potential opportunities. I'm pretty geeked about this.
Overall, I am excited about what 2013 may hold. It strikes me that things that have been set up over the last several years are coming into place. What is in store? I do not know. I believe it is going to be good.
After all. I am writing this the evening of December 23. According to some folks, the world was supposed to end a couple of days ago. What those folks don't understand is that everything changes. All the time. Marking sequences and patterns and tracking them is part of what every society does. They don't end. Simply turn the page.
Let us rise up together.
Changes
Much has happened this year. As I was considering how to encapsulate it, I read over the posts on changing from 2011 to 2012. I must admit, I had to smile. Much has happened, still much remains to be done.
What has happened? Well, in August I submitted my resignation to the company where I was working. My "old company" had been bought by a much larger competitor and I found myself in a struggle to keep myself focused on what my goals and values were. I was a little surprised because I had worked for large companies in the past - most of my working life in fact, had been with large companies.
The surprising thing to the person I was a few years ago, was that I resigned without a "company" to go to. I went independent. I struck out on my own with a letter of marque sailing against any and every - oh, no, umm - that is being a privateer - not a working independent test professional. Meh, whatever.
But, that is what I did. The roots for this lie in this post I wrote late in 2011. Looking back, it was the natural progression of where I was going from and where I was going to.
Now, I did have a contract lined up - which has since been extended. This made the opportunity a little easier than jumping in cold-turkey - or deciding to go independent after being let go. I concede this was an advantage.
Of course, now I am working even harder - not simply at "the day job" but in my writing, my learning and my attempts to understand things better. The push from being sacked, as described in the blog post mentioned above, seems to have led me to the point where I hoisted my own flag, and have so far, avoided being hoist with my own petard.
People
I have been very fortunate in my meetings and comings and goings this past year. Given the opportunity to speak in Portland at PNSQC and then in Potsdam at Agile Testing Days, I met a massive number of people I had only read of, or read their words. It was inspiring, encouraging and humbling all at once. In both instances, I found it easy to not be the smartest person in the room. I had a pile of people there I could relate to and learn from.
To each of you, I am deeply indebted. Its a long list - let's see. There's Matt Heusser, who is still a bundle of energy and ideas. Michael Larsen, who is really amazingly smart. Bernie Berger, Markus Gartner, Janet Gregory, Gojko Adzic, Huib Schoots, Sigge Birgisson, Paul Gerrard, Simon Morley, Jurgen Appelo, James Lindsay, Michael Dedolph, Linda Rising, Ben Simo, and.... the list really does kind of go on.
The people I continue to find to be wonderful teachers and gentle instructors (sometimes not so gentle as well) sometimes through conversation, emails, IM/Skype chats, blog posts and articles. They include, in no particular order, Elizabeth Hendrickson, Fiona Charles, James Bach, Paul Holand, Michael Bolton, Cem Kaner, Jon Bach, Catherine Powell, Griffin Jones. There are others, but these folks came to mind as I was writing this.
Community
Wow. This year has been amazing. The local group, the GR Testers, are meeting every month, with a variety of people showing up - not "the same folks every time" but people wandering in to check it out. I find this exciting.
AST - Association for Software Testing
What an amazing group of people this is, and is continuing to develop into. The Education Special Interest Group (EdSIG) is continuing to be an area of interest. Alas, my intention of participating in "more courses" has been impacted by life stuff. I've been able to assist with a couple of Foundations sessions for the BBST course, and offered ideas on some discussions but that is about all.
This past August I was honored to be elected to the Board of Directors of AST. My participation continues to be as much as I can give on a regular basis - including monitoring/moderating the Forums on the AST website (a really under utilized resource, perhaps we can change this in the coming year) and the LinkedIn AST group's discussion forum (mostly whacking spam).
A new and exciting development is the Test Leadership Special Interest Group - LeadershipSIG. This new group is looking into all sorts of interesting questions around Test Management and Test Leadership and - well - stuff - including the interesting question of the difficulty of finding and recruiting Context Driven Test leaders, managers and directors.
CAST is scheduled for August in Madison, Wisconsin. This is going to be good.
Other Conference / Community Stuff
Conferences coming up include STPCon - in San Diego in April. Also in April is GLSEC - Great Lakes Software Excellence Conference - that one is in Grand Rapids. QAI's QUEST conference is also scheduled for the Spring.
There are several conferences I've considered submitting proposals to - and I suspect it is time to do more than consider.
Writing - Oh my. I have several projects I've been working through. I am really excited about some of the potential opportunities. I'm pretty geeked about this.
Overall, I am excited about what 2013 may hold. It strikes me that things that have been set up over the last several years are coming into place. What is in store? I do not know. I believe it is going to be good.
After all. I am writing this the evening of December 23. According to some folks, the world was supposed to end a couple of days ago. What those folks don't understand is that everything changes. All the time. Marking sequences and patterns and tracking them is part of what every society does. They don't end. Simply turn the page.
Let us rise up together.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Why Can't You See That? or More Than Meets the Eye
There are times when things seem so clear. Other times it is like looking through a cloud.
How many times have we stumbled across something in an area another tester had worked on and wondered just how it is that they did not see the problem? After all, we have done piles of training and exercises and we have really good process models in place and - what is WRONG with them that they are not seeing these problems?
So, anyone else run into that? It seems like there are piles of stories of people who were just "inappropriately motivated" or essentially a lazy individual, right? People just don't get it., do they?
Let's see. Something happened in Friday that made me wonder about some of those presumptions.
The last few months, my dear lady-wife has made "observations" on some "stuff" around the house. Stuff? Well, like, little fluffs of cat hair in the corner or bits of stuff on the carpeted steps or, well, yeah, stuff after I vacuumed (Hoovered for some folks). Stuff like "How can you not see that? What is going on? Aren't you paying attention?"
Well, I thought I was. I was also having a problem reading really small fonts... and kept changing the resolution on my already huge laptop to make it easier to read. Then dealing with small screws on small devices and really small screwdrivers - it just has been getting really hard.
So, I went more slowly and was more careful with what I was doing. Still, there were bits of ... fluff - like cat hair - that seemed to evade whatever I did, or tried to do, while cleaning. Man. Talk about frustrating.
Sounds kinda like what some of those "less than stellar" testers may have run into, no? No matter how careful they were, glaring huge problems still got through. Then they try harder and be as diligent as they can and they get in trouble for not getting through enough test cases each day.
So, folks may find themselves in a spiral without knowing what the problem is. For testers, it could be simply that they are overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of stuff they are finding. Maybe there are problems in their understanding of what is needed or expected of them or... yeah.
In my case, the very nice eye doctor - yeah, I figured part of the problem was that my eyeglass prescription was in need of updating. Well, that seemed reasonable - but it was wrong. Way wrong.
In fact, the very nice eye doctor said "The lens for the left eye is still perfect. That is correcting to 20/20 with no problem. The problem is the cataract in your right eye." What? No way. Yeah. She did some really simple demonstrations and showed both of us the problem wasn't my glasses (my tools) it was my eye. Funny. Hmmm. Who'd have thought?
In a flash, everything made sense. Well, not really a flash, more like a "Oh, bother" moment. So, now I know what is going on with my eye and what needs to be done to deal with that. After that problem has been addressed, we'll see what other problems may have been masked by this really BIG problem. So, I may need an updated prescription after the dust settles. But we won't know until we get to that point.
Kind of like finding bugs in software. We find a bunch of BIG stuff. It gets addressed. But we don't know what else may be there. And if time constraints get in the way, what then?
What BIG HUGE problems go undetected?
How many times have we stumbled across something in an area another tester had worked on and wondered just how it is that they did not see the problem? After all, we have done piles of training and exercises and we have really good process models in place and - what is WRONG with them that they are not seeing these problems?
So, anyone else run into that? It seems like there are piles of stories of people who were just "inappropriately motivated" or essentially a lazy individual, right? People just don't get it., do they?
Let's see. Something happened in Friday that made me wonder about some of those presumptions.
The last few months, my dear lady-wife has made "observations" on some "stuff" around the house. Stuff? Well, like, little fluffs of cat hair in the corner or bits of stuff on the carpeted steps or, well, yeah, stuff after I vacuumed (Hoovered for some folks). Stuff like "How can you not see that? What is going on? Aren't you paying attention?"
Well, I thought I was. I was also having a problem reading really small fonts... and kept changing the resolution on my already huge laptop to make it easier to read. Then dealing with small screws on small devices and really small screwdrivers - it just has been getting really hard.
So, I went more slowly and was more careful with what I was doing. Still, there were bits of ... fluff - like cat hair - that seemed to evade whatever I did, or tried to do, while cleaning. Man. Talk about frustrating.
Sounds kinda like what some of those "less than stellar" testers may have run into, no? No matter how careful they were, glaring huge problems still got through. Then they try harder and be as diligent as they can and they get in trouble for not getting through enough test cases each day.
So, folks may find themselves in a spiral without knowing what the problem is. For testers, it could be simply that they are overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of stuff they are finding. Maybe there are problems in their understanding of what is needed or expected of them or... yeah.
In my case, the very nice eye doctor - yeah, I figured part of the problem was that my eyeglass prescription was in need of updating. Well, that seemed reasonable - but it was wrong. Way wrong.
In fact, the very nice eye doctor said "The lens for the left eye is still perfect. That is correcting to 20/20 with no problem. The problem is the cataract in your right eye." What? No way. Yeah. She did some really simple demonstrations and showed both of us the problem wasn't my glasses (my tools) it was my eye. Funny. Hmmm. Who'd have thought?
In a flash, everything made sense. Well, not really a flash, more like a "Oh, bother" moment. So, now I know what is going on with my eye and what needs to be done to deal with that. After that problem has been addressed, we'll see what other problems may have been masked by this really BIG problem. So, I may need an updated prescription after the dust settles. But we won't know until we get to that point.
Kind of like finding bugs in software. We find a bunch of BIG stuff. It gets addressed. But we don't know what else may be there. And if time constraints get in the way, what then?
What BIG HUGE problems go undetected?
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thinking and Working Agile in an Unbending World
Yeah - that was the title of the session I presented at Agile Testing Days in Potsdam.
My presentation at Agile Testing Days went through a several changes. The last major one was the time slot. When I saw the slot I was assigned, the last track session on the last day, I was concerned about the path I had taken. I realized that a heavy presentation when most folks would be already tired would probably not be ready for one more intense session.
Then Unicorns took over the conference.
No, really. They were everywhere. So, I made one more set of revisions - and added Unicorns to mine. (Why not?) This also gave me another idea I had been trying to get out - and unicorns helped me. So, I ran with it. Hey! Its part of being flexible, no?
Sigurdur Birgisson was kind enough to use MindMeister to record my presentation as a live blog. Its kinda cool. Thanks Sigge! Find it here.
Right -
The cool cats all do Agile. Agile rocks. But if the company does not "do Agile" then, what happens to the talented people working there? Are they doomed to being Not Cool? Can they move from the "Real" World to Unicorn Land of Agile?
There are flavours of the idea of what is Agile that, I believe, leads to its own problems. We all know about the terms laid out in the Agile Manifesto. We know how it is phrased. We know the ideas around...
Consider these questions -
From what I can see, this depends a great deal is meant by "Agile." Now, the Agile Methodologies tend to have their own baggage and... stuff. How can this be? If we're Agile we're supposed to be "agile," right?
Alas, I fear I'm getting ahead of myself.
Consider this - the Lightweight Models and Methodologies (that became "Agile") were a response to the heavier, more formal models in place. These were considered slow and unable to respond to change. They bogged down the development of software and generally, based on some versions of the story, kept people from doing good work.
The thing is, no process model in place was ever put there, from what I have been able to discover, was put in place to do those things. No model was ever put in place to crush the creativity out of the talented people doing the work.
Why Are Things the Way They Are?
Rather than rail against the horrible, crushing, models - which is what I did when I was younger, less experienced and generally less aware than I am now. Well, maybe less understanding than I am now.
Try these questions instead:
Those "horrible, crushing models" were an attempt to address something. Those questions may help you find out what that something was. Learning that may help you approach the great question of "Are these process models still needed?"
This is a slightly difference question, and I find often times less painful question, than "Are these process models still relevant?"
Both are important. The answer to the first can inform your phrasing for the second.
Oftentimes people will fall into the trap of ritual when it comes to software. "We had this problem and we did this ever since and that problem never came back." Very good! Now, did the problem never coming back have anything at all to do with the change you made in the model? Have you encountered other problems? Has the model gotten more convoluted as you make changes to handle problems?
At what point does your house of cards topple?
Do the steps added or changed to the process model still add value? Are they worth the expense of executing them or have they become boxes to check-off?
Considering the questions presented, and the answers received from them, can help you take a step toward agile that I find terribly important. The odd thing is, when I present it as my "definition" of what makes Agile, well, agile, I get nods of agreement, scowls (and sometimes proclamations) of "you're wrong!" and everything in between.
Here is how I look at Agile in an agile way. Ready?
Is something needed, really? Or are you checking a box that someone says must be checked? Does the information exist elsewhere? If so, why are you repeating it?
Now, all the Agile folks are saying "Yeah, we know this. Waterfall is bad."
Consider how many times have you heard (maybe said?) "If you are doing <blah> you are not Agile." Now, how many times have folks said "If you are not doing <blah2> you are not Agile."
Rubbish.
If what someone is doing really adds value and makes sense for the context of the organization, and they are delivering good software, how is that wrong? How is that less-than desirable?
Consider these questions about your own software:
When I asked the set of questions about customers with a choice and installing the upgrades at Agile Testing Days, a number of the very confident faces changed from "We're Agile, We're Good." to somewhere between "Deer in the headlights" and "Oh, oh. How did he know?"
If the software we are making does not do what people, like our customers, need it to do, does it really matter what hoops we jump through to make it?
Consider this paraphrase of Jerry Weinberg's definition of Quality (with the Bach/Bolton Addendum) and think about all the stuff we talk about with Agile and ... yeah.
If your software product does not fit that definition, does it matter how you make it?
Do stuff that makes sense to do and don't do stuff that doesn't make sense to do.
My presentation at Agile Testing Days went through a several changes. The last major one was the time slot. When I saw the slot I was assigned, the last track session on the last day, I was concerned about the path I had taken. I realized that a heavy presentation when most folks would be already tired would probably not be ready for one more intense session.
Then Unicorns took over the conference.
No, really. They were everywhere. So, I made one more set of revisions - and added Unicorns to mine. (Why not?) This also gave me another idea I had been trying to get out - and unicorns helped me. So, I ran with it. Hey! Its part of being flexible, no?
Sigurdur Birgisson was kind enough to use MindMeister to record my presentation as a live blog. Its kinda cool. Thanks Sigge! Find it here.
Right -
The cool cats all do Agile. Agile rocks. But if the company does not "do Agile" then, what happens to the talented people working there? Are they doomed to being Not Cool? Can they move from the "Real" World to Unicorn Land of Agile?
There are flavours of the idea of what is Agile that, I believe, leads to its own problems. We all know about the terms laid out in the Agile Manifesto. We know how it is phrased. We know the ideas around...
Fine. So what does the word agile mean? Well, being an American, I looked up the definition in Webster's Dictionary. Here's what I found:Individuals & Interactions over Processes & ToolsWorking Software over Comprehensive DocumentationCustomer Collaboration over Contract NegotiationResponding to Change over Following a Plan
The question I have is that if this Agile... Stuff works, what makes it work? Does it work better than, say, the non-Agile stuff? Like, Waterfall?
- Marked by ready ability to move with quick easy grace
- Having a quick resourceful and adaptable character
Consider these questions -
- Why is it that some teams are successful and some are not, no matter the approach they use?
- Why is it that some teams are successful using strong command and control models?
- Why is it that some teams are successful using agile methodologies?
- Are Agile Methodologies always, well, flexible? Do they always make things better?
From what I can see, this depends a great deal is meant by "Agile." Now, the Agile Methodologies tend to have their own baggage and... stuff. How can this be? If we're Agile we're supposed to be "agile," right?
Alas, I fear I'm getting ahead of myself.
Consider this - the Lightweight Models and Methodologies (that became "Agile") were a response to the heavier, more formal models in place. These were considered slow and unable to respond to change. They bogged down the development of software and generally, based on some versions of the story, kept people from doing good work.
The thing is, no process model in place was ever put there, from what I have been able to discover, was put in place to do those things. No model was ever put in place to crush the creativity out of the talented people doing the work.
Why Are Things the Way They Are?
Rather than rail against the horrible, crushing, models - which is what I did when I was younger, less experienced and generally less aware than I am now. Well, maybe less understanding than I am now.
Try these questions instead:
- Why are these process models in place?
- What happened that made this seem like a good solution?
- Have things changed since then?
- Have the problems resurfaced since then?
Those "horrible, crushing models" were an attempt to address something. Those questions may help you find out what that something was. Learning that may help you approach the great question of "Are these process models still needed?"
This is a slightly difference question, and I find often times less painful question, than "Are these process models still relevant?"
Both are important. The answer to the first can inform your phrasing for the second.
Oftentimes people will fall into the trap of ritual when it comes to software. "We had this problem and we did this ever since and that problem never came back." Very good! Now, did the problem never coming back have anything at all to do with the change you made in the model? Have you encountered other problems? Has the model gotten more convoluted as you make changes to handle problems?
At what point does your house of cards topple?
Do the steps added or changed to the process model still add value? Are they worth the expense of executing them or have they become boxes to check-off?
Considering the questions presented, and the answers received from them, can help you take a step toward agile that I find terribly important. The odd thing is, when I present it as my "definition" of what makes Agile, well, agile, I get nods of agreement, scowls (and sometimes proclamations) of "you're wrong!" and everything in between.
Here is how I look at Agile in an agile way. Ready?
Doing what needs to be done to deliver the best possible quality and
high-value software product in a timely and cost effective manner.
high-value software product in a timely and cost effective manner.
Is something needed, really? Or are you checking a box that someone says must be checked? Does the information exist elsewhere? If so, why are you repeating it?
Now, all the Agile folks are saying "Yeah, we know this. Waterfall is bad."
Consider how many times have you heard (maybe said?) "If you are doing <blah> you are not Agile." Now, how many times have folks said "If you are not doing <blah2> you are not Agile."
Rubbish.
If what someone is doing really adds value and makes sense for the context of the organization, and they are delivering good software, how is that wrong? How is that less-than desirable?
Consider these questions about your own software:
- Do your customers have a choice about using your product?
- If they purchased it, are they installing the upgrades/patches when you ship them?
- Are they letting them linger?
When I asked the set of questions about customers with a choice and installing the upgrades at Agile Testing Days, a number of the very confident faces changed from "We're Agile, We're Good." to somewhere between "Deer in the headlights" and "Oh, oh. How did he know?"
If the software we are making does not do what people, like our customers, need it to do, does it really matter what hoops we jump through to make it?
Consider this paraphrase of Jerry Weinberg's definition of Quality (with the Bach/Bolton Addendum) and think about all the stuff we talk about with Agile and ... yeah.
Quality is value to someone (who matters.)
If your software product does not fit that definition, does it matter how you make it?
Do stuff that makes sense to do and don't do stuff that doesn't make sense to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
