image credit: http://j.mp/M6d8JY

Some time ago I posted a set of questions. Some of my fellow testers posted their answers. Some of them were really good. Let’s see what my own reasoning is.

1. Is there a moment when asking questions becomes counter-productive?
a) If yes, when exactly and what does happen then?
b) If no, how do you know?

This immediately triggers a follow-up question. What do I mean by ‘counter-produtive’? A productive outcome - after having asked a question - would be: 1. the question resonates with the receiver and 2. generates an answer that helps the questioner to reduce uncertainty within the context of the question asked.

By ‘resonate’ I mean the receivers willingness to give you an answer. By ‘reduce uncertainty’ I also include an answers like ‘I don’t know’ or ‘ask somebody else’.

A counter-productive question either produces a failure with the former or the latter or both. In order for a question to resonate, the receiver needs to be ready to listen to you. If the receiver is in a mental state which incompatible with your need for an answer, the question becomes counter-productive. There is no use in asking anything if the receiver is stressed, does not feel competent or if the receiver is in an annoyed state of mind.

Some questions produce surprising answers. It may not be what you expected. Given that condition 1. is met, you should continue with refining your question until a productive answer is given.

In my perception the context-driven crowd describes itself as above average smart. This can result in asking questions just for the sake of it. It can be observed regularly on e.g. Twitter. I am guilty of it myself. I think we should exercise good judgment when asking questions. Am I just asking because I like my über-smart question, or do I really want to know?

2. Does puzzle solving make you a better tester?
a) If yes, what exactly is the mechanism?
b) If no, is the effect neutral or negative?

My answer to this question is: I don’t know. It could be the other way round. Good testers just like to exercise their brains and therefore like to solve puzzles more than others. Deliberate practice results in mastery.

Now, a good puzzle often asks for lateral thinking skills. Lateral thinking skills are good for general problem solving. And there is a lot of general problem solving in testing. Hence, exercising on puzzles might help to become a better tester.

3. Should we bash certified testers who are proud of their certifications?
a) If yes, what do we want to achieve with that action?
b) If no, why do we let these people spread ideas about bad testing?

No, we should not. There are many reasons why somebody has a certification and maybe it was hard work to obtain it and the hard work result in the tester being proud of his/her achievement. Also, attacking people hardens the relationship and certainly does not change the opinion of anybody.

What we should put our energy in, is, in the following order: 1. set a good example ourselves by demonstrating what good testing is 2. argue against the certification and the certification providers. The certification industry is driven by monetary ambitions and not by the urge to enhance testers’ skills. That is what we should point out. We should not let the certification industry spread bad ideas about testing.

I very much believe in nurturing positive alternatives. Let us show what good testing is and let us concentrate on building a valid alternative to certification. A tester generally has two possible paths: Be employed or be independent.

When a company hires a tester, they want to know if he or she can do the job. Current certification schemes not being an option, then how exactly do we meet that need? Peer certification? A general ‘reputation score’? How? I do not have a good answer to that.

4. Is having a high intelligence level a prerequisite for being a good context-driven tester?
a) If yes, what definition of intelligence is applicable?
b) If no, how can it be substituted and by what?

Software testing belongs to the knowledge worker domain. The acquisition of knowledge depends on your ability to do so. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory lists ten general areas of intelligence:

• Crystallized Intelligence
• Fluid Intelligence
• Quantitative Reasoning
• Reading & Writing Ability
• Short-Term Memory
• Long-Term Storage and Retrieval
• Visual Processing
• Auditory Processing
• Processing Speed
• Decision/Reaction Time/Speed

If you go through this list, you will probably agree that all are applicable to software testing to some extent. The better you are in each of these dimensions, the better your testing will be.

5. Is it true that many tester struggle with what a heuristic and an oracle are?
a) If yes, what is your explanation that it is so?
b) If no, where is your data?

What is an apple? It is a fruit that grows on trees. It is round-ish, edible and has either a green, yellow or red color or a mixture of these. And here is one. Have a bite.

Some things are easer to understand and to explain to others. Other things - and especially concepts - are more difficult. Generally, the more abstract a concept, the more difficulty people have with understanding it.

So, yes, heuristic and oracle are abstract concepts and therefore more people struggle with understanding what they are than with understanding what an apple is.

6. Can YOU give a quick explanation to somebody who doesn’t understand the concept?
a) If yes, how do you know you were understood?
b) If no, what part are you struggling with?

Ahem, let’s try a definition without referring to the existing ones of e.g. Michael Bolton:

Heuristic: A problem solving strategy that produces an answer without guarantee of neither its absolute correctness nor its best suitability nor its applicability for the task one is confronted with.

Oracle: Any valid reference used by a software tester in order to evaluate the observed with the desired.

And now comes the disclaimer: By just giving these one-sentence definitions I would not have any guarantee that I was understood. In order to know that, I would have to be in a dialogue for a longer period and observe if I was really understood. So, no easy and quick path here.

7. Is there a subject/topic that has no relevance whatsoever to the context-driven software tester?
a) If yes, can you give an explanation that entails detailed reasons of its inapplicability?
b) If no, how come?

I do not think so. There is the fantastic power of analogies. You can take any A and B and make a connection through an analogy. In my experience it is very fruitful to sometimes force analogies. When trying to connect two domains that appear to not be connected at all, the outcome can be rather surprising. Deliberately forcing analogies more often than not results in surprising insights and new ideas.

tags: context-driven, truth, testing

image credit: http://j.mp/JSuYkO

As the title might suggest, there is a mix of different ideas and questions in this post. We may even have Virginia Satir coming for a short visit. But at the end you will see - I hope - that everything is connected.

Very recently

I am not the only one who is convinced that reality is a social construction. There is no truth as such in pure form. Or as the saying goes, there are 4 truths; mine, yours, “The Truth” and what really happened. For those among you who understand German, I highly recommend episode 23 of the excellent Alternativlos podcast. You may listen to “Verschwörungstheorien, die sich später als wahr herausstellten” here.

What concerns me, is the major consensus narrative. It is what the majority has agreed on to be true. To link that to the context-driven school of software testing: Are we in love with the idea of having found “The Truth”? Do we run in danger of reciting self-enforcing mantras that might be wrong? How do we know if we wander astray?

These are important questions that need to be asked. Martin Jansson - on the other hand - reported on his test lab experience at Let’s Test conference and told how some of the more seasoned testers almost brought his efforts to a halt by not stopping to ask questions. Paul Holland told the story of James Bach having become an unstoppable questioner at a peer conference.

Is it always good to ask questions? How long and how many? When do I stop? Is it a “Just because I can” attitude to prove that I am hyper-smart? I have a potpourri of questions I recently asked myself:

1. Is there a moment when asking questions becomes counter-productive?
a) If yes, when exactly and what does happen then?
b) If no, how do you know?

2. Does puzzle solving make you a better tester?
a) If yes, what exactly is the mechanism?
b) If no, is the effect neutral or negative?

3. Should we bash certified testers who are proud of their certifications?
a) If yes, what do we want to achieve with that action?
b) If no, why do we let these people spread ideas about bad testing?

4. Is having a high intelligence level a prerequisite for being a good context-driven tester?
a) If yes, what definition of intelligence is applicable?
b) If no, how can it be substituted and by what?

5. Is it true that many tester struggle with what a heuristic and an oracle are?
a) If yes, what is your explanation that it is so?
b) If no, where is your data?

6. Can YOU give a quick explanation to somebody who doesn’t understand the concept?
a) If yes, how do you know you were understood?
b) If no, what part are you struggling with?

7. Is there a subject/topic that has no relevance whatsoever to the context-driven software tester?
a) If yes, can you give an explanation that entails detailed reasons of its inapplicability?
b) If no, how come?

I have my answers to the questions. But, please, my friends, post YOURS in the comments below. I would love to see a variety of reasonings.

You may have asked yourself at the beginning of this post what the fragment “Very recently” was doing there without culminating in a full sentences. That is a valid question. You might even have formed a hypothesis about what it was doing there. “Just an editing error”, “probably a section title”, “haven’t noticed”, “maybe it is clickable”, “semantic ambiguity of hypnotic language” could have been some of the guesses.

I promised in the entry sentences that at the end everything will be connected. Actually, it is not at all; this post is very messy. Please, don’t shout at me because of that. And Virginia Satir might be in one of the next posts. I’d definitely like to talk about her.

tags: testing, context-driven, truth