Evidence That Context-Driven Thinking is Not Easy
Sometimes people hear about the Context-Driven School of Testing and tell me there’s no need for it, because nobody disagrees with the importance of context.
And then I read things like this from Alberto Savoia. I don’t know how to account for it, except to say that it’s the mentality that I’m fighting against. If you want to see an example of what I think is wrong with our industry, there you go. I’m going to start posting such examples more often, because I’m tired of hearing that I’m just exaggerating the problem. I’ve met Alberto. He’s a smart guy. I don’t know what happened to him, but I suspect he’s hanging around with insufficiently critical colleagues.
[UPDATE: Alberto says that he meant the post satirically (see the comment below). So, let me be a critical colleague for a moment and say I didn't notice the satire. I bet a lot of other people won't, either.
However, it may mean that his post is not the evidence I need. I better go find better evidence... stay tuned.]
We need to learn more about how and why some people fall for metrics-based, or artifact-based techno-faiths, instead of studying their craft. I hope more people speak up against them, as Cem Kaner has done in the comment he posted to Alberto.
It takes a certain kind of courage to say no to managing-by-numbers, because it seems so safe and easy to give in. It’s particularly challenging to say no when you are afraid for your job, but I know people who have courage like that. Jonathan Kohl, for instance. He quit a job once when he was asked to sacrifice his ethics for the convenience of a particular manager. I’m not saying everyone can and should do that– but the people who put professional integrity above quiet facilitation of insanity deserve our respect and gratitude.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
>If you want to see an example of what I think is wrong with our industry, there you go.
…
>It takes a certain kind of courage to say no to managing-by-numbers, ..
Dear James,
I could not agree more. The post and the video are meant to make fun of managers who put their brain in neutral and manage by numbers alone, not endorse them. I tried to be as outrageous as possible to ensure that people would not take it seriously and get the joke - apparently I should have been clearer, put a disclaimer, or at least several :-)s.
I expressed my position on metrics in general, and code coverage in particular, a number of times. I believe they are quite in-sync with context-driven. Below are my two favorites articulations of my beliefs (based on “The Way of Testivus”).
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=210782
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=204677
As you can see, even in those posts I make fun of people who expect to get all their answers from metrics.
In context driven testing, you guys state that “metrics that are not valid are dangerous”. I would expand on that and state that all metrics (valid or not) are potentially dangerous when abused, misued, or overused. For me that’s reason to use - and experiment with - metrics using lots of caution, but not reason enough to throw away the proverbial baby with the bath water.
>I don’t know what happened to him, but I suspect he’s hanging around
>with insufficiently critical colleagues.
James, I have a lot of respect for you, your beliefs, and your work; and I look forward to continuing this discussion online or off if you are open to it. I’d love to hear more about your (and Cem’s) position, plans, and ideas regarding the work to be done on metrics to satisfy your criteria for validity and usefulness; but please let’s not get too personal or insult each other’s colleagues. Frankly, that last comment was uncalled for and hurt a bit.
Alberto
[James' Reply: You're saying it was satirical? Yikes, that was not apparent to me, at all. It did seem over the top, but so does, say, the advertising that the ISTQB does for its certification program, and I KNOW they aren't being satirical.
As for my comment on your colleagues. Heck, I don't know your colleagues. I was just offering the most sympathetic explanation I could think of for your post, under the assumption that it was meant seriously. Insufficient peer criticism is a real problem in our industry. Don't you think?]Â
December 19th, 2007 at 1:50 am
>You’re saying it was satirical? Yikes, that was not apparent to me, at all.
>[UPDATE: Alberto says that he meant the post satirically (see the comment below).
>So, let me be a critical colleague for a moment and say I didn’t notice
>the satire. I bet a lot of other people won’t, either.
James, thank you for your edit. I edited my post as well to make it very explicit that it’s meant to be satirical and that Metrics-Based Software Management is a ridiculous idea.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Indeed as a colleague of Alberto’s, my first thought is that good critical analysis skills would have picked up the parody in the video, so the rest of your post went unfinished as it seemed unlikely it would be worthwhile. How’s that for critical?
Bob Evans
[James' Reply: That's critical, but isn't it also a bit shallow? Don't you work at Agitar? Are you really able to freely speak your mind?]
December 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
James, my main discussion of Alberto’s thread can be found here:
http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=106&thread=218013&start=38&msRange=11
I have three posts in this range, Alberto has one and Bob Evans has one. I think this highlights the differences in our views in ways that do us all justice.
- Cem
December 20th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Another happy point of collegiality!