This is the latest version of the commitments I make when I work with a programmer.
My job is to help you look good. My job is to support you as you create quality; to ease that burden instead of adding to it. In that spirit, I make the following commitments to you.
- I provide a service. You are an important client of that service. I am not satisfied unless you are satisfied.
- I am not the gatekeeper of quality. I don’t “own” quality. Shipping a good product is a goal shared by all of us.
- I will test your code as soon as I can after you deliver it to me. I know that you need my test results quickly (especially for fixes and new features).
- I will strive to test in a way that allows you to be fully productive. I will not be a bottleneck.
- I’ll make every reasonable effort to test, even if I have only partial information about the product.
- I will learn the product quickly, and make use of that knowledge to test more cleverly.
- I will test important things first, and try to find important problems. (I will also report things you might consider unimportant, just in case they turn out to be important after all, but I will spend less time on those.)
- I will strive to test in the interests of everyone whose opinions matter, including you, so that you can make better decisions about the product.
- I will write clear, concise, thoughtful, and respectful problem reports. (I may make suggestions about design, but I will never presume to be the designer.)
- I will let you know how I’m testing, and invite your comments. And I will confer with you about little things you can do to make the product much easier to test.
- I invite your special requests, such as if you need me to spot check something for you, help you document something, or run a special kind of test.
- I will not carelessly waste your time. Or if I do, I will learn from that mistake.
(This is cool! Yong Goo Yeo has created a Prezi of this.)
An Important Comment
This comment came in from Stuart Taylor. I think it’s important enough that I should add this to the post:
I’m not sure if this is meant to be a little tongue in cheek, but that’s how I read it. That said, I fell at point 1. “I provide a service” really?
Yes, really. This is not a joke. And point #1 is the most important point.
This implies there may be alternative service providers, and if my customer relationship management isn’t up to snuff, I could lose this “client”. Already I feel subservient, I’m an option.
Of course there are alternative service providers. (There are alternative programmers as well, but I’m not concerned with that, here. I’m making commitments that have to do with me and my role, here.) And yes, of COURSE you may lose your client. Actually that’s a lot of what “Agile” has done: fired the testers. In their place, we often find quasi-tester/quasi-programmers who are more concerned with fitting in and poking around tools than doing testing.
Testing is not programming. Programmers are not testers. If you mix that, you do a sorry job of both. In other words: I am a programmer and a tester, but not a good programmer at the same time that I’m a good tester.
Please meditate on the difference between service and subservience. I am a servant and I am proud of that. I am support crew. I spent my time as a production programmer and I’m glad I don’t do that any more. I don’t like that sort of pressure. I like to serve people who will take that pressure on my behalf.
This doesn’t make me a doormat. Nobody wipes their feet on me– I clean their feet. There’s a world of difference. Good mothers know this difference better than anyone.
Personally, when I work on a software project, I want to feel like I’m part of the team. I need the developer, and the developer wants me. We work together to bake quality in from the start, and not try and sprinkle it on at the end as part of a “service” that I offer.
What strange ideas you have about service. You think people on the same team don’t serve each other? You think services are something “sprinkled” on the end? Please re-think this.
I want to be on the same team, too. The difference, maybe, is that I require my colleagues to choose me. I don’t rap on the door and say “let me in I belong here! I like to be on the team!” (You can’t just “join” a team. The easier it is to join a team, the less likely that it is actually a team, I think. Excellent teams must gel together over time. I want to speed that process– hence my commitments) Instead, I am invited. I insist that it be an invitation. And how I get invited quickly is by immediately dissolving any power struggle that the programmers may worry about, then earning their respect through the fantastic quality of my work.
You can, of course, demand respect. Then you will fail. Then five years later, you will realize true respect cannot be demanded. (That’s what I did. Ask anyone about what a terror I was when I worked at Apple Computer. If you are less combative or more intelligent than I am, you may make this transition in less time.)
I may have actually agreed with your points before I was exposed to Continuous Integration, because that’s how my relationship used to be; hence me interpreting this as a light hearted piece. However I know that this kind of relationship still exists today (its here at this place). When I began working with continuous integration, the traditional role of the tester, with a discrete testing phase became blurred, as the test effort is pushed back up stream towards the source. If the tester and developer share a conversation about “how can we be sure we build the right thing, and how can we ensure we built it right” before the code gets cut, and the resulting tests from that are used to help write the code (TDD, BDD, SBE), then both of us can have a nice warm fuzzy feeling about the code being of good quality. The automation removes the repetition (and reduces the feedback) to maintain that assertion.
First, your experience has nothing to do with “continuous integration.” Continuous integration is a concept. Your experience is actually related to people. Specific people are collaborating with you in specific satisfying ways, probably because it is their pleasure to do so. I have had wonderful and satisfying professional relationships on a number of projects– mostly at Borland, where we were not doing continuous integration, and where testers and programmers cooperated freely, despite being organized into separate administrative entities.
(Besides, I have to say… Testing cannot be automated. Automation doesn’t remove repetition, it changes it. Continuous integration, as I see it, is another way of forcing your customers do the testing, while placing naive trust in the magic of bewildering machinery. I have yet to hear about continuous integration from anyone who seemed to me to be a student of software testing. Perhaps that will happen someday.)
In any case, nothing I’m saying here prevents or discourages collaboration. What it addresses are some of the unhealthy things that discourage collaboration between a tester and a programmer. I’m not sure if in your role you are doing testing. If you want to be a programmer or a designer or manager or cheerleader or hanger-on, then do that. However, testing is inherently about critical thinking, and therefore it always carries a risk (in the same way that being a dentist does) that we may touch a nerve with our criticism. This is the major risk I’m trying to mitigate.
[Note: Michael Bolton pointed out to me the "warm fuzzy" line. I can't believe I let that go by when I wrote this reply, earlier. Dude! Stuart! If you are in the warm fuzzy business, you are NOT in the testing business. My goal is not anything to do with warm fuzzy thinking. My goal is to patrol out in the cold and shine my bright bright torches into the darkness. On some level, I am never satisfied as a tester. I'm never sure of anything. That's what it MEANS to be a professional tester, rather than an amateur or a marketer. Other people think positively. Other people believe. The warmth and fuzziness of belief is not for us, man. Do not pollute your testing mentality with that.]
My confusion over this being a tongue in cheek post is further compounded by point 2. Too many testers do believe that they own quality. They become the quality gate keeper, and i think they enjoy it. The question “can this go live” is answered by the tester. The tester may be unwilling to relinquish that control, because they perceive that as a loss of power.
Just as excellent testers must understand they provide a service, they must also understand that they are not “quality” people. They simply hold the light so that other people can work. Testers do not create quality. If you create quality, you are not being a tester. You are being an amateur programmer/designer/manager. That’s okay, but my commitment list is meant for people who see themselves as testers.
I guess what i’m fumbling about with here, is that some testers will read this, and sign up to it. Maybe even print it out and put it up on the wall.
I hope they do. This list has served me well.
Either way, you have written another thought provoking piece James, but i cant help wondering about the back story. What prompted you to write it?
Stuart – sat in the coffee shop, but with laptop and wifi, not a notepad
This piece was originally prompted when I took over a testing and build team for SmartPatents, in 1997. I was told that I would decide when the software was good enough. I called a meeting of the programmers and testers and distributed the first version of this document in order to clarify to the programmers that I was not some obstacle or buzzing horsefly, but rather a partner with them in a SERVICE role.
That was also the first time I gave up my office and opted to sit in a low cubicle next to the entrance that no one else wanted– the receptionist’s cubicle. It was perfect for my role. Programmers streamed by all day and couldn’t avoid me.
I think this piece is also a reaction to the Tester’s Bill of Rights (the one by Gilb, not the one by Bernie Berger, although I have my concerns about that one, too), which is one of the most arrogant pieces of crap I’ve ever seen written on behalf of testers. I will not link to it.
And now that I think of it, I wrote this a year after I hired a personal assistant, and two months later had her promoted to be my boss, even though she retained almost the same duties. The experience of working for someone whose actual day-to-day role was to serve me– but who felt powerful and grateful as my manager– helped me understand the nature of service and leadership in a new way.
Finally, a current that runs through my life is my experience as a husband and father. I am very powerful. I can make my family miserable if I so choose. I choose to serve them, instead.