MethodsPosted by Søren Wassard Wed, August 02, 2017 14:32:03
Which companies are going agile?
Is it the companies which know exactly what they are doing? The ones which have all their processes in place, and follow them? The ones that have a solid way of collecting requirements and documenting them? Or actually the ones that have a good documentation standard and follows it?
Or is it the companies who lives in caos, have no or few processes, or at least are following them? The ones that have no requirements documented (or no documentation at all)?
I argue that many companies that goes agile today, and have for the past few years are the ones that fall into that last group.
Companies that lack everything looks for the easy fix, and for some reason agile has become that apparent easy fix.
But is it? Is it an easy fix? will it solve the problems listed above? Not at all, what they will end up with is a new documenation issue, new processes that are probably twisted to fit the company, requirements caos, dev trying to do agile, rest of company continuing doing like they used to, resulting in even more clashes then previously.
Is this because of agile, is it in its nature? No, it is not, because many companies have succesfully implemented one or more agile approaches/flavours.
To me one of the differences between those who succeed and those who fail, is how disciplined, well organized, well structured, well documented, they were before the agile transformation.
A company that is structured and know what they are doing can often handle the disruption which an agile (or indeed any) transformation is, whereas others will suffer and fail.
The reason for this is because they try to fix all of their problems by changing the methodology whereas the right approach in my perspective is taking babysteps, Fix one problem at a time;
-Get your (just enough) documentation in place
-Establish good processes and follow them
-Collect and document requirements sufficiently
-Get everyone involved - from the board of directors to the piccolos, get them involved, start to get them to embrace the thoughts behind agile
And then you can implement your agile methodology, and your chance of succes is much higher.
So if done wrongly, agile is just another way to fail, your bad results will be visible a lot faster then before, in essence, you will fail faster.
Done correctly it will take time, a lot of time, and commitment from the entire organization but you will end up with a company that can react to the disruptions that happen all the time and which will increase in numbers and frequency over time, and come out stronger each time.
Thoughts on testingPosted by Søren Wassard Wed, June 21, 2017 10:34:49
Did I get your attention? I'm a for real? Do I actually mean that?
Yes, I will state that testing is dead
You probably disagree; How can test be dead, if we do not test how can we ensure a high product quality, how can we validate that the system works as intended, how can we verify that the functionality works?
Well, the statement "test is dead" is based on the context in which we normally would test; re-actively! Testing is re-actively verifying and validating a solution. "But we have shifted left, we do reviews, we are involved early in the process, whenever something is ready for either static or dynamic testing" - exactly my point - when something allready has been created = a re-active action.
Shift-left is simply not enough, we must enter the scene way earlier, we must be present when the solution is being formed, being discussed, being detailed from idea level to Release theme, features, epics, user stories, so not reviewing, but being part of the creation.
My thesis is based on the power of 3, the 3 amigos concept; At least 3 different roles / archetypes must be involved in the creation of the requirements (what ever form they are in) to ensure that as many angles to the requirement / solution are taken into consideration. If 1 person alone writes a requirement there will be undocumented assumptions, expected levels of knowledge, tendencies to "happy path" the solution. The more roles you involve, the more angles you get to a given solution, hence assumptions and other issues are identified before the solution is being described and created.
One of these roles is of cause the "tester" who really shouldn't spend time on testing, but rather must spend time on facilitating and securing quality in the process and in the description of the solution (requirement, epic, user story - what ever), and that is why I state that test is dead.
We must be involved as soon as something starts, we must ensure that we wander of the happy path and challenge assumptions. If we do that right, if we ensure, or rather contribute to the quality assurance of the product up front, we do not have to test re-actively, or at least we can minimize the amount of testing needed.
Statement; Prevention over detection! Be pro-active over being re-active!
So, testers are no longer testers! I'd prefer the title Quality Facilitator, which in my mind makes so much more sense. It really states what we should do, instead of what we have been doing.
It makes sense in the agile context where the team is responsible for the quality of the product, it makes sense in the context of Acceptance Test Driven Development, Behaviour Driven Development, Test Driven Development where the test cases that we create simply are an outcome of the conversation that we have about writing / building the right requirement / solution, and we can of casuse benefit from these test cases to re-actively ensure that we have build it correct, that we can state when we are done, but neither ATDD, BDD or TDD's main focus is to create test cases, it is to create the conversation - pro-actively.
So test is maybe really not dead, but the attention needs to shift beyond left, tests must become a byproduct of the conversation of doing things right from the beginning
ConferencesPosted by Søren Wassard Mon, November 17, 2014 12:15:14
me in a box
the hot topic this year is soft skills, something that I emphasize!
talks about not limiting our self by a title, for instance “tester”.
It was a
very inspiring talk with examples of his life experience on how he went outside
the box, and to do something different
he had no supporting slides :o) – just a man on a stage with a microphone!
He gave us
a lot of different examples. One of them was from Special Forces. He told how
he went through a course on how to enter a house in a hostage situation. 5
persons were needed; one to break down (or just open) the door, two to make a
first entry and secure the room and two to backup/support from behind. Once in
a room they would re-group so that everyone was back in their position before entering
the next room. This made the 2 persons in front most in risk of getting hit
during entry, and the specialist for opening doors was essential. Now, it took
some time to re-group and by doing so they might lose their momentum and an
enemy would have time to take countermeasures. A way of mitigating that was to
change how they entered a house in a possible hostage situation. They learned
the READ system (reading the situation in order to know how to act!). Still 5
persons going in, but once through the first door, which was most likely to be
the one that needed a specialist for blowing it up or opening it otherwise, the
first two persons who reached the next door would now be the once to open it
and make the first entry and the remaining team would support. By doing so, the
roles changed all the time, so they would have to adapt.
sound familiar? Sounds almost like agile, doesn’t it?
also referred to LEAN, especially the Waste types. And not to the 7 types of
waste, no, to the 8 types of waste!! Yes, and number 8 is important: “Skills – Underutilizing capabilities, delegating tasks
with inadequate training”.
How can that be put into
context of adapting your role? It simply means that even though you have an
area of expertise it doesn’t mean that you don’t have other areas of knowledge
that can add value whenever your expertise isn’t of use. On the other hand, do
not waste time by working on tasks for which you have no skills unless no other
persons with that specific skill available.
-You are a Terminator, right?
-Yes. Cyberdyne Systems, Model 101
-… you're like a machine underneath,
right? But sort of alive outside?
-I'm a cybernetic organism. Living
tissue over a metal endoskeleton.
Science fiction? Yes! Impossible to
think of? No!
Referring back to the keynote by Lisa
and Janet Tuesday morning; They came on the scene with a presentation about the
future, dressed up like Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek
series first aired back in 1966 – that’s now 50 years ago. Back then, the
technology in Star Trek was amazing, it was so unreal. But is it? It was, for
sure, but actually it is basically just the transporter (you know; “Beam me up,
Scotty!) that is unreal today. Most of the devices have been superseded by
the current technology!
That is one of the
points in the talk by Daniël Maslyn (last year
did the famous “wrote my presentation on hotel stationary last night, took
pictures of it with my cellphone and put it in PowerPoint” presentation).
Daniël’s talk; “We are the robots; Agile Testing for future robots”
had a lot of cool references to Blade Runner (in the Directors Cut Version
there is a unicorn appearing).
The reason for this is
also the fact that the future (Blade Runner is supposed to reflect the world
anno 2019) may not be that far away. Different people are construction
autonomous robots, are constructing parts for them, for instance eyes that we
do today, not for robots, but as spare parts for humans.
And this poses a
challenge in testing. These spare parts and robots are becoming increasingly
complex, and most of them must be tested in the live, they cannot be simulated!
Of cause you can do some testing on the software and hardware devices
individually, but only when put together you’ll get the real result!
One of the tests natural
to run on robots is the Turing test. For those who don’t know the Turing test it is a test of a
machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or
indistinguishable from, that of a human (definition from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test).
Now are we at a point
where the Turing test is needed? Maybe not, but we are getting there.
That’s it for the
highlights. The rest of day 3 was dedicated to CAT Trainer Day.
I really hope to be back
next year for Agile Testing Days in Potsdam :o)
ConferencesPosted by Søren Wassard Thu, November 13, 2014 11:05:10
Simply the best key ever…
Lisa and Janet gave a good keynote, but todays keynote by Joe Justice from
Scrum Inc. (Twitter: @JoeJustice0, @ScrumInc) was amazing!
Joe is the
inventor of XM. Isn’t that a Citroën from the eighties you may ask? Well, yes,
but it is also the abbreviation for eXtreme Manufactoring, taking Scrum from
software development to hardware manufacturing. He is also the founder of the car
purpose of Wikispeed was to win the X Prize Challenge, a competition to build a
road safe car that can run 100 Mpg or in the European consumption standard; 1,5
liters of fuel per 100 km!
So how do
you do that? Well, you start by creating the user story:
As a car manufacturer
I would like to build
So that I can win the
X Prize Challenge
And then you start building
a car using scrum and XP and very important, you implement Test First!
Did he win? No, but
came into a 10th place by building a car in Joes garage!
That impressed quite a
few people and XM was born.
XM has now been
implemented by Joe and his team at customers like; Lockhead-Martin, Boeing,
John Deere, X-box, HP, TomTom.
Joe gave an example of
how one of his customers, John Deere, after 16 months performed 7.2 times
better than before they implemented XM! All employees are also happier than
before XM (Scrum) and work less hours.
So Scrum is not
limited to software development!
By the way, Scrum Inc.
has gathered metrics regarding performane and team size and found that a size
of 4,6 persons (yes, that is an average) performs the best!
can be used in other areas as well, for example education. A new school
projects EduScrum has emerged. It seems that the students learn faster and get better
grades! #eduscrum – check it out!!!!
seems that the financial world has got their eyes opened for Scrum. Pictet is a
privately held bank which demands from its clients to deposit a minimum of
75.000.000 Euro in order to open an account in the bank, so people with
accounts here are powerful people. They
have decided to create a Scrum Fond who will only invest in companies which successful
run Scrum. The reason? Because Joe proved to them that the risk is much less,
and the profit higher than with companies run traditionally!
point is that by going with Scrum and doing test first, we know where we are
heading, can change as things change around us and thereby deliver faster,
Go spread the word – be Agile Evangelists!!
So, I was
really looking forward to being a part of this, I couldn’t wait to get my hands
on that car!
is the car??
the Wikispeed car, would come in late, very late, which meant I had to change
my plan, but unfortunately the session I’d liked to go to were full, as in
people were standing up outside the open door trying to catch a glimpse of what
was going on inside.
So I ended
up going to other less crowded sessions which unfortunately didn’t leave much
of an impression.
from happy change agents
Schwartz and Fanny Pittack
You go to a
conference, attend a course, get an idea, and now that must be implemented,
because you think it is amazingly great….
did your team, your colleagues feel about that change? Did they embrace the
change? Or did they on the contrary go against it?
you have done to implement the change easier?
not one answer, but these advices are worth considering;
it through with your team beforehand!
sure to adapt your ideas to the context in which it must be implemented
advices point to the fact that it is much easier to achieve a goal if you work
together, if you have a common goal, and agree on how to get there!
it, do not avoid changes
to feedback and yourself
change is a leap of faith!
I thought that I was going to do some Black Ops testing, but then finally, yes,
the Wikispeed car arrived. In order to get the build started we had to get the
car of the truck and into the lobby – in parts!
professional racing crew from Team Wikispeed.de startet, and with help from a us
delegates, we managed to get the car disassembled and carried into the lobby in
approximately an hour
the event started – first sprint started at 16:00. Up to 25 persons including the
4 guys from Team Wikispeed.de was to form 5 teams with 5 persons at the
maximum. As there was only 4 professional mechanics the question was raised who
had the most car building experience from the remaining persons, and it turned
out to yours truly – yes – I can now put yet another area of expertise to my
CV; Car Building Expert ;O)
gave an introduction, teams picked a Product Owner and a Scrum Master and then
the Product Owner ran off and picked a story from the back log.
whole exercise was about how to do construction, Scrum style. The expert on each
team explained what had to be done in order to complete the story, team decided
how to divide the work, Scrum Master facilitated (got tools, parts, etc.) based
on the needs of the team. This was the sprint planning. As a sprint was roughly
30 minutes it took approximately 2 minutes to do the planning, and then we “sprinted”,
fulfilled the picked up user story. It quickly turned out that there were
dependencies, and the scrum masters did scrum of scrums to mitigate these
dependencies in order for all to reach the goals.
sprint a short retrospective was held, and the next 25 people were going to
build in the next sprint.
later a car, or at least a rolling chassis with a body, should be done.
also a number of requirements, which basically added up to the fact that the car
ultimately should conform to German race car standards as this car ultimately
will run on the Nürnburg Ring. The fact that these requirements existed was not
highlighted that clearly, so yes, it did lead to errors.
requirement was that all bolts should have just the length needed for 2 washers
and a locknut to fit.
the car was taken apart most bolts for the suspension was kept in place, so
when the reassembly started, the bolts which were initially used were simply
As some of
the nuts were placed inside the frame of the chassis it wasn’t possible to see
if we met the requirement for the bolts, it turned out, we didn’t L
So as we
started out on sprint 2 we had to take the suspension apart again and start
over, but it quite fast became clear that the bolts were all 5 mm short of
meeting the requirements. So we spiked, tried out different solutions, shorter
bolts, way longer bolts, but failed, we could not meet the requirement.
Joe took a
C(3?)PO decision and decided to go with the “almost long enough” bolts for
sprint 3 in order for the car to get done at all.
after a very long (1½ hour) 4th sprint it was done! The car was
build, using a few subject matter experts and a lot of willing hands, and
working agile! eXtreme Manufacturing at its best!
tremendous fun, THE best agile exercises I’ve ever participated in!!
facts about the car; Wikispeed.de bought the rolling chassis. They are going to
rebuild it, make it race legal, add a BMW M3 race engine to it, and the goal is
that within 2 years they are able to drive it in an endurance race on the
Nürnburg Ring!!! You can follow the team at www.wikispeed.de
ConferencesPosted by Søren Wassard Wed, November 12, 2014 11:25:28
not Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock but is might as well have been ;o)
Gregory and Lisa Crispin delivering the first keynote @AgileTD, and of cause
they do it the way they always do; with a great show.
the Enterprise for a couple of days to be with us and talk about the future;
Welcome to the future! Preparing for our agile testing journey…
Janet and Lisa
stated that we do not know what the future will bring, but that we will get hit
by it faster than we imagine, and the speed in which we get hit is increasing.
So how can
we as testers mitigate that? By adapting to change! Or as Gunnery Sergeant
Highway states it; Improvise, adapt and overcome! We need to change the way we
work, we need to be willing to update our skills set, not be afraid to step on
to uncharted territory. Lisa and Janet came with a metaphor; Be a Rubik’s cube –
get it? Make sure that you have enough skills to match the current context!
talked about communication. We are getting lazy, and that has an impact on our
ability to communicate, which again leads to misinterpretations and
misunderstandings. Too many people call colleagues or writes e-mails to them even
thou they are co-located in the same building! The message is; Avoid time
consuming and potential misleading communication by getting on your feet, go to
your co-worker and talk to them face to face!
years they have also through many projects picked up that even though the
projects have been agile, not the right things were done – why? Because the
user stories weren’t aligned! So by introducing Impact mapping and Story
mapping you can mitigate that, and make sure that only stories which contribute
to the final goal are done.
Next up was
Kristoffer Nordström who talked about “The struggle of my identity and how I
got developers to start testing”.
gave a good talk about how he his entire work life has struggled to be
confident in what he was doing. He has always felt that when he entered a new
company, project, group, team, whatever, he found himself uncertain whether he
could do the job, could match the apparently cool and intelligent people he was
surrounded by. This feeling of having to fake something and the fear of being
revealed as a fake has been hunting him. But it turns out that approximately
75% of all people feel the same!
something deep inside us that does this. Kristoffer’s advice was to be true to
yourself, remember who you are, in an agile team; pick up that test flag and carry
In the same
stream followed Allessandra Moreira. She has always been working in traditional
waterfall projects with the classic “over the wall” hand over process. So she
was a classic tester, with a classic testers mindset when she first joint an
agile team, and had to re-invent herself completely. She now faced the
challenge of having to take on new skills, become more of a testing coach then
a tester, and let go of the “quality gate keeper” equivalent to Gandalf; “You
shall not pass”, because suddenly it was okay to “pass” as long as we knew what
we were passing into production!
overcame, change her mindset and some 18 months later they were running agile!
skills are NOT the most important skills – soft skills are more important
testers job is NOT to ensure quality – a tester is a skilled investigator which
can highlight risks and provide information about quality
I want to highlight is the TenKod workshop on automated mobile app testing.
gave a good intro to their eclipse based product EZ TestApp, and it’s definitely
something worth looking into. Its capture/replay on both simulated as well as
real devices! You can even capture on a simulation and replay on a real device –
So that’s something I really want to dig further into!!!
LinksPosted by Søren Wassard Mon, November 26, 2012 10:57:33
Test Evangelist Gitte Ottosens thoughts on testing:Godtesen - Thoughts on Software Testing
ToolsPosted by Søren Wassard Wed, November 02, 2011 14:04:42
I heard about Worksoft Certify
was a short introduction to it in a presentation
that showed the new trends within software testing.
of "scriptless automated testing" seemed like a good portion of sales
grease, because I've heard of "scriptless" testing before, and as you
might have guessed, they were not scriptless at all, but simply capture/replay
I then saw
a video, and yes, it seemed that it was true - no scripting - not a single line
Even then I
was skeptical – could it really be true?
week, finally, I got my hands on the product as I attended a Worksoft Technical
enablement course. There it was the mystical product that kept stating that no
lines of code were used / generated.
And yes, it
is true – someone heard my prayers
Certify does not generate code, you don’t need to know Java, VB scripting, C++
or whatever language regular automation tools are using for their scripts.
said, I will emphasize that knowing just a slight bit about programming is definitely
So how does
Certify is a “fat client” which needs to be installed on the machine on which
you will create and execute your test connecting to the product database in
which all the objects, processes etc. are stored.
client you create your process. “Proces? I thought we talked about testing,
creating scriptless testscripts?” – well – I had to swallow that one as well.
Proces is testscript! This naming, and here I’m guessing, are named due to the
fact that Worksoft Certify was built for testing SAP solutions. So they use SAP
But back to
the product. You create a new process, name it, save it, go to steps, right click
in the steps window, choose New, in the field Application Version you choose
Select using LiveTouch. And then you are off and away – easy as that. From here
of you record your movements in your SUT (System Under Test), after recording
your actions and your checkpoints you then modify your “script” steps by adding
variables where needed, set up test data that you need for your variables, and
then you can run your automated test.
After a few
hours of working with the product I could create quite advanced test scripts,
which will work every time, now, and in a year. I was amazed!
Yes, it is originally
made for SAP but you can test HTML, .Net applications and a lot of other stuff,
as long as it is GUI based.
for SAP it “plugs” in to SAP Solution Manager, you can import requirements and
test scripts from SAP and export reports back to the solution manager. If you
set it up together with RQM you can actually export the SAP blueprints, get
your requirements in automatically, get test plans and test cases created
automatically, then you can add your test scripts (sorry – processes), run them
– report back to SAP solution manager, log defects in the SAP solution manager
incident handling etc. – AWSOME!
smart trick in Certify is that it knows the SAP objects, and it knows them by
version, so if a new version has update, added or deleted objects Certify knows
that, and will inform you about it! We are talking about semi-automated script maintenance.
How would a changed object be handled in an old-school test automation tool?
You would have to find every single script where the object is used and modify
the lines of code. Here Certify automatically updates the object and then you
again can run your script – and it still works!
Another thing. You can reuse your processes, use them as child-processes. For instance Log in is the same for all functionality in my application, and I can therefore create a process that runs the log in and add that as a child process to my other processes, creating easy to maintain end to end test. Because, if something changes in my log in porcess, I simply change the one process and all of the processes where this process is a child to will now be running by the new changed process!
verdict? well, I think you already know that;
I’m impressed! It’s by far the most innovative
tool I’ve seen in many years!
ToolsPosted by Søren Wassard Fri, October 07, 2011 08:19:51
In the early eighties I got a Sinclair ZX Spectrum
. A fine little piece of hardware.
On that machine I wrote my first lines of code - created my own space invaders like arcade game. Approximately at the same time I started using Comal 80
and for a few years I spend quite some time on this. In the beginning of the nineties I was introduced to TurboPascal
, and for a year or so I used that language.
Then I started at Copenhagen Business School studying logistics, and I didn't spend an hour on coding before I in 2004 started working with automated test, using TestPartner
. Back then it was a Compuware product, today its being sold by MicroFocus.
TestPartner used VBA scripting to generate the code. I didn't know VBA, so I did capture/replay and got a little help from the developers (has to say that I was the only person in the "testing department").
So I did create automated test scripts. Were they any good ? I think so, yes. But not in version 1.0, and not in 2.0 or 3.0.
I spend ages re-writing, splitting up scripts, making error handling better, continuous improvements, which of cause had an impact on my ability to expand the suite of test scripts.
I have since then worked with automation tools such as Quick Test Professional (QTP), Rational Functional Tester (RFT) and Selenium. They are all capture/replay tools, but the scripts needs to be tweeked, error handling must be added, "intelligence" must be build in etc. All tasks that needs a developers involvement, or at least very good knowledge on the programming language by the tester.
So, do all testers by default have a developer background ? No, they don't! Do all testers feel an impelling urge to learn how to write code ? Probably not - if so they would most likely be developers and not testers.
That leaves us with a few specialized persons, making it hard for an organization which would like to do automated testing. They either don't have the knowledge in-house, or can not afford to call in those specialist who actually can do automation.
Isn't that a problem ?
I think so - I think it's a huge problem!
Then just the other day I came across a product that was new to me; WorkSoft Certify
Never heard of it before, but here it seemed that the solution to my problem was.
A scriptless automation tool, simply point click, modify attributes in a GUI, and error handling, comparison, etc., all in a GUI
Now, I haven't had the chance to test the tool just yet, but I will as soon as I can, and I'll get back with my thoughts on it.
But still, QTP and RFT are the 2 most commenly used automation tools. They are good tools, but the need the touch of an expert to give you value for your money.
Could we be so lucky that they also in a not so far from now future would be fitted with a usefull GUI that will enable us "non-developers" to do good automated scripting as well ?????