Software consultant, trainer and author James Bach is a bit of a lightning rod in our industry. Most of his notoriety comes from his stand on software testing certifications. He doesn’t like them and isn’t shy about letting people know it. Bach also challenges other widely held beliefs in our industry.
Bach takes his off-the-certification-track testing tutorial, How to teach yourself testing, to StarWest 2009 in Anaheim this week. He’ll also take on some of the myths about rigor in software testing at the Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference (PNSQC), which takes place Oct 26-28, 2009 in Portland Oregon.
The software myths talk gathers into one place and in succinct form arguments that Bach has been making indirectly for years.
“I keep hearing that more rigor is good and less rigor is bad. Some managers who’ve never studied testing, never done testing, probably have never even seen testing up close, nevertheless insist that it be rigorously planned in advance and fully documented. This is a cancer of ignorance that hobbles our craft.”
Bach’s talk is about clearing up what he calls the “silliness and sloppiness” surrounding the notion of rigorous processes.
“Managers want to say ‘let’s get a lot more rigorous in our processes!’ They may say ‘formal’ or ‘repeatable,’ but it’s all the same sort of thing,” he told me. “But getting rigorous is no panacea. It’s actually a bad idea, in many cases, because rigor can interfere with learning by locking us into bad practice. We need to apply rigor without obsession or compulsion, and at the right level, so that our testing is flexible and inexpensive.”
Bach has been a test manager or consulting tester since Apple lured him from a programming career in 1987. He spent about 10 years in Silicon Valley before going independent and traveling the world teaching rapid software testing skills. He is the author of Lessons Learned in Software Testing, and a new book, Secrets of a Buccaneer-Scholar: How Self-Education and the Pursuit of Passion Can Lead to a Lifetime of Success.
I asked him to offer an example of one of the myths facing our industry. He shared some of the impact of detailed documentation around testing processes and procedures:
“One myth is that a process becomes more rigorous just because it is written down. Well, as anyone ought to know who works with procedures, what is written is not necessarily what is practiced. In fact, it rarely is, in my experience. Moreover, it is not even possible to write down everything that matters about the processes that skilled people use.
“The impact of this myth is that a huge amount of money and time is wasted trying to chase an unhelpful obsession with documentation. It makes good theater – you look busy – but it doesn’t necessarily help you do better work.”
Bach has recently been training to fly a float plane. During PNWSQC he plans to draw some examples from that experience, such as the fact that pilots have to learn many procedures and protocols in order to fly safely. “Rigor is an interesting challenge for a pilot.” he said. “In the talk, I talk about how we use checklists and some of the problems with those checklists.”
A lot of the philosophy behind James’ stance can be found in his latest book:
“Compulsory public education is an example of rigor myths getting drunk and going wild. Many millions of my fellow humans have bought into the idea that education is possible only through schooling. Rigor applied to education is usually presumed to mean that you subordinate your will to that of a schoolmaster, priest, guru or some other authority. I practice a different sort of rigor — education strictly inseparable from life. My life is my education. My life is my own. Education is not some side activity that I do to prepare for life.
“That applies to testing. I am a tester. That is a big part of my life. So, I can’t accept these silly certification programs and bad standards and process guides. Those are examples of rigor, however they represent bad rigor, and my standards are too high for that. I’m trying to raise the standards of the industry so that it will laugh at bad work instead of enshrining it.”