Since I am publishing this on my personal blog, this is my personal view, the view of Markus Gärtner as an individual.
I think the first time I came across ISO 29119 discussion was during the Agile Testing Days 2010, and probably also during Stuart Reid’s keynote at EuroSTAR 2010. Remembering back that particular keynote, I think he was visibly nervous during his whole talk, eventually delivering nothing worth of a keynote. Yeah, I am still disappointed by that keynote four years later.
Recently ISO 29119 started to be heavily debated in one of the communities I am involved in. Since I think that others have expressed their thoughts on the matter more eloquently and deeper than I going to do, make sure to look further than my blog for a complete picture of the whole discussion. I am going to share my current state of thoughts here.
Continue reading On auditing, standards, and ISO 29119
Over the course of the Let’s Test conference in Runö, Sweden, I noticed a problem with context-driven testing. In the past one or two months this turned into two problems I see with context-driven testing. I finally decided to put them out there for further discussion. I hope a lot of you don’t agree with me – and I hope a lot of you folks speak up.
Continue reading Two problems with context-driven testing
There has been some fluff and rumor around context-driven testing yesterday. Some folks even talked about the death of context-driven testing. Most of it was issued by the about page from Cem Kaner. If you haven’t read it yet, go ahead, read it now, I will wait here.
Back? Alright. Now, I would like to take a pick on what context-driven testing means to me, and why I think the whole schools concept can help us shape something. These are the rough ideas I had around a proposal for CAST 2012 which was not accepted. It is based on the combination of the schools concept with complexity thinking and the CDE-model. Oh, you don’t know that one? I will introduce it.
Here is the abstract that I submitted:
Continue reading Lessons Learned from Context-driven testing
Title: Significant Differences and Transforming Exchanges
In this workshops participants will apply three different concepts from complexity thinking to the schools of software testing model. The three different concepts – containers, differences, and transformational exchanges – will be explained in the workshop. We will directly apply complexity thinking to the schools of testing, and discuss where we see the schools help to shape different containers, what the significant differences between the schools are, and how transformational exchanges between the different schools could happen, and maybe where they will even fail.
Armed with these tools, we will discuss how to evolve our craft of software testing, eventually extending the the concept of the different schools of thought, and find platforms for transforming software testing for the 21st century.
While Diana Larsen was in Germany in July she spoke about a course she was currently taking called Human Systems Dynamics. Since then some of my colleagues started to dive into it. So did I. I didn’t take the course, but decided to go for some of the books on it. The first one I came across is called Facilitating Organization Change – Lessons from complexity science, and deals with a lot of stuff on complexity science, self-organization, and how to introduce changes in a complex adaptive system (CAS). These are some of my first thoughts after finishing the book.
Continue reading Lessons from complexity thinking
Last week at CAST 2011 we were challenged by James Bach on a testing competition. While I was initially a bit reluctant to join the Miagi-Do team, the opportunity to test with all these fine folks couldn’t be missed. One of the lessons that James later taught us, is that you don’t know someone unless you have tested with her or him. So, we formed a Miagi-Do team consisting of Matt Heusser, Michael Larsen, Ajay Balamurugadas, Elena Houser, Adam Yuret, Simon Schrijver, Justin Hunter and Pete Schneider (sorry, I forgot your last name). Not all of them were Miagi-Do testers, but we kicked butt, I think. Since Matt was part of our team, we knew right from the start that we wouldn’t win any of the US-$ 1401 that James had set as a price. Here is my report on how the competition and the aftermath went.
Continue reading CAST 2011: A report on the Testing Competition
On my final day at CAST 2011 I attended James Bach‘s tutorial on context-driven leadership. He challenged us to challenge the principles of the context-driven school of testing, since he became nervous that no one did that in the past decade. This is my write-up of that challenge as a follow-up.
Continue reading CAST 2011: Context-driven leadership
At CAST 2011 Karen Johnson presented on working on a virtual team as a tester.
Continue reading CAST 2011: Working on a virtual team
At CAST 2011 Henrik Emilsson talked about how to create and craft our own models of software quality.
Continue reading CAST 2011: Crafting our own models of software quality
At CAST 2011 Doug Hoffman and James Bach invited to a debate on whether or not Testing schools are a good idea.
Continue reading CAST 2011: Are Testing Schools a good idea?
At CAST 2011 James Bach held the second keynote at the beginning of day 2. He was talking about some new cool things in the software testing world and future directions of the context-driven school of testing.
Continue reading CAST 2011: New cool things