EuroSTAR – Star – Fiona Charles

This is a short series leading up to Christmas where I feature a tester that was at EuroSTAR 2014, who I personally believe you, my readers, will benefit from knowing.

Next up is Fiona Charles.

Fiona Charles at EuroSTAR 2014
Fiona Charles at EuroSTAR 2014

I see Fiona at pretty much every EuroSTAR and every year I thoroughly enjoy chatting to her about software development.

The reason I wanted to include Fiona in this series is because she’s refreshingly straight talking and direct about the challenges facing the testing industry. She’s also supremely knowledgeable – I suspect a week spent learning from Fiona would be invaluable.

Fiona is on Twitter here –

Fiona blogs here –

EuroSTAR 2014 – Adam Knight

This is a short series leading up to Christmas where I feature a tester that was at EuroSTAR 2014, who I personally believe you, my readers, will benefit from knowing.

Next up is Adam Knight.

Adam Knight at EuroSTAR
Adam Knight at EuroSTAR

Me and Adam have often been at the same conferences and seem to share a similar career trajectory from testers to “anything that the company needs to get software shipped”. For me this resulted in engineering manager, for Adam it’s resulted in looking after testing, support, technical documentation and release management!

This year at EuroSTAR Adam spoke about on the challenges of testing a Big Data product in agile.

Adam’s outlook on testing is fabulous and he’s clearly a brand evangelist and someone who’s intent on evolving the testing to meet the needs of the company he works for, Rainstor.

Adam is also a good laugh to be around and very much someone I like to sit down with a beer and chat to about testing, life and work.

Adam is on Twitter –

Adam also has a terrific blog –

EuroSTAR – Star – Mary Walshe

This is a short series leading up to Christmas where I feature a tester that was at EuroSTAR 2014, who I personally believe you, my readers, will benefit from knowing.

Today is Mary Walshe.

Mary Walshe at EuroSTAR 2014
Mary Walshe at EuroSTAR 2014

I attended Mary’s talk on “Why Should I Be Concerned with the Availability Heuristic”. I learned a lot from Mary’s talk and took away the idea of a “waste snake” (a snake that you can stick post-its to describing observed waste in the process) and the Popcorn flow of change, first introduced by Claudio Perrone.

This was Mary’s first talk and to be honest, it was awesome. The talk was very well received by the audience and Mary had a load of questions after the session, and the talk itself had little to do with testing – it was more about process improvement.

You can find Mary on Twitter – @mary_walshe

EuroSTAR – Star – Kristoffer Nordström

This is a short series leading up to Christmas where I feature a tester that was at EuroSTAR 2014, who I personally believe you, my readers, will benefit from knowing.

Today is Kristoffer Nordström.

Kristoffer Nordström at EuroSTAR 2014
Kristoffer Nordström at EuroSTAR 2014

I first met Kris about 4 years ago at a EuroSTAR conference – Amsterdam I think. We spent a night talking about testing, life and families and struck up a great friendship. Now getting together with Kris each year at a conference is a great treat.

Kris is the owner of Northern Test, his own consultancy. Kris is big in the Python for Testers world and offers some great talks and training on the subject. If you’re interested in learning to code Python then Kris is your man.

I attended Kris’ talk at EuroSTAR on Gamification – one of the best that I saw at the conference. Kris was talking about how a company was looking at ways to improve feedback from users – add gamification. Kris’ message was insightful, interesting and incredibly balanced. Kris warned against communicating the need for gamification with power and turning what can be a good game in to manipulation. Great talk.

Kris always has his Moomins with him. Here’s a post from earlier this year about the Moomins.

You can find Kris on Twitter – @kristoffer_nord

His website is –

Visualising your product or service using Evernote and MohioMap

One of the perrenial challenges I’ve had at every company I have worked for is being able to see an organic and evolving view of the product being built that isn’t buried deep in the code, or hidden in high level specs that are out of date.

This got me thinking – what if I could use Evernote and MohioMap to visualise the product being built, the links between the components and features and of course, the detail of what each component does.

Read More

EuroSTAR 2014

It’s been a week since the EuroSTAR 2014 conference kicked off and I’m still trying to digest everything I learned.
This years conference was one of the best I’ve been to for a number of reasons.
The talks were very forward looking in some respects – they seemed to show me the future of what testing will be (Internet Of Things, Lean and Kanban in testing, Mobile testing challenges, DevOps).
It was my first proper Keynote which pushed me even further out of my comfort zone.
The vibe was really relaxed. There were lots of community activities and lots of discussions happening around the event.
The Test Lab seemed a lot busier than usual and was back to back with the community hub meaning it became a central place for discussions.
R0001359_1680x1050 R0001329_1680x1050
The social events were really good.
A lot of my good friends in testing were there this year – and this makes a huge difference (a lot of my good friends weren’t able to make it this year though sadly) 🙁
Last year and this year seemed to show more clearly the move I’ve personally seen in the industry – a shift away from the Test “phase” to a more continuous testing lifecycle. A lifecycle where the testers do less testing at the back-end of the project, but they have way more input in to the design, code and building of the software.
This highlighted itself quite clearly in the discussions I had with many of my peers – we find ourselves in a strange place where we do a wider range of activities than testing (management, leadership, recruiting, strategy, support, marketing, evangelism of our company’s brand) – basically whatever it takes to ship great software and make the business a success. Is it as simple as start-up versus established company? I don’t think it is. I’ll be exploring this idea next year on this blog.
R0001331_1680x1050 R0001354_1680x1050 R0001334_1680x1050
Next year EuroSTAR is in Maastricht, Netherlands and is chaired by Ruud Teunissen – the theme is “Walking the Testing Talk”. I’m very much hoping I can make it to next years conference. The call for papers is out now – and the most cost effective way to get to a conference – is to present at it 🙂
 R0001351_1680x1050 R0001338_1680x1050
Some more photos can be found over on my g+ page

How to build a standing desk for £16

There’s growing research that suggests that sitting down all day is bad for you so in a bid to live longer and see my sons growing up I’ve started using a standup desk at work. A few others here at NewVoiceMedia are also using standing desks.

A vari desk standing desk
A vari desk standing desk

I also thought I’d have a go at building a standing desk at home. I was amazed at how cheap and simple it was to build.

What follows is how to build a standing desk for £16. The following standing desk though, does assume that you already have a normal desk in place. Read on for more.

How a standing desk has helped me

Since using standing desks at work I’ve seen most of my back pain disappear. I tend to sit slouched with my back sloping in places it probably shouldn’t which causes me back pain, sometimes crippling. Since using a standing desk I’ve seen none of my usual back pains.

Standing all day though comes with it’s own set of aches and pains, so I’ve tried to seek a balance. My legs and feet tend to ache after a couple of hours but thankfully the Varidesks we use mean I can switch between standing and sitting.

How to build a standing desk using a coffee table!

I created this standing desk by simply buying a coffee table from Ikea and standing it on my current desk. Sounds too good to be true right? But it worked for me and it actually looks OK.

I got the inspiration for a standing desk from this blog about using an Ikea coffee table. Their solution is a little bit fancier than mine though.

I used the Lack Coffee Table from Ikea.

The desk the coffee table is stood on is a length of kitchen worktop that I re-used when I stripped out our kitchen a few years back.

I simply built the flat-packed coffee table following the useful IKEA instructions and then stood it on my desk. Hey presto – a standing desk.

Standing Desk Coffee Table
Standing Desk Coffee Table

Getting the right height

The right height for me has my hands just below my elbows when typing. This means my hands aren’t pointing up as I type – a sure fire way to get pins and needles.

As it happened the coffee table on the desk was pretty much perfect out of the box. If it’s not for you then either cut some length off the coffee table legs, or add some extra length to it with surplus wood. Remember though – measure twice and cut once.

Your desk means you can’t sit down though….as you are aren’t using a laptop

The keen eyed amongst you will notice that on my standing desk I have a MacMini and that the desk is permanent (i.e. not adjustable).

This does indeed mean that I cannot sit down to work at home using the MacMini without a lot of hassle. Thankfully I also have a laptop from work and cloud computing makes it easy to share between the MacMini and my Macbook using Dropbox, Confluence and Evernote so it’s not really an issue.

In the future I may take the plunge and invest in a Varidesk (Amazon affiliate link) which is what I use at work.

It’s expensive but it means I can adjust between sitting and standing simply.

If you don’t have much of a budget and want to experiment with a standing desk then a coffee table from IKEA might just solve your standing desk problems.

This post contains affiliate links – for more on affiliate links see my Cookie Policy page.

How to help your recruiters create a great first impression

At some point during your recruitment drive you’ll likely use recruiters. The problem is that some recruiters are creating a bad first impression of your company.

Your recruiters are often the first point of contact a potential hire has with your company.

Here are some ideas on how to help your recruiters create a great first impression.



I like to use recruiters to help me to find the right people. They are invaluable and a good one is worth their weight in gold.

Some recruiters though don’t think twice about focusing on short term wins at the expense of a long term relationship.

This leads to many problems but the one I’ll focus on in this post is that it often creates a poor first impression about your company in the mind of a candidate.

The reality is that your job advert and the initial call to, or from, the recruiter is often the first time someone has a connection with your company. You need to make sure it’s a positive experience and not one soured with lies, miscommunication and frustration.

I have dealt with recruiters from both sides of the recruitment process and I can tell you that first impressions really do matter.

One recruiter I was working with lied to me and sent me to an interview for a developer role. The job spec and the detailed discussions all suggested this was a tester role. He changed my CV without telling me nor the hiring manager and both sides were left utterly disappointed. I have never used that recruiter again.

Many times I’ve had recruiters who don’t even know what testing is. Many others who have lied about the salary. And of course, a great deal more who never get back to you. If you want a laugh check out The Problems With Testing (PDF Direct Download) – there is a chapter in there about recruitment.

In my experience for every great recruiter out there, there are several unprofessional ones. And these people create bad experiences for your potential employees.

It’s your job as a hiring manager to make sure, where possible, that the first contact a candidate has with your recruitment agent is a positive one.

Your recruiter is an advert for your company and for you. It can be hard to recover a candidate from a poor initial experience.

As you cannot control people it will be impossible for you to guarantee your recruiter creates a positive first experience, but what follows are some ideas to help improve the chance of a positive first experience.

Pick your recruiter with care

If you have a choice then you need to choose your recruiter with care. Choose one who also cares about first impressions. I’ve written about working with recruiters before and the advice remains the same – find someone you trust. I’d suggest you read that post as it outlines more about this in further detail.

Find out how they recruit and work with them to fine tune this process

The search and contact process that your recruiter has in place is an important factor in creating a good first impression. Don’t be afraid to ask your recruiter what their process is.

If they want to work with you and build a relationship then transparency (where practical) is essential. The better you know their process the better placed you will be to help them to improve it when working with you.

It’s important that you feel comfortable with the recruitment process they have in place. If you have any doubts ask for clarity. If they refuse to change the way they work, or are hesitant to even share their process then consider walking away if it’s not right for you. I’m not suggesting you get involved with any of their internal business processes – but if they approach candidates and manage them through their system in a way that is not congruent with your values – then have that discussion with them.

There are lots of recruiters out there and if you’re not comfortable with any one of them then consider switching.

Listen to their feedback about your process

Just as the recruiters process won’t be perfect, neither will yours. So listen to their feedback and action it where practical. Don’t be defensive and assume you have it nailed – you probably don’t.

The process of contacting a candidate and that candidate making their way through to an offer/rejection should be as seamless as possible. So it’s important that both parties work on improving together.

Invite them to see your company and understand your team culture

A recruiter who knows you, your company process and your company culture will be much better placed to create a good impression.

Be wary of recruiters who don’t want to find out more. Why would they not want to?

Get feedback from candidates about your recruiter

  • Ask every single person who comes through from your recruiter for feedback.
  • How smooth was the process?
  • How accurate was the information?
  • What was the first impression like?
  • Would you feel happy applying for another job through this recruiter again?

Give feedback to your recruiter and drop them if they don’t shape up

Take the above candidate feedback and use it to improve the process. Provide constructive feedback for your recruiters so that they can fine tune their process.

A good recruiter will welcome feedback and an opportunity to improve.

If the recruiter dismisses the feedback and is defensive then consider how effective your on-going relationship with them can be.

Be cautious though about taking all feedback as an immediate problem. Some candidates are conditioned to look for problems and struggle to spot positives. It is easy to point out problems, it’s much harder to acknowledge and give praise. But you’ll know whether you’re starting to see a pattern in the feedback.

Give your recruiters a media pack

Providing your recruiters with a media pack makes it easier for them to communicate a consistent message. A media pack should contain links, data, information and contact details. Some recruiters won’t need this but in the early days it can be helpful in setting expectations.

It may also be worth providing the recruiter with a series of questions to ask the candidate. These questions (technical, culture, career goals etc) can help to create consistency in the process.

The above are some ideas on how to help your recruitment team create a great first impression. I would also like to outline something you should never do.

Don’t do this

Never pretend to be a candidate and apply for one of your own jobs to assess your recruiter. I’ve known lots of people try this and it has one massive downside. It undermines the trust you should have in your recruiter. Trust is important. Trust that they will do their job and that you will do yours. If you don’t trust them why are you working with them to find great talent?


It’s your job as a hiring manager to put in place processes and activities that ensure you’re not turning people away at the first hurdle. Working with your recruiter to create a great first impression is a good starting point.

How do you try to ensure a positive first impression when working with recruiters?

Have you had a bad experience with a recruiter – please leave your thoughts in the comments.


Impossible tester job spec

How to create effective adverts for recruiting software testers

When recruiting software testers many hiring managers often look for the impossible candidate who can do everything.

These people don’t exist yet many hiring managers continue to place job adverts that seek out these candidates.

An impossible job spec used for recruiting software testers
An impossible job spec used for recruiting software testers


What follows are 5 ways that will help you to create effective adverts for recruiting software testers

When I was early in my hiring career I created the usual generic and weak job adverts that swamp the usual jobs boards.

I listed so many responsibilities, expectations and skills that most candidates didn’t apply. I was seeking the impossible candidate. I was seeking someone who could do everything.

If you do a quick search for testing jobs online you may notice that most of them fall in to two distinct categories.

The first group of adverts are seeking the impossible tester. More on the pitfalls of this later in this post.

The second are somewhat different and aim to seek the niche tester. These adverts are so specific that only a small percentage of testers would fit the bill.

For example they would be asking for “ability to raise a defect using work-flow X in tool Y” and “must be able to use Z best practice” etc. They are so specific that many people will move on to other adverts before considering applying for your job.

Neither style of advert is particularly helpful at getting great applicants. Don’t get me wrong – you will receive applications. There are lots of people applying for every job out there. I’m also sure that some of these styles of advert do work in certain contexts, but it’s my belief that to get great testers you need to do something different.

I believe it’s important to focus on the values of the person and the results that you expect.

The following 5 points may help you to create a different, and effective job advert. Included at the bottom is a sample job advert format.

1. Focus on your team’s values

Hiring someone who doesn’t meet your team’s values will have a corrosive effect on your culture.

It’s my belief that team fit is more important than technical ability.

If you have your values right then most candidates who share these values will learn, adapt and grow as your business does.

If you don’t have your values articulated then spending some time to write them down is helpful. I’ll be writing more about values (and behaviour) in the future as they are key to growing an effective team.

2. Understand the problem you are trying to solve

It’s pointless just to keep recruiting software testers without understanding the problems you are trying to solve. I’ve written about this before here.

It is important to understand the problems your next hire is going to help you solve. This will help you to create a more focused job advert and ensure you’re interviewing for the right software tester. It will also give the applicant a deeper understanding of what the expectations of them are.

3. Don’t always copy what the masses are doing

When we started creating different styles of adverts at NewVoiceMedia many people were skeptical. As it happens the job adverts have worked well.

We often receive feedback stating our advert stands out for two reasons.

Reason number 1 is because they focus on the person as well as the skills. Reason number 2 is because they look and feels different; they are brief and succinct and promote our culture well.

Sometimes standing out from the masses is not helpful though. There may be a reason why the masses do something a certain way. But experiment, be brave and try something new. You can always change it based on feedback.

4. Stop using mandatory and optional sections in your advert

In my opinion most job adverts in the software testing industry contain two sections that I feel are not useful.

These are the “mandatory” and “optional” sections of skills and experience.

The view seems to be that anything in the mandatory is, as expected, a mandatory skill or ability or experience. Anything in the “optional” is , as expected, optional.

The problem with this is that it says little about the actual person and their approach to their work. It also doesn’t cater for those who have the ability to learn new skills and gain new experiences.

These sections can deter good testers who don’t feel they meet the required expectations.

I know I struggled to even articulate the tangible experiences and skills I wanted in someone, let alone which section they should be in.

What would happen if an outstanding candidate applied but they didn’t meet one or two of the mandatory?

What would happen if an underwhelming candidate applied but could put a tick against all the mandatory items?

What would happen if someone met all the mandatory but none of the optional? Or all the optional but none of the mandatory? Or a decent mix of both?

I’m getting confused now but you get the point?

People use these sections in adverts as a filter mechanism and this may be OK if you just want bums on seats but not if you want great testers.

Instead it pays to focus on the person and keep the skills and technologies generic. This sounds counter intuitive but the right person will pick up the skills they need.

So don’t put great testers off with a poor advert.

Job adverts can be filters but I prefer to look at them for what they are; adverts.

A job advert should attract and persuade someone to take a course of action – that’s the basics of advertising. It should draw people in to find out more, not repel them away.

That does not mean lying – far from it – but it does mean using the advert to attract people in.

5. Focus on selling your amazing working environment

You do have an amazing working environment right?

An advert is a chance to sell this environment and attract the right candidates.

Your advert may be the first contact a candidate has with your company. Your job is to inspire them to find out more and communicate to them why your company rocks.

Trust me, to get the best testers you’ll face some stiff competition. Your advert should advertise why a candidate should choose your role (and company) over another. Don’t forget though – your advert should be truthful.

Over to you

I’d love to hear how you stop searching for the impossible tester when recruiting software testers?
And what style of job specs have proven successful for you?

Sample job advert format


A clear succinct industry recognised title works fine.

Feel free to use terms that represent your brand and culture, like Rock Star etc. Be clear in your title about what the role is as this will likely be listed on websites, jobs boards and included prominently in communications from recruiters.

Your Goal

This is where you list the solutions and objectives the person will need to fulfill.

Are they building a test infrastructure, managing people, expected to do awesome exploratory testing or will they be working in the performance engineering function?

Working Here

List here the types of work you do and what the candidate can expect to work on.

Is it a cloud based multi-tenant platform?

Is it software as a service?

Is it telephony based or an accounting package or security software?

What scale are you working at?

How often do you release?

These should all be selling points. If they aren’t you’ll have to work hard to make them appealing.

This section is also an opportunity to explain a little about the activities and culture of your company. Do you run hack-athons and learning events? Why is it cool to work at your company?

Values and Processes

This section allows you to list your values. What core values do you promote?

These values should guide your recruitment and inform the way you lead the team.

If your values are good enough you’ll attract the people who share these values, or want to work in an environment that promotes these values.

This is also a chance to explain some underlying process choices your company have made.

Are you agile?

Do you do pair programming?

Are you doing Test Driven Development (TDD) and Behaviour Driven Development (BDD)?


In this section you have a chance to talk briefly about the kind of tooling being used.

Try not to be too prescriptive in this section. I find a simple list is all that is required.

It gives people a flavour of whether they could work in this environment.

Remember, this section should not be a “You MUST use X, Y and Z”.

Good people will up-skill and retool.


At the time of writing this post there is an open position at NewVoiceMedia for a Software Engineer– the link may cease to work when the advert is pulled from the site.


Your Competency Matrix May Not Match Reality

I’ve just posted over on my LinkedIn profile about how a competency matrix may not be helpful in working out your teams competencies.

An example competency matrix
An example competency matrix

In the article I outline 4 problems with a competency matrix and a simple solution to all of them – focus on behaviours and results. Here are the four identified problems.

  1. The matrix is often put together based on opinion rather than observed behaviours and results.
  2. When asked how competent someone is they usually claim to be more or less competent than they are.
  3. The skills and experiences in a matrix tend to focus on technology and process skills and not soft skills or learning ethos.
  4. It’s common when compiling a competency matrix to focus on high level skills categories only – this misses some of the gaps within these high level competencies.

If you’re interested in reading more then check out the article on LinkedIn.

8 Lessons Learned From Building A Team

Building a successful test team is hard work.

I’ve outlined 8 lessons learned from building a team in an article titled “The Blazingly Simple Guide To Growing A Test Team”.

It has been published in the October edition of Testing Trapeze.

Testing Trapeze October Front Cover
Testing Trapeze October Front Cover

8 Lessons Learned From Building A Team

The article sits along great articles from Erin Donnell, Richard Robinson, Margaret Dineen and Dave Robinson.

Testing Trapeze is a bi-monthly magazine edited by Katrina Clokie and put together with an amazing team.

The 8 lessons I learned from building and growing a test team are:

  1. Appreciate it will take time
  2. Understand the purpose of the testing team
  3. Appreciate that certifications don’t make someone a great tester
  4. Automation specialists don’t kill the need for testers
  5. Find people with a passion for testing
  6. The recruitment process is key to your success
  7. Interviewing is about selling yourself and solving your problem
  8. Quality is not just the responsibility of testing

You can read more in the October edition of Testing Trapeze.


It works on my machine

Ever heard anyone say “it works on my machine” – well not you can buy them the t-shirt

I’m proud to announce a new range of merchandise from The Social Tester.

I’m promoting my new online store at Zazzle.

My first design, available in two flavors, is the classic “Works on my machine”. With the alternative “Doesn’t work on my machine”.

Each month I’m hoping to put a new design online.

The service I’m using, Zazzle, print these tees on demand and so far I’m impressed with the quality of the goods.

Here’s yours truly modelling one of the early versions of this design bought from Zazzle.*

Works on my machine - t-shirt
Works on my machine – t-shirt

It’s a good quality tee and the design looks good on it.

Why not head on over to the store and buy your friendly developer a “Works on my machine” tee and a “Doesn’t work on my machine” one for yourself.

You can get the designs on caps and baby grows also!

I’ve sold a few of these already (the design has been online for some time) and the feedback has been positive about the quality, delivery and design – thank you to all who have bought from the store.

Here’s the online store –


* This design has evolved since the t-shirt I’m wearing was bought. The store design is the latest and final design of this tee-shirt. More designs are on the way 🙂

SIGIST – It’s better, but is it enough?

The BCS SIGIST (Special Interest Group In Software Testing) was the first conference event I ever attended. It was about 6 years ago and I remember being amazed that people actually got together to talk about testing.

SIGIST was where I first saw Michael Bolton, James Whittaker, Dot Graham, James Lyndsay and Julian Harty. There were also plenty of vendors and lots of interesting discussions in the pub after.

In my opinion though the quality of the talks soon went downhill and I soon stopped going.

There were alternatives that I felt offered better value and a more consistent and relevant set of talks. Meetups were better attended and more sociable. The UKTMF had more interesting topics and more discussion. The London Tester Gathering had more beer. The SIGIST just felt old fashioned in a rapidly changing conference world.

Yesterday I went to the SIGIST event after a three year hiatus. And it was good.

It wasn’t amazing, but it was good.

The event is now held at The Barbican Centre which, for me personally, is a lot trickier to get to than their previous home at RCOG centre. It’s a personal thing, but it was an opinion shared by a couple of other attendees.

The food, drink, rooms etc were good although the rooms were not easy to find and a distance from the main networking area – cue people getting lost.

There was one vendor stand selling some sort of TMMI service so nothing to see there. 🙂

I reckon there were 50(ish) attendees – not a great turn out and in a big(ish) lecture hall it felt woefully under attended.

The annual AGM was also the opening part of the day. If you’ve never been to an AGM (at any organisation) then keep it that way. It was formal and boring, but essential for the BCS I guess….

An introduction from Stuart Reid kicked things off. A great keynote by Declan O’Riordan then followed. Declan talked about being an assertive tester.

Declan’s interest is in security testing and he talked about how a lack of assertiveness can lead to a lack of good security testing. He also talked about how lack of assertiveness can manifest itself, such as in people being Passive/Aggressive. Declan talked about some interesting behavioral facts whilst tying it to testing. Declan’s got a really easy presentation manner which added to the talk.

After a networking slot it was time for my morning workshop with Paul Gerrard. The main hall continued with track sessions.

Paul presented his ideas about a new model for testing. You can read more about the model here.

The session was good. Paul spoke about modeling our testing and presented his new model of testing. It’s worth reading and applying it to your own thinking to see if it works. Paul’s after feedback about it.

We use modeling as an aid for creating tests here at NVM but we don’t use it as a way to agree scope – something I’m sure we’ll start doing. We also don’t share our models across teams which is something I’d like us to try more of. So I took a lot away from Paul’s workshop.

After a decent lunch I went to the presentation tracks.

Up first was Russell Gallop who did a good presentation on Agile and CI for embedded software but it was clear he was at the wrong event. No one in the audience was working on embedded software and few of the audience were programmers.

It’s a shame when this happens as the speakers put a lot of time and effort in to presentations only to be presenting to the wrong audience.

Next up was David Orr who presented about “Testing Your Mind”.

I’ll be honest I was expecting something different but it was good. David spoke about his experience of working in three different changing contexts and how each one challenged him. I did expect it to be about the way testing can become frustrating and stressful sometimes and how our minds cope with it. But it was more about how the testing changed to cater for this changing process and environments. Not a bad thing but a mis-match in expectations.

Then came a discussion panel.

I must admit, although I have deep respect for all the people on the panel, I didn’t get much from this part of the session. The panelists are all great but they are all similar in the way they think about testing. The panelists were Tonnvane Wiswell, Ole Hansen, Mike Jarred and Declan O’Riordan.

They shared common values and ideas about the testing topics discussed. This resulted in four people all agreeing with each other and not being able to add much to what the previous panelist had said.

I want to see some Jeremy Kyle sort of panel with chairs thrown and security getting involved. Only joking, but you get the point. A panel discussion should be just that – a discussion – and there wasn’t much of that. Not the fault of the panelists. Maybe just needed a divisive topic or more diversity in panel members.

There was also no audience participation in the discussion. This assumes that the audience (for who’s value the panel is there for) had nothing valuable to add.

I like panel sessions where a seat is available for audience members to chip in with opinions and observations – a Goldfish bowl approach.

It also felt like the initial topic was one possible solution to a bigger problem, rather than the underlying real problem. Starting with a possible solution leads to discussions around this topic rather than the real problem.

“How do we get testers involved in earlier stages of projects?” was the opening gambit. A common question in the community. But what problem is that solving?

  • Why do people feel the need to involve testers earlier in the project?
  • What problem will that solution solve?
  • What problems will it create?
  • Will it work? Why might it not work?
  • Are there other people we should involve earlier?
  • What does early mean?
  • What about those who work in a collaborative agile environment already?
  • What benefits have been seen by early collaboration?
    Yada Yada.

Like I said, the panelists were great but the panel session just didn’t seem to work. Not enough discussion and not enough rigorous debate for my liking. 🙂

More coffee.

Then Paul Gerrard closed with a presentation about the Internet Of Things. This was good. It’s a topic I’m super excited about. It’s an infrastructure and network of devices that I think the testing community are ill prepared to test.

Paul talked about what the Internet Of Things is and what it means for society. He talked about the problems with it, the good it can bring and of course, the challenges we will face testing it.

How will we test it? Can we even test it? What happens when we miss something? What impact will it have on society? How can we recover from an epic fail? It’s a fascinating topic.

Good talk and lots to think about.

The SIGIST face stiff competition in the testing community and I do wonder how long the event will remain a viable option to run.

Meetups are free, better attended and more social.

Other conferences are much better value for money, more modern and more engaged with the community.

Online courses and other resources are more convenient for learning.

And of course, social media has replaced the need for many people to meet face to face anymore.

Can the SIGIST position itself somewhere in the market and regain it’s audience?

Are you offering a career in testing or just a job?

Many companies are offering a job in testing.

Many companies are offering a career in testing.

Testing - A Job or a Career
Testing – A Job or a Career

A career is a series of experiences. These experiences may come from many  jobs at many companies. Or they may come from a single place of work with a varied set of experiences.

A job is what some companies are offering. And there is nothing wrong with this.

Jobs are good. So too are careers. Some people can experience more in a single company than others may experience in 10 other jobs.

Being honest about the role you have is the key to getting the right person.

If you are offering a job then say so. If you are offering a career then say so too.

Some people just want a job. Some people want a career. It’s important to match the person and the job. By matching the right people to the right jobs you stand a chance of solving your problems. (You are solving a problem..right?)

It seems so simple but it’s a mistake many hiring managers make.

Get it wrong and you spend money recruiting the wrong person.

I once took a role that I believed to be a career. When I joined it was clear it was a job. I didn’t want a job, I wanted a career. I knew I would never get that at this company – I left after just 6 days (3 of which were spent trying to find out who to hand my notice in to).

I’ve also made the mistake of hiring people who wanted a job when I was offering them a career. It’s not good.

One is no better than another. Someone who takes a number of jobs can build a strong career.

Contractors, by their nature, are often looking for the next job. But they can build a strong career from those different jobs.

Your task is to match the right person to the right role.

In the interview be clear about what you are offering and strive to understand what the candidate wants.

Is it a job, or a career?

Be honest with the candidate and you’ll likely get the right match. Get it wrong and you’ll have probably hired the wrong person.


Standard. Or Not.

The international standard for Software Testing, ISO 29119, is soon to be upon us. There are people writing it and expanding it and creating it right now.

I’ve signed the petition against it because I don’t agree with some of it and it’s supposed to represent the industry I work in and I had no chance to input to it.

I wasn’t involved in shaping any of it, yet it’s soon to become a strong international standard in software testing.

My concern is not about how it will affect myself as such, but about how it will stunt the growth of the companies who sign up to it. It’s my belief that the standard will stunt the growth of the employees also.

I believe standards are useful. I believe standards can be helpful. They can turn laws in to process, or set out norms of operating that are good for business and society. This is useful.

Standards can also be restrictive though.

A company operating under this ISO 29119 standard may lose their ability to experiment and find new ways of doing good testing. Our industry and craft could suffer. The standard may hinder our ability to evolve our testing to be relevant to the market demands of the companies we work for.

I’m not overly worried just yet though. The standard is not even complete and it will take years before it starts impacting the market. The standard will likely be voluntary to adopt also. Companies that are experimenting and pushing boundaries will most likely not adopt it. At least not without a compelling reason. That means testing can still evolve.

That means there will still be a place for people like me. People who want to apply relevant test techniques and approaches. People like me who want to create new ways of testing that don’t yet exist.

And how can a standard cover something that doesn’t yet exist?

After writing this post I realised I’m describing a similar testing industry to right now. An industry where lots of companies rely on certifications. An industry where the minority are doing the innovative testing.

So will the ISO 29119 make a difference? Will it even get off the ground? Should we be trying to fight it if we don’t agree with it?

Or should we just accept it will happen and continue to do the best work we can; continue to be relevant to the companies we work for?

I suspect time will tell. As it always does.

If you don’t think the ISO 29119 is a good idea then consider signing the petition.