value flow scorecards - for better strategies, coverage & processes (2008)

©

18 Sep 2008 Neil Thompson & Mike Smith

BCS SIGiST

Value Flow ScoreCardsfor better strategies, coverage and processes

British Computer SocietySpecialist Interest Group in Software Testing18 Sep 2008 “Testers of Tomorrow” v1.1

23 Oast House CrescentFarnham, SurreyEngland, UKGU9 0NPwww.TiSCL.com

St Mary’s Court20 St Mary at HillLondonEngland, UKEC3R 8EEwww.testing-solutions.com

Neil Thompson Thompson information Systems Consulting Ltd

& Mike Smith Testing Solutions Group Ltd

©


BCS SIGiST

2

What is a Value Flow ScoreCard?

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives

FinancialSupplier Customer Improvement &Infrastructure

Process Product

WHY wedo things

WHAT(will constitute success)

HOW todo thingswell

SIX VIEWPOINTS of what stakeholders want

It’s a simple table which we can use to help control our work:• do things “well enough” for an appropriate balance of stakeholders • in this presentation, test strategy, test coverage,

process improvement and process definition• (but arguably can apply it to anything!)

©


BCS SIGiST

3

BackgroundMike Smith:• white papers on test process (1999 & 2002)• keynote presentation to Ericsson on measurement in testing (2007)Neil Thompson:• Organisation before automation (EuroSTAR 1993, multidimensionality of test coverage)• Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints & Systems Thinking in process definition (STAREast

2003), SDLC (EuroSP3 2004), and process improvement (EuroSTAR 2006)

Value Flow ScoreCards take this further…

Holistic Test Analysis & Design, STARWest 2007• a flexible tabular format used for test coverage• relating this to Balanced ScoreCards (Kaplan & Norton,

business strategy etc) Separating “what” from “how”, ICST 2008:• Test Conditions as the keystone

test entity

Both of us: participation in the Software Testing Retreat – “Test entities” and “Appropriate Testing” (ApT)

©


BCS SIGiST

4

• Trends in Information Systems:– More agility: lean lifecycles, rapid testing, “good enough quality” (eg

James Bach)– More control: outsourcing, offshoring, Sarbanes-Oxley

• However, these trends seem to pull in opposite directions!?– see “Balancing Agility and Discipline” (Boehm & Turner)– … but agile is also disciplined! (or should be)

• So – what can IS development & testing learn from:– Business Performance Measurement & Management?– Lean manufacturing / agile & Systems Thinking?

• Our agenda for doing things “well enough” then better:– The Systems Development LifeCycle as a flow of value– Balanced ScoreCards beyond strategy & six-sigma– Test & measurement models combined – the Treble-V model,

informing development through early Test Analysis– Practical uses of Value Flow ScoreCards in test

strategy, coverage, process improvement & definition

Rationale: Why invent Value Flow ScoreCards?• Trends in Information Systems:

– More agility: lean lifecycles, rapid testing, “good enough quality” (eg James Bach)

– More control: outsourcing, offshoring, Sarbanes-Oxley• However, these trends seem to pull in opposite directions!?

– see “Balancing Agility and Discipline” (Boehm & Turner)– … but agile is also disciplined! (or should be)

• So – what can IS development & testing learn from:– Business Performance Measurement & Management?– Lean manufacturing / agile & Systems Thinking?

• Our agenda for doing things “well enough” then better:– The Systems Development LifeCycle as a flow of value– Balanced ScoreCards beyond strategy & six-sigma– Test & measurement models combined – the Treble-V model,

informing development through early Test Analysis– Practical uses of Value Flow ScoreCards in test

strategy, coverage, process improvement & definition

©


BCS SIGiST

5

The SDLC as a flow of value

• Working systems have value; documents in themselves do not; so this is thequickestroute!

Programming

a b c Demonstrations &acceptance tests

Statedrequirements

RAW MATERIALS FINISHEDPRODUCT

• SDLCs are necessary, but introduce impediments to value flow: misunderstandings, disagreements…documents are like inventory/stock, or “waste”

Programming

a ab b’

c d

Documentedrequirements

Implicitrequirements

Meeting / escalation to agree

I I Acceptance tests

?

?

Intermediate documentation!

©


BCS SIGiST

6

Lean manufacturing, Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints… agile IS methods…customers should pull “good enough” value

LEVELS OF DOCUMENTATION,pushed by specifiers

WORKINGSOFTWARE

Accepted

System-tested

Integrated

Unit / Component-tested

FLOW OF FULLY-WORKING SOFTWARE, pulled by

customer demand

Requirements

+ FuncSpec

+ TechnicalDesign

+ Unit / Componentspecifications

+ Test Specifications

©


BCS SIGiST

7

But customers are not the only stakeholders

• ScoreCards – first publishedby Kaplan & Norton:– “Translating Strategy into Action”– Using four complementary views…

• Intentions to:– Drive behaviour– Measure outcomes– Improve predictability

• Now software testing is not only finding bugs, but measuring quality, ScoreCards seem useful here…

Financial

Customer Vision &Strategy

InternalProcesses

Learning& Growth

©


BCS SIGiST

8

ScoreCard principles we can use

• For all four views (Financial, Customer, Internal & Learning)– “what” needs doing, and “why”:

• Objectives, with associated… • …Measures & Targets

– ‘how’ to achieve that:• Initiatives

• Cascading Scorecards– One person’s “how” is another person’s “what”– Measures & Targets are cascaded down to subordinates

• Lead & Lag indicators (Measures & Targets)– “Goal” indicators (reactive, known when achieved)– “Performance” indicators (proactive, ongoing monitoring)

©


BCS SIGiST

9

Taking Balanced ScoreCard beyond strategy: TSG’s views of qualitywww.balancedscorecard.org © Paul Arveson 1998version afterKaplan & Norton

Product

Risks

- Faults- Failures

(Financial)valueEfficiencyProductivityOn-time, in budget

Customer(User)BenefitsAcceptanceSatisfaction- Complaints

Improvementeg TPI/TMM…PredictabilityLearningInnovation

Process(“Manufact’g”)Complianceeg ISO9000Repeatability

- Mistakes

Software Quality versionpublished by Isabel Evans

www.testing-solutions.com,adapted here by

Neil Thompson

WHYWHATHOW

• We can apply these(complementary)views of qualityto testing

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/

http://www.testing-solutions.com/

©


BCS SIGiST

10

Cascading Balanced ScoreCards:“Translating strategy into action”, eg…

• Organisation’s objectives

• Objectives of anIS/IT project

• Project Test Plan HOW

HOWWHAT

HOWWHAT

HOWWHAT

WHAT

(a) A top-down view:down the business /

organisation

WHY

WHY

WHY

©


BCS SIGiST

11

But then also: the test process as a scorecard

(b) This is a left-to-right view (complementary to the top-down view which isaligned with the project and business / organisation’s, objectives)

WHY HOWWHAT

HOWWHAT

TEST BASIS (EGSYSTEM SPEC)

TESTDESIGN

TESTEXECUTION

TESTANALYSIS

WHY

System development starts withthe logical (“what”) before specifyingthe physical (“how”), solet’s do this for testing also!

©


BCS SIGiST

12

And then: if we add distinct Test Analysis to the W-model… the Treble-V model!

PROJECTREQ’TS SPEC

LOGICALDESIGN

PHYSICALDESIGN

COMPONENTDESIGN

BUILD

STATICTESTING

DYNAMIC TESTDESIGN

DYNAMIC TESTEXECUTION

DYNAMIC TESTANALYSIS

STATICTESTING

STATICTESTING

STATICTESTING




DYNAMIC TESTDESIGN

DYNAMIC TESTDESIGN

DYNAMIC TESTDESIGN




(c) This is a third “cascade” view – down then up, through:• Layers of stakeholders• Levels of integration

(It’s not only for waterfall SDLCs, eg iterative… )

©


BCS SIGiST

13

The Treble-V model develops cascading ScoreCards a little further

PROJECTREQUIREMENTS

FUNCTIONALSPECIFICATION

TECHNICALDESIGN

COMPONENTSPECIFICATIONS

BUILD

STATICTESTING

DYNAMIC TESTDESIGN



1

44 4?

3 3 3 3

1: “Translating strategy into action”2: The test process as a scorecard (at each test level)3: Scorecard applied to activities in test process and… (even more interestingly!)4: Scorecard applied to activities in development process

ORGANISATION & PROJECT OBJECTIVESTEST POLICY, STRATEGY, PROJECT TEST PLAN(incl. reviews, inspections etc)

2

1

2 2 2

4

©


BCS SIGiST

14

There exists a “Six-Sigma Business ScoreCard”: but is Six-Sigma applicable to IS value flow?

• Principles:– In a multi-step manufacturing

process, if ‘quality’ of any step is <100%, overall quality falls dramatically with numerous steps & components

– for overall quality to be ‘good enough’, each step / component should be within 6σ, ie 99.9996% perfect

• IS is not exactlylike manufacturing,but we canlearn…

programmingwith risk of mistakes

Requirements

FunctionalSpecification

TechnicalDesign

ComponentSpec

DEVELOPMENTMODEL

REALWORLD

simplification

refinementwith risk ofdistortion

ATExecution

STExecution

ITExecution

CTExecution

SOFTWARE

test executionwith risk of compromises

WORKINGSYSTEM

©


BCS SIGiST

15

We learn two things from Six-Sigma: (i) confirms we need Validation in addition to Verification

programmingwith risk of mistakes

Requirements

FunctionalSpecification

TechnicalDesign

ComponentSpec

Acceptance TestAnalysis & Design

System TestAnalysis & Design

Integration TestAnalysis & Design

Component TestAnalysis & Design

TESTMODEL

DEVELOPMENTMODEL

REALWORLD

simplification

refinementwith risk ofdistortion

ATExecution

STExecution

ITExecution

validation testing

verification testing

CTExecution

SOFTWARE

Based on flipchart drawn byNeil Thompson,Software Testing Retreat ,Llangadog, Wales

test executionwith risk of compromises

WORKINGSYSTEM

Customer

Product

©


BCS SIGiST

16

(ii) the Six-Sigma ScoreCard includes Suppliers

FinancialEfficiencyProductivityOn-time, in budget

- Cost of qualitySupplierUpwardmanagement

Informationgathering

• Value chain ≈ Supply chain!– in the IS SDLC, each

participant should try to ‘manage their supplier’

– this is an instance of (test) scorecard applied to activities in development process

– we add this to the other 5, giving a 6th view of quality

• Now each step in the value chain can manage its inputs, outputs and other stakeholders

CustomerVALIDATIONRisksBenefitsAcceptanceSatisfaction- Complaints

Improvementeg TPI/TMM…PredictabilityLearningInnovation

ProcessComplianceeg ISO9000Repeatability

- Mistakes

ProductVERIFICATIONRisksTest coverage

- Faults- Failures

Six-Sigma Business ScoreCard published by Praveen Gupta (2nd ed. McGraw Hill 2007), butthis slide shows Neil Thompson’s version

©


BCS SIGiST

17

The Treble-V model is a cascade of Value Flow ScoreCards

Financial

CustomerSupplier Improv’t

Process Product

STATICTESTING

12

Organisation & Project Objectives from TEST POLICY, STRATEGY, PROJECT TEST PLAN

Coverage Objectivesfrom REQUIREMENTS,FUNCTIONAL SPEC, TECHNICAL DESIGN,MODULE SPECS

3Static Testers’own Objectives

4Feedback objectivesfor Business Analysts,Architects & Developers

Financial


Process Product

DYNAMICTESTANALYSIS

3Test Analysts’own Objectives

Initiativesfor nextstage oftest process

Initiativesfor nextlevel down theTreble-V model

(etc)

(etc)

©


BCS SIGiST

18

Potential number of ScoreCards depends on how your SDLC is handled by different roles

Pieces of a jig-saw!

This example is a “full-ish” set:• higher-level tests are

scripted – other staffmay then execute

Business Analysts Requirements Reviewers

Architects

Acceptance Test Analysts

Func Spec Reviewers

Designers

Acceptance Testers

Sys TestersSys Test Analysts

Tech Design Reviewers

Developers

Int Test Analysts

via pair programming?

Component Test Analysts, Designers & Executers?

AT Designers & Scripters

ST Designers & Scripters

IT Designers, Scripters & Executers

©


BCS SIGiST

19

The Value Flow ScoreCard in action

Financial


Process Product

FinancialCustomerSupplier Improv’tProcess Product

• Yes – it’s just a table! …Into which we can put useful things…

• We start with repositionablepaper notes, then canput in spreadsheet(s)

©


BCS SIGiST

20

Value Flow ScoreCard contents

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives


- Cost of quality

SupplierUpwardmanagement

Info from other levels of Treble-V model


Improvement &Infrastructureeg TPI/TMM…PredictabilityLearningInnovation


- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

WHY

WHAT(“Indicators”)

HOW

• Give input to upstream reviews

• Staff-days invested

• 1 Staff-day per Test Policy

• Send Denis every time

• What kind of useful things?• Here’s a simple example

©


BCS SIGiST

21

Example set of Objectives, Measures, Targets & Initiatives

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives


- Cost of quality


Info from other levels of Treble-V model




- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

WHY

WHAT(“Indicators”)

HOW

• Gain Industry- standard respectability

• Maturity levels

• Level 2 by 2008• Level 3 by 2010

• Improvement actions

• Test cases executed

• 1479 (?) <see next slide!>

• Give input to upstream reviews


• These are for testing in general, in a project context

• 1 Staff-day per Test Policy

• Send Denis every time

• Maintain minimum compliance

• Frequency of audits

• 1 audit per year

• React to correspondence from auditors

• Run enough tests (?)

• <see later slides!>

• Get users to “sign off”

• Signatures

• One for User Acceptance

• One for Operational Acceptance

• Invite users & operators to specify Accep- tance Tests

• Appear successful as Project Manager

• Go-live date• Expenditure

• Go-live date as originally planned

• Expenditure < budget

©


BCS SIGiST

22

Lag & Lead indicators; Goal-Question-Metric;making Measures & Targets SMART

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives


- Cost of quality


Info from otherlevels ofTreble-V model




- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

• Maturity levels

• Level 2 by 2008• Level 3 by 2010

• Test cases executed

• 1479 (?)


Many of these are “lag” indicators:• reactive, known only when achieved

• 3 Staff-days per Test Policy

• Frequency of audits

• 1 audit per year

• Signatures

• One for User Acceptance

• One for Operational Acceptance

• Go-live date• Expenditure

• Go-live date as originally planned

• Expenditure < budget

SpecificMeasurableAchievableRelevantTimely

GOAL

QUESTION

METRIC

• Test conditions agreed

• (in language of stakeholders

Here are two “lead” indicators, proactive:• Timely influence on quality, in advance• help assess & maintain Achievability

……...The six viewpoints assure “Relevance”……...

©


BCS SIGiST

23

Four practical uses of Value Flow ScoreCardsA. Test coverage

– extend control to stakeholders– transcend the small ‘textbook’ repertoire of techniques– holistic Test Analysis & Design: integrates and clarifies test

items, features, bases and product risks– better information traceability

B. Test Policy, Strategy & Planning– ensure alignment with organisational objectives– help completeness, no subjects forgotten– Goal–Question–Metric traceability

C. Process Improvement– not just test, but whole lifecycle– prioritised treatment of symptoms– transcend limitations of TMMTM or TPI®

D. Process definition– “Appropriate Testing” (ApT) in

different project/product circumstances

©


BCS SIGiST

24

A. Test coverage: Do you control your testing, or does your testing control you?

• Test Cases thought of• Scripts / Procedures written• Expectation that “those are the tests”

THE REMAINDER OF YOUR LIFE(ON THAT PROJECT)

FLEXIBLE, RISK-MANAGED

TEST EXECUTION

• What you really want to cover• Governance / management needs• Product risksor…

©


BCS SIGiST

25

Test coverage: other common problems

• Have you seen any of these?– important tests omitted– large numbers of low-value tests– higher levels of testing merely repeating

Component Testing– insufficient attention to non-functional tests– unstructured piles of detailed scripts– difficult-to-maintain testware…

©


BCS SIGiST

26

Numerous test cases & scripts are almost meaningless to stakeholders, without a “map”

Now, let’sstart with a

classificationtree

1479 test cases, so

it must be good,right?

Testspecificationprocess

Documentationto agreecoverage

©


BCS SIGiST

27

Testware: not a rigid hierarchy WHY WHAT HOW

Does this work?

No, because of these hierarchies

Test Conditions

System’s specifications

Test Cases

Test Scripts / Procedures

Test Execution Schedule

Test Conditions

System’sspecifications

Test Cases


So, we need many-to-manyentity relationships


©


BCS SIGiST

28

An easy way for many-to-many relationships: a flexible table

Test Conditions

System’sspecifications

Test Cases



““ “

““

• But merely decomposing the system’s specification is not a recipe for very good tests

• We want a Validation (customer) view of quality in addition tothe traditional Verification (product) view…

What about:TEST ITEMS?

FEATURES TO BE TESTED?

PRODUCT RISKS?

“

““

©


BCS SIGiST

29

So – Value Flow ScoreCards can measure test coverage: for Test Analysts…

Test Items(level of integration)

Features to betested

Test BasisReferences

ProductRisks

Test Conditions (wecould cover)

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives


- Cost of quality

SupplierUpwardmanagementInfo from otherlevels of Treble-V model




- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

(from LEVEL TEST PLAN

andTEST BASES)

(to test design & execution)

Test Conditionswe intend to cover

Productbenefits

Features to betested

ProductRisks

Constraints

ProductRisks

ProductRisks

ProductRisks

Objectives forTest Cases

NB this is the “manual” Holistic Test Analysis & Design xls perspective. Formal relational database implementations, eg T-Plan,may require a more rigorous treatment.

©


BCS SIGiST

30

… then for Test Designers, (+Scripters if used), and Executers

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives


- Cost of quality


Info from otherlevels of Treble-V model




- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

(to next level of Treble-V model)

S-curves projectedto target dates

Objectives forTest Cases

(fromTestAnalysis)

S-curves of:• Test Cases

executed, passed, failed

• Incidents fixed, retested, closed

Objectives forTestExecutionSchedule

Objectives forincident-fixers

(to Developers)

Coverage ofTest Conditionsexecuted

©


BCS SIGiST

31

Holistic Test Analysis & Design spreadsheet centres on Test Conditions: usable also with Exploratory Testing?

1. Test Items & Sub-items

2. Test Features & Sub-features

EXPLORATORYTEST EXECUTIONRECORD (and/orTEST SCRIPT REF)

3. Test Basis References

4. Product Risks

5. TestConditions

Ver / ValMechanism

Test DataIndications

TechniqueNames

TestObjectives

Overview A …

ABC…

““ “

“

+ whetherBehaviouralor Structural

B C

DeterminecoverageModel test space Determine

oraclesDeterminetest procedures

Configuretestsystem

Observetestsystem

Evaluatetestresults

Reporttestresults

Operatetestsystem

TESTING MISSION

ProjectEnvironment

QualityCriteria

ProductElements

Tests PerceivedQuality

Test Script or Exploratory Regime

Elements from“Heuristic Test Strategy Model”,“Universal Testing Method v2.0” &“Improving By Doing”quoted from Rapid Software Testing v2.1.2,training from James Bach & Michael Boltonwww.satisfice.com, www.developsense.com cross-referred here by Neil Thompson

TESTLAB

PRODUCTDOMAIN PROBLEM DOMAIN

http://www.satisfice.com/

http://www.developsense.com/

©


BCS SIGiST

32

B. Test Policy, Strategy & Planning: some common problems

• Testing not obviously (or at all) aligned to organisation’s objectives

• Test Policy, Strategy & Plan Documents which are:– cut-and-paste, “boilerplate”, same for all projects,

copied from textbooks…– tedious, dreary verbiage, too long– too short!– wishful thinking– unbalanced– etc?

©


BCS SIGiST

33

Value Flow ScoreCards for Test Policy, Strategy & Planning

Test Policy

Organisation’s ScoreCards, Goals, Objectives…ORGANIS-ATIONLEVEL

PROGRAMMELEVEL

PROJECT /PRODUCT

TESTLEVELS

Requirements Reviewers Acceptance Test Analysts AT Designers & Scripters Acceptance Testers

Sys Test AnalystsFunc Spec Reviewers ST Designers & Scripters Sys Testers

Project Test Plan

Org Test Strategy

Prog Test Strategy

(continues as on earlier slide)

Proj Test Strategy

©


BCS SIGiST

34

Example for Test Policy


- Cost of quality




Improvement & Infrastructure

eg TPI/TMM…PredictabilityLearningInnovation


- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

Organisation’sGoals & Objectives

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives

Organisation’s ScoreCards

• TMM levels

• TMM level 2 at least, now

• TMM level 3 within 2 years

• Constant improvement of development & test processes

GOAL

QUESTION

METRIC

(for Test Strategy / Strategies)

and fordevelopment?

©


BCS SIGiST

35

Test Policy (more): Have we thought of all the viewpoints? Do we have Measures, Targets & Initiatives?


- Cost of quality




Improvement & Infrastructure

eg TPI/TMM…PredictabilityLearningInnovation


- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

Organisation’sGoals & Objectives

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives

Organisation’s ScoreCards

• IS actively supports employees

• TMM levels

• TMM level 2 at least, now

• Both static & dynamic

• Planning, preparation & evaluation

• Software & related work products

• Products to satisfy specified requirements

• Products to be fit for purpose

• Detect defects early

• Indep- endence increases with test type

• Testing prioritised & managed

• Product risks

• Importance of req’ts

• Automate regr tests as much as possible

Source: summarised from an example in TestGrip by Marselis, van Royen, Schotanus & Pinkster (CMG, 2007)

• Use TestFrame for test analysis & execution

• Defect Detection Percentage

• Freq of process adjustments heeding metrics

• Twice per year

• Proj Mgr is responsible for quality

• Bus Mgt is responsible for enforcing Test Policy

• TMM level 3 within 2 years

• Staff must be certified

• Defect source analysis

• (comprehensive scope)

• ISTQB

• Advisors Expert

• Managers Advanced

• Analysts Foundation

• Constant improv’t of dev & test processes GOAL

QUESTION

METRIC

©


BCS SIGiST

36

Summary for Test Policy, Strategy & Planning: what’s the point of Value Flow ScoreCards?

• Remind the authors of all the viewpoints which should be considered

• Encourage balance across those viewpoints• Focus on ways of measuring success – expose

vague / wishful thinking assertions• Get the key points recorded & agreed, before

writing indigestible documents• Pave the way for achievably

implementing these aspirations• Consider qualitative measures, eg rubrics,

where quantitative seems inappropriate (“Tyranny of Numbers”)

©


BCS SIGiST

37

C. Process improvement

• In software testing, the popular process improvement methods have fixed subject areas (“Moment of involvement” etc)

• TMMTM and TPI® ascend through maturity levels – “these things are good for you, in this sequence”

• TOMTM is symptom-driven but still has a fixed structure, and suggested causes (a “built-in improvement model”)

• But some other fields (eg manufacturing, supply chains) use Goldratt-Dettmer (or Toyota-style equivalent) on symptoms, giving flexible focus

• Driving principle: the “constraint” is the weakest link, address that first before attacking everything

• Look for causes not just symptoms…

©


BCS SIGiST

38

Process improvement with Goldratt-Dettmer thinking tools

CURRENTILLS

Symptom x

Symptom y

Symptom z

Intermediatecause n

Intermediatecause o

Root cause a

Root cause b

CONFLICTRESOLUTION

For use where:• Different stakeholders

want different things• Evidence seems

contradictory• Are rival theories for

for remedies

“It seems here that…”

Distilled“truth”

Revelation(s)

“On the otherhand…”

FUTUREREMEDIES

Alleviationof symptoms

Fix forroot cause a

(can’t fix root cause b)

Fix forintermediatecause n

Fix forintermediatecause o

©


BCS SIGiST

39

SDLC method does notencourage diagrams

An easy route into Goldratt-Dettmer: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES THREATS

OPPORTUNITIES

CURRENT ILLSFUTURE REMEDIES

PRE-REQUISITES

TRANS-ITION

Anticipating &overcomingobstacles

Action planning

CONFLICTRESOLUTION

System specs are heavy textdocuments

Culture of our testers is toprefer large text documentsto diagrams

Test specs are large & “texty”

Test coverage omissions & overlaps

Can still improve coverageat macro level with

informal techniques (80/20)

Too many failures in Live

Some managers are consideringagile methods

Business analysts may bemotivated by UML training

STRATEGIC: Improve SDLC method

TACTICAL: Address culture byworked examples of diagrams

TACTICAL: Include tables &diagrams in test specifications

(Use Threats to helpidentify obstacles)

(Use Strengths to helpamplify opportunities)

ONGOING: Techniquestraining &

coaching

(actually, as shown here Goldratt-Dettmer has five diagram sets in its full version, to cater for “making change stick”)

Testers not trainedin techniques

©


BCS SIGiST

40

Value Chain ScoreCards allow us to “swimlane” symptoms & causes (and proposed remedies)

Note: this is similar to Kaplan & Norton’s “Strategy Maps” (Harvard Business School Press 2004)


- Cost of quality


Informationgethring




- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives

LIFECYCLE………………………………………… ORGANISATION …...………………………………….INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNIQUES………… & TOOLS

(TMap/TPIapproximation)

PRE-REQUISITES

TRANSITION

CONFLICTRESOLUTION

CURRENT ILLS

FUTURE REMEDIES

©


BCS SIGiST

41

Systems Thinking: some cause-effect trees “re-root” to form vicious / virtuous feedback loops

CURRENTILLS

Symptom x

Symptom y

Symptom z

Intermediatecause n

Intermediatecause o

Root cause a

Root cause b

Example (vicious)

SDLC method does notencouragediagrams

System specs are heavy textdocuments

Culture of our testersis to prefer large text documentsto diagrams

Test specs are large & “texty”

Test coverage overlaps

Too many failures in Live

Testers not trainedin techniques

Regression testsnot automated

Redundant regression teststake too longto run

Test suites growever larger

Testers too busyto “weed” tests

omissions

More tests added

Systems Thinkingnotation

REINFORCING

LOOP

Impactof live

failures

Size oftest suites

A loop is balancing if it contains an odd number of opposing links ;else it is reinforcing

Ignoranceof test

coverage

Each author seems to vary; this is Neil Thompson’s,

incorporating elements ofJerry Weinberg’s &Dennis Sherwood’s

BALANCINGLOOP

Reluctance to remove tests

from suites

Timespent

“firefighting”

©


BCS SIGiST

42

Value Flow ScoreCards give two nested sets of feedback loops: do things well enough now, then improve

FinancialSupplier Customer Improvement & InfrastructureProcess Product

Role 1

Via cascade ofValue Flow

Role 2

Role n

Find vicious loops… Balance them, and/or… maybe evenreverse them

(“Tipping Point!) … but tailor quality to balance of stakeholders.

TIME, COST

SCOPE……………………………………………………………………..RISK & QUALITY……………………………………………………

Then iterate process improvements, but focussed on “constraints” iewhere they will have most payback.

Can still use structure of TMMTM, TPI®, TOMTM… if desired,they may be mapped on to these value flow columns

It’s a Test Policy, Jim, but…

Is it a good Test Policy?

©


BCS SIGiST

43

D. Process definition: where we want to be in the range formal-informal for these circumstances, and how

Objectives

Measures

Targets

Initiatives


- Cost of quality






- Mistakes


- Faults- Failures

Effectiveness

Efficiency

FromContext / Circumstances

Resources:• money ( skills, environments)• time

Application characteristics

Process constraints, eg:• quality mgmt• configuration

mgmt

Technology

Technical risks

Business risks

Legal:• regulation• standards

• Methodologyunhappy with

• Unsure how best

to test

Insurance Assurance Efficiency

Note: comparable with Paul Gerrard’s “Axioms”,but in our version theseare the only two axioms

CURRENT SITUATION

Type of “V-model” Handover & acceptancecriteria

formal informal formal informal

Appropriate Testing in this context / circumstances

CONFLICTRESOLUTION

etc (about 30categories)

DESIRED SITUATION

Where in the range(specific aspects)

Where in the range(specific aspects)

Sector

Culture

Job type & size

Moral:• safety

©


BCS SIGiST

44

References & acknowledgements

• ScoreCards:– Kaplan & Norton; Isabel Evans; Praveen Gupta

• Lean & agile:– Toyota; Poppendiecks; Alistair Cockburn;

David Anderson

• Goldratt: – Jens Pas; William Dettmer ; Greg Daich

• Systems Thinking: – Jerry Weinberg; Dennis Sherwood

• Appropriate Testing (ApT) & test entities:– the Software Testing Retreat

Colour-codedsources oftesting ideas:- Rob Sabourin

©


BCS SIGiST

45

Take-away messages

Financial


Process Product

FinancialCustomerSupplier Improv’tProcess Product

• Think of any SDLC as a flow of value, from requirements to working and maintained software

• It should be a jig-saw of cascading, value-adding pieces

• In the pieces in which you participate, consider your inputs, outputs and other influences in terms of different stakeholder views

• Balance those views for your situation• Look at your measures and targets for

success before deciding exactly how to do things

• Write them in your Value Flow ScoreCard• Note: org / project does not necessarily

need a complete set; some selected ScoreCards are immediately useful!

©


BCS SIGiST

Value Flow ScoreCardsThanks for listening!

For further information…

British Computer SocietySpecialist Interest Group in Software Testing18 Sep 2008 “Testers of Tomorrow”

23 Oast House CrescentFarnham, SurreyEngland, UKGU9 0NPwww.TiSCL.com

St Mary’s Court20 St Mary at HillLondonEngland, UKEC3R 8EEwww.testing-solutions.com

Neil Thompson Thompson information Systems Consulting Ltd

& Mike Smith Testing Solutions Group Ltd