Nordic Testing Days 2015 – Conference at a glance

Just to keep the momentum going, I shall tackle the Nordic Testing Days 2015 in a similar manner I did the Let’s Test. I chose the two conferences for they’re close by and I wish I could attend either or both of them this year. The real reason is that I want to keep writing, now that I have momentum. This is

Nordic Testing Days 2015 – Conference at a glance

The Nordic Testing Days 2015 is the fourth of its kind. Having had the privilege to attend the first of its kind as a speaker, I have a special kind of attachment to it. I did a full blown evaluation of the sessions I attended while I was at the conference 2012, but I shan’t do it this time. The conference is a 3 day spectacle with tracks, tutorials, workshops and more. I’ll choose the sessions as follows:

• Choose one session from each day based on my familiarity of the speaker
• Choose one session from each day based on my interest in the title
• Choose one session from each day that I pick randomly

Those should total 9 sessions. I’ll choose 2 random key notes to accompany those.

I will use a heuristic grading system (introduced here) to determine what would be the best session for me. I will grade the stuff with Angry Birds ™ grade – 0-3 stars per area – on five areas:

• Person-to-person (How will the person and his/hers work affect/inspire me or the people I know?), 
• Session value – short time span (How much can I get out of the session tomorrow – next year?), 
• Session value – longs time span (How much can I implement to my work and teach to my colleagues, my community?), 
• Steal-ability (How much of it am I willing to borrow and further develop to make it better and/or mine?), and 
• Challenge-ability (My past knowledge on the topic and my willingness to challenge the session contents.)

Keynotes

Mart Noorma’s “ESTCube-1: Testing in Space”

Intergalactic journey ahead. I would pay money to contribute to something that eventually goes orbiting the Earth. Alas, I cannot yet. Soon, perhaps. I know next to nothing Estonia’s space program, but I think this keynote requires some background checks to be able to get everything out of the keynote. Since I followed Philae landing (they had some Finnish technology there also) I am keen on hearing more on the subject.

I must admit I haven’t heard of Mart Noorma, but I think he’s not that loud on the testing scene. What are the key values here might be the inspiration to reach the stars. The short time value might be high-ish but I cannot see too much long term value in this. I might be the wrong crowd for this session, but I’m expecting inspiration and insight from Mart Koorma.

Although this keynote might be hugely inspirational, I see very little in the light of challenging or stealing ideas. It’s a shame, actually, for I am an avid science follower. The thing is that I might be expecting more of a testing approach to the keynote and less of a technical story. Experience report working in difficult situations is always good, but I don’t see myself as the optimal audience for this.

• Person-to-person: 
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: *
• Steal-ability: 
• Challenge-ability: 
• Total: 3/15 stars

Rob Lambert’s “Why Remaining Relevant Is So Important”

Why is it important to stay relevant? I mean, Rob is obviously going to answer that, but why make a keynote of it? Don’t we all know, if we fossilize we are, out in the next round of layoffs? What is the big deal? What I feel Rob is trying to say is we need an attitude change. The relevance comes from want to thrive and be the best. If you’re the one who’s always on the cutting edge of technology, skills and thoughts, other people want to be like you! You become the beacon people look up to.

Rob Lambert is one of the most influential people in the testing scene. His blog was one of the first ones I started to read as a budding tester. I have met him once in person, and he’s a warm, easily approachable character. The problem is that should I have more time on my hands, I’d be more keen on approaching him with my ideas on managing testing. Alas, I have not.

Staying relevant has far-reaching influence. It brings high long time value to the company and to myself. The ideas sound like easily adaptable and with genuine examples the value might become even greater. Short time value might be in form of planning ahead my skillset. With this session and Alexandra Casapu’s “Examine Your Testing Skills” session at Let’s Test 2015, I see no reason why one couldn’t stay relevant to their company or their community.

• Person-to-person: **
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: ***
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 11/15 stars

Wednesday

Kristoffer Nordström’s “Taming the Terminal-based Applications and Testing Them” (based on familiarity to speaker)

Kristoffer was the guy that inspired me into taking my Pythonian skills forward. His lessons in “Python for testers” and many more inspire many. He’s a great sport and I wish I could attend his tutorial at the conference. If the session has anything close to what I expect off of him, people will be having a hoot!

After reading the description, the tutorial seems quite useful to me. When I was doing testing at F-secure I ran into terminal-based application every once in a while, I might even have created some tooling with Python. This tutorial strikes that particular nail in my skill repertoire.

The values right now are mediocre, however, since my current job description doesn’t touch terminal based stuff. I would have rated this very differently a year ago, I must admit. Also being one of the few testing specialist at the office, I think I wouldn’t be the guy to be teaching this to developers. I could benefit from having a better understanding of testing frameworks and tools, better confidence in my skills, and have a good time at the session. Also, since I have some experience, I could challenge Kristoffer to make him hone his material to perfection. ;)

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: *
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total: 10/15 stars

Kristjan Uba’s  “Let's Learn: Experience Learning through Gaming” (based on interest in the title)

Gaming. My favorite way of learning. If we’re going to play games and learn from testing, I think this session is worth its weight in gold! …at least to a procrastinator and a child-minded person like me. The values are both immediate and long lasting, if done properly: one starts to seek out the games mentioned to play with their friends and colleagues, besides those games can spawn entire new epiphanies on some other testing related area.

I don’t Kristjan Uba from before, but I bet he’s the kinda guy I would get along really well. He sounds enthusiastic, innovative and funny, the kind of a person I like spending time outside work with. Perhaps, should I miss the opportunity to join, I can badger him to play some of the games on some other occasion.

• Person-to-person: *
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 10/15 stars

Robert Sabourin’s “Just-In-Time Software Testing” (random pick)

Ok. Rob has been on my radar from the beginning of my testing career, yet I know next to nothing of him. He’s one of those “one-star-should-be-three-stars” kinda fellas. I am aware of this “just-in-time” method, from some blog post in the past.

The description made me hum in pleasure. That is something, not only I want, but I need. As a professional tester I need to be able to make snap decisions about prioritization, change of focus and moving people to test the right thing. With content like that on a tutorial, I see no point to sit this one out! The values of this sessions are far reaching and immediate! These are the things I must educate my colleagues with, my community should be aware of this, and my work would vastly benefit from the skills and knowledge this tutorial gives.

For I know quite little about the subject to begin with, I see a lack of challenge-ability for me. Maybe a quick 1-on-1 with Rob might get me into the mood. Perhaps a blog post or two to limber my mind...

• Person-to-person: * (I wanted it to be ***)
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: ***
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 11/15 stars

Thursday

Sami Söderblom’s “If James Bach and Mary Gorman had a baby, how would it test?” (based on familiarity to speaker)

Mr. Happy Monkey himself talking about… WHAT? Biology? Child birth? Intercourse? I have to say if he hadn’t been picked based on me knowing him, I would have chosen the session based on the title. Sami Söderblom is a good friend of mine. He’s a whiskey-junkey, a cat-photographer, a father, an explorer and a good friend. We have a history through my whole testing career, from my first big testing project to this day. He’s the “three-stars-should-be-the-milkyway” kinda fella.

I must say I’m on pins and needles what the session is about. The description says: “FITCODES”. I’m sold. SFDPOT has been my guideline through my recent testing career. At the Turku Agile Days 2012 I modeled the testing of speedos using the SFDPOT. This week we did testing exercise on testing whatever found in one’s pocket using SFDPOT. To advance the heuristic that has been the lifeline for me is something I really, REALLY, would like to see.

The values, for me, are huge. Should I be able to use the heuristic in my everyday work is a great benefit. In addition to this, to be able to help others test their software better, to design better tests, to manage testing in a better way, make the session even more valuable. To learn how Sami came up with the heuristic is a good steal-able. To refine it to suit my particular needs would be awesome. And, since I know quite a lot about the subject, challenging would be the cherry on the cake.

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: ***
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: ***
• Total: 15/15 stars

Beat that! No pressure, Sami. ;)

Stephen Janaway’s “Why I Lost My Job as a Test Manager and what I Learnt as a Result” (based on interest in the title)

Test coach, he says. I think I like him already. The transformation to Test Coach has been my goal during this year. Teaching people on how to test and make them better at what they do. If Stephen can help me achieve that, I’d be happy as a hippo.

I actually don’t know Stephen from the past, but with his attitude towards coaching, I bet we can hit it on. Value coming out of his “shift to coaching” session could become quite valuable for me with my ambitions and goals, but to all traditional test managers. When I came to my current work place, I told I wanted to be a coach, but I have yet to find my focus and methods in implementing it.

To more easily understand Stephen’s session, I feel I must read the blog post first. Maybe then I can be able to challenge him in a better way.

• Person-to-person: *
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: ***
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 9/15 stars

Erik Boelen’s “Acceptance Testing At Its Best” (random pick)

I’ve heard some experience reports on the subject of coaching end-users to test the acceptance of a product. They have all been educational, but seemed to be lacking some punch - the methods to implement the procedure to one’s own context. I have never heard of the speaker before, but I fresh blood to the Testing Arena is always a crowd pleaser. ;)

This seems like a good session for those battling with limited testing resources and acceptance testing stuff. I see a lot of material I would like clarification to and some areas where challenging might be in order. Values are unpredictable here. Since I work closely to projects and the project management nowadays, I see some intersections to my work. This might be a huge value to a test manager of any kind. I cannot say.

• Person-to-person: *
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: *
• Steal-ability: *
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total:  7/15 stars

Friday

Erik Brickarp’s “Going Exploratory” (based on familiarity to speaker)

Erik. My man! He’s been around for a while. I was introduced to him by a hint from James Bach few years ago for paying the RST course from his own pocket. Anyone to do that is a personal hero of mine. He’s a great thinker, a fine coachee – fine and dandy bloke on all fronts. I’m really excited to see him in person since he has evaded me the few times I’ve attended conferences in the past.

So, Erik’s gonna talk about how he switched from rigid testing process into an exploratory one, failed, learned, tried again, repeated, succeeded. This is something that I want to do! I think my key takeaway is the sandboxing. In my recent project I have drastically changed the process with constant deliverables. This means more freedom in the execution but rigid documentation. I think Erik can give me a couple of good tips how to make the process less painful and more appealing to… the client. (You wer thinking I was gonna say “opposite sex”, weren’t you?)

I definititely see value in this. Short time value comes mainly from the insights that I can implement as soon I hit the desk after the conference and long term effects can sprout an inspiration where I combine my learning to what Erik gives. Very valuable in deed.

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total:  13/15 stars

Radomir Sebek’s "You don't need to be a musician to test music production software" (based on interest in the title)

Music is close to my heart. I compose various kinds of music, hence I have an interest in both the industry and the tools of trade. Combine music and testing – I’m hooked. Although I have never heard of Mr. Sebek, I am keen on hearing what he has to say.

The whole concept is intriguing, having to quickly learn a vast domain to better test it. I think that is the core of software testing in general – fast learning, adapting, moving focus and prioritization based on learning. I want to examine his methods of approaching the subject. The coaching aspect (as in using testers with various backgrounds and influencing them) is also interesting. I am intrigued what kind of methods have been used in the influencing. Experience reports like this are usually difficult to challenge, but usually highly steal-able.

• Person-to-person: *
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total:  10/15 stars

Ilari Henrik Aegerter & Ben Kelly’s “Ben and Ilari's Spectacular Testing Circus” (random pick, honestly!)

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I have spent some time chatting with Ilari. He has coached me on different things. Ben Kelly has been on my radar, like many testers, but I haven’t yet figured him out. It seems I am compelled to read his blog a few times before I go chat with him.

The session itself is a puzzle (pun intended) since it can contain many things. Interactive games, puzzles, cool problems, etc. are the salt of testing skills. I bet this is a session where I shall spend at least an hour or two, since I just like to challenge myself. I expect to be challenged and to be able to challenge other testers and maybe increase some skills while having fun.

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total:  13/15 stars

Conclusion

There are many sessions that I didn’t tackle although they might be worth gold. If you feel (as a speaker) that I should tackle yours, drop me a line. I’m also eager to discuss my choices with the people I rated.

It seems that I am attending the Nordic Testing days. I shall be there with my beard flowing and throwing #high6’es to people. ;)


Varsti näeme!
- Peksi

Let’s Test 2015 – conference at a glance (from a distance)

Just to get up again and write something, I decided I’d do something I’ve done before. I really want to join the Let’s Test 2015, but it seems I cannot. This blog post is similar to those I’ve done before for it is a “Conference at a Glance” kinda thing. So this is

Let’s Test 2015 – conference at a glance (from a distance)

It seems the conference is a 3 day thing with 2 key notes, 33 sessions or various kind. Since I’m a lazy person, I shall do the following:

• Tackle both key notes
• Choose one session from each day based on my familiarity of the speaker
• Choose one session from each day based on my interest in the title
• Choose one session from each day that I pick randomly

That should bring me to a total of 11 sessions that I try and grade. If you (as a conference speaker or as anyone else) feel like I should do more, just ask me in the comments section.  I try and keep it simple.

I will use a heuristic grading system (introduced here) to determine what would be the best session for me. I will grade the stuff with Angry Birds ™ grade – 0-3 stars per area – on five areas:

• Person-to-person (How will the person and his/hers work affect/inspire me or the people I know?), 
• Session value – short time span (How much can I get out of the session tomorrow – next year?), 
• Session value – longs time span (How much can I implement o my work and teach to my colleagues, my community?), 
• Steal-ability (How much of it am I willing to borrow and further develop to make it better and, more importantly, mine?), and 
• Challenge-ability (My past knowledge on the topic and my willingness to challenge the session contents.)

Ben Simo’s “There was not a breach – There was a blog”

Based on the description on the webpage, I quickly came to think I should have done something like that. I should have started blogging about something that is affecting major public. Like the Finnish Railway renewal or something else of a similar matter. Having not thought of the idea, I shall keep my eyes open the next time something big comes up. So “Thanks Ben for giving me a great idea. Don’t mind me copying it in the future!”

As we’re talking about a keynote here, I don’t think during-session-challenging will occur. As this is kind of an experience report, I feel I can absorb huge amount of wisdom and ideas from it. If only reading through the description gave me so many ideas already, attending the keynote might blow my mind. Alas, it might not happen. So my head is safe for now. Challenge-ability might be a bit low, but if you think the challenging as in self-challenging, things I can challenge in my own thinking processes, ways of working, how I present myself to others. On those parameters I see a lot possibility to challenge.

On that note, the steal-ability just went through the roof. As for long term value, I believe that short term value comes from bringing the conversation to the coffee tables for those who are not American nor have the exposure to HealthCare.gov. The long term effects lie in the the steal-ability I mentioned before. If I can introduce some public service kind of attitude towards my own behavior, it’ll really make a difference.

P2P-level is a bit tricky. Ben has been on my radar for years. I’ve been following him and reading his blog sporadically, but I never really came to realize how much of an influence he has been. There hasn’t been too much communication between him and me save for a few tweets now and then, or some random facebook comments to each other’s posts. I must say I should have been more in his face about stuff. I shall change that and get to know him better!

As for score (should I be at the conference I would attend the keynote whatever it might be):

• Person-to-person: * (I wanted it to be ***)
• Short time value: *
• Long time value: ***
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: ** 
• Total: 10/15 stars

Antti Karjalainen’s “Detecting the Heartbleed Vulnerability”

The description might not provoke my vastest interest, but I was part of the Heartbleed scene in a sense. While working at F-secure I heard about it weekly during the “hip season”. I didn’t particularly have anything to do with fixing nor working with it, but I was there to spread knowledge about it.

The thing is, I am the kinda guy who shies away from über cool tools, fancy technology and protocols. I have some interest in security testing, fuzzing and analytics, but I’m more comfortable to leave those to the people who know them better. When it comes to knowing what fuzzing does, I’m comfortable in what the Wikipedia says. That is to say with no disrespect towards the fine men and women who dapple with such technologies. Hats off to all of you!

P2P is a challenge for me, since Antti is a Finn and I might have run into him at some other conference. I can’t put my finger on it, however. I have never talked with him about fuzzing nor about tools (“the shying” and other excuses). The thing is, I don’t think I could talk with him about the fancy stuff. I might have a few cool comments like “that looks cool” or “whaddaya know”. The thing is, however, that I cannot say for sure. I wish there would be a common ground on which we could build a conversation and then work from that.

The short term value might be in form of an interest into fuzzing tools. Or to some yet unknown aspect of fuzzing I could use in my testing. I feel that the topic is so tool/technology oriented, I might not get enough. It also affects the long term value for I don’t think I am capable of transferring that knowledge to my community or colleagues. I don’t say there won’t be any inspiration during the keynote – I might change my way to think testing and tools.

And since my knowledge on the technology and the tools are so diminutive, I feel the steal-ability and challenge-ability are scored low also. This isn’t to say that Antti doesn’t rock most of the listeners’ world! I believe that he is the kinda guy we need more of. Just like Ben, helping regular people with their daily lives is what counts!

• Person-to-person: *
• Short time value: *
• Long time value: *
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 6/15 stars

1st day sessions:

Ilari Henrik Aegerter’s ”A Tester's Walk in the Park” (based on familiarity to speaker)

Ok. Having read the description, I’m torn in half: A session without a clear outtake or a fountain of good ideas. I don’t know quite yet. I do appreciate that the problem solving is the key to it, but are we talking about artificial, abstract problems like “where is testing going”, or concise practical problems like “how can I convince my manager to pay my trip to Sweden”? The uncertainty intrigues me in a way that I wouldn’t dare miss this session. If we can coax people like Michael Bolton or Ben Simo to join in with their problems, it can be a hoot. It could be a hoot with just me, Ilari and three guys I don’t know. The thing is “I don’t know”.

I have spent some time chatting with Ilari. He has coached me on different things, latest today (the April 1st 2015) on how to approach a testing communication problem. I know this guy and I like him. I have to admit I haven’t paid too much attention on his whereabouts the last 18 months, but I reckon that all will be changed.

The value of the sessions is a tricky one. I cannot say what value I can get for I don’t know the contents that well. On short term it might arouse good conversations and comradery between the people attending. Experience reports in the form of problem solving might be a good take-away. In longer time span, the technique itself might be a good thing to learn. The introduction of philosophical thinking and approach to software testing is actually quite intriguing. Challenging the session might be a tough one, since it feels like an experience report of a sort.

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 10/15 stars

John Stevenson’s ”A Journey Towards SelfLearning” (based on interest in the title)

WOW! This sure sounds cool! A sessions in a form of a game show! Count me in! I am interested in learning and how people learn. I am a continuous learner myself and I think it is time to up that interest in me once again. If this session could make my learning more structured, I would get more out of the time I have at hand.

I know next to nothing about John Stevenson, but lately I have spotted some of his tweets. He could be one to chat more deeply about learning. Him and James Bach might be a good dinner guests if I wanted to talk about learning and teaching. Since I hope to be a teacher of a sort someday, I think they could give me valuable ideas.

The value I see from this session is vast, both long and short term. While stirring me short term, it could make me think about my life on a longer run, my education and my striving towards being a teacher (though Finnish teachers are paid really poorly). Since I know something about learning, I think I might even be able to challenge John on his ideas. Though I don’t think I can introduce any particularly new and fancy to his curriculum, I might be able to increase the value of the session by making him express thing in different ways to be more easily approachable.

• Person-to-person: *
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: ***
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total: 11/15 stars

Louise Perold ’s "Non-violent Communication" (random pick)

Well well well. NVC. I must say I had need for those skills today when I argued with a developer on why the test cases written for manual execution are a poor excuse of a test automation. I did seek some coaching from Ilari (like mentioned before) but I wasn’t able to convey my point to him in a way that would have left both him (the dev) and me in a mutually enjoyable place of mind. Having said that, Louise’s session might be the one for me.

I don’t know her at all, though I might have traded tweets in the past. I’m intrigued meeting her, though. Should I not be able to come to conference, I really want to talk to her about Mortimer J. Adler’s book “How to Speak How to Listen” which I’m reading sporadically now and then. Also what I found out from Daniel Pink’s book “To Sell is Human” might contribute to the Non-violent communication.

Values from this session might be really high in short term and long term. I might not be able to transfer them to my community in a way Louise could, but I bet the example and behavior might influence my co-workers and other people as well. My knowledge on listening and conversation skills might enhance the challenge and steal –abilities, but I would have to let the time indicate what’s beneficial and what’s not.

Non-violent starring would be as follows:

• Person-to-person: *
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total: 10/15 stars

2nd day sessions:

Laurent Bossavit & Michael Bolton’s ” "Defense Against The Dark Arts” (based on familiarity to speakers)

Critical thinking, they say. Very well. I would expect something like this from Bolton and Bossavit. Given Laurent’s book “Leprechauns of Software Engineering” it is about time to teach us Earth dwellers them skills to tackle possibly harmful (and perhaps even rigged) information.

I know both of the speakers and I love spending time with them. Both incredibly intelligent fellas with excellent ideas and views of the world. It seems almost a loss that I might have to miss their workshop. But I shan’t weep! I find their session really intriguing so I might badger for a coaching sessions should I need to miss the event.

As for value of the session, I see high value altogether. Critical thinking skills and the practical application of it are worth gold in the testing industry. Whatever I can bring home from that session would be valuable material for my colleagues in ways to think critically.

Since I have some former knowledge on critical thinking, I feel the challenge-ability is high. Also I see that the whole session is about challenging, I feel compelled to challenge much of their material. Steal-ability is high in a sense that I want to educate my colleagues on that particular subject.

My god, I’m looking at quite a session:

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: ** (it’s really 3 stars, but I cannot give the highest score yet)
• Steal-ability: ***
• Challenge-ability: ***
• Total: 14/15 stars

Huib Schoots’ “How to be an Explorer of Software” (based on interest in the title)

Mr. Schoots talks about creativity? The guy who had a conference sessions in which he mostly played music talks about creativity? I think this is the stuff everyone needs to see. The title pushed me in a quite different assumption on the contents of the session. I thought that it would be about hands on exploring something, but since the description kinda gave the impression that it’s about how we document and observe, it actually fulfills the title quite well. Interested I surely am.

Huib is a great fella and he could be one of the top 3 reasons for me to attend. He is the bloke that makes people smile on their worst day. All that and a world-class tester! Say no more! I have seen Sami “the Monkey” Söderblom talking about exploring, read (the beginning) Elisabeth Hendrickson’s book on exploring, so it would be nice to see another take on the subject. The value is hard to define, since I feel the values are more personal than community wide spreadable thoughts. To be able to more concisely test and document a software is a great skill to have.

To challenge Huib is something I think he would enjoy more than anything, so I think I must get in touch with him and get my hands on the material if I can’t attend. I might also be able to steal something that I later present something as my own, but I ain’t gonna let him know. It’s hard to put a finger on the stuff that I’d like to steal, but I bet there are loads of stuff.

The exploration of stars…

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: ***
• Total: 13/15 stars

Erik Davis’ "Effective Practice Manager" (random pick)

A practice manager. That’s a new term for me. Based on the description I didn’t get what is a practice manager. Is it like a skill coach or a competence manager? Either way I feel this is an experience report with some educational features. Oh it’s an experience report with discussion. Maybe we have some cool practice manager problems we can help solve for him. Challenging might come to play while there’s a discussion in the session, but I do know so very little about the subject beforehand.

I was intrigued by the “increase their own impact at work” bullet point. That is something I want. I want autonomy and to see my own passions and skills realize in my daily work. In that sense this session might be a good catch. It would definitely have long term effects but I couldn’t get the short term value out of the description. Maybe it lies in the “whatever else comes out of the discussion”.

I don’t know Erik at all. He might be one of those blokes who have avoided my radar so far. Based on his personal description I think I he would be the guy to get to know. Maybe I’ll ask him for a beer at the evening activities. His interest in educating testers and building their skill set is something I want to do also.

• Person-to-person: **
• Short time value: *
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 8/15 stars

3rd day sessions:

Jari Laakso’s ”Security Testing” (based on familiarity to speakers)

Before I have even checked the description on Jari’s session, I must say I am intrigued by this. He is my first touch on security testing on my Finnish blog years back. Unfortunately, I haven’t met the guy. I know he’s intelligent and capable tester, but I haven’t been in contact him for some time. Maybe I have to rekindle that connection to get the latest.

Ok. The description. Very well! Hands on security testing! Where do I sign? This is like one of the essential stuff that people are asked to when doing exploratory testing. SQL injections are in every text book on testing, but this guy actually shows how to do that. Nice! I can see the value skyrocket! The thing is, to be able to share this knowledge I should know even more about the subject. I might lack the interest in security testing in general, so I might not be able to teach these skills to others (I’d ask Jari to do it for me).

To challenge him might be difficult due to the fact that we are talking about technical stuff once again. Things like cross-site scripting are founded on protocols, REST-calls and whatnot, and I don’t feel I can challenge him on those. I might wanna try, tho. ;)

• Person-to-person: ***
• Short time value: ***
• Long time value: *
• Steal-ability: *
• Challenge-ability: *
• Total: 9/15 stars

Alexandra Casapu’s “Examine Your Testing Skills” (based on interest in the title)

Hands on testing and discovering our testing skills. I like it. In EuroSTAR test lab I had the chance to dapple with Mr. Lyndsay’s machines and I really want to have another go! Besides I’m interested in how my skills map out. I don’t know Alexandra, but I’ve heard of her. She is one of those people I want on my “meet these people in the Testing Scene” list.

The idea of having various non-technical skills to help you with testing is interesting. I would like to know other peoples’ skills and if I can borrow their passions and learn what they know. I’d be able to steal ideas from the participants and from Alexandra. Very nice! Since I have been doing some reading on skills, I might be able to challenge her and my previous views quite easily. And skills practicing in practice is always something to take home to.

• Person-to-person: **
• Short time value: **
• Long time value: **
• Steal-ability: **
• Challenge-ability: **
• Total: 10/15 stars

Scott Barber’s  ”Experiencing Product Owners”  (random pick)

Random in deed… Scott, if you’re reading this, you might want to check the description on the website. ;)

A big star on the effort, though.

Conclusion

Having surpassed the pain of starting to write again, I feel joyous on how I managed to rate 10 (Scott’s doesn’t count) sessions on five heuristic parameters. The toughest thing is ahead of me, though. I need to convince someone to pay my trip to Sweden.

Vi ses!
Peksi

Flashback to Learning

I rarely have the concentration span to write complex and analyzing posts. If I believe that the subject has more to it than I can scribble in 90 minutes, it will more likely become a candidate for an article and will be more fine tuned than a regular blog post. Now I thought I would write an update to my blog describing the second day at the Rapid Testing Course, but then I thought writing another a diary-like entry was not exciting enough - and I want my scribbling to be at least a bit exciting.

So why do I have to make a blog post about something that I’m not willing to investigate? I don't! That's the beauty of it! But I want to make a quick post on something interesting. In order to do a blog post from something that requires little to no research it could be about an experience that is worth sharing. This post is not from today’s class but from past but the topic was brought up today in the class.

James Bach and Michael Bolton use the Socratic Method to help learn stuff in their courses. To simplify, they ask a bunch of questions from a tester to squeeze out an answer - not possibly the right answer but one good enough. I got my share of the method in the class but I’m not going to talk about that. I’m going to talk about an event that happened 4 months ago. (Enter fairy bells tinkle and a wobbly picture to demonstrate a flashback...)

I wrote a white paper about six months ago about heuristic testing implementation that was discussed in a Peer testing session late last year. The article was about to be published in a testing magazine and it was fine tuned for couple of months by the editor and a couple of voluntary proofreaders. I still wanted to have a comment from James Bach and Michael Bolton as I have a respect for their opinion in all testing related issues. And so I sent a reviewed draft to them and waited for approval.

What then happened, I couldn't expect. I had high hopes on the content of my article as it had been reviewed multiple times by bunch of different people. I thought I was in a verge of a breakthrough and praises would that flying my way. Instead, James’ reply was simple:

“I'm completely opposed to this.”

What followed was an exchange of emails between me and James about the problems with the article. It concluded in a suggestion to remove the essential elements that I based the article on. I thought James had got it all wrong and I requested him to discuss the difference in views that we seemingly were having. Skype was the medium of choice.

We ended up talking for 90 minutes. First we were talking about the article itself and he clarified some points he had made earlier. Then James challenged some of the essential elements of the article and I tried to defend them as best I could. All the while doing so I thought better descriptions for the principles I was using. I was on hot coals during the conversation: if I had chosen a bad wording for my answer, he would grab it and ask the real meaning behind the words I was using.

The article did not survive, but I did. Later I was a happy to have endured the barrage and decided to hone the article so that I could later publish with pride and joy. I never really understood how much the discussion had given me, though. I had learned some very valuable lessons. The critique on the article was secondary compared to the practice I got performing under pressure and all the while holding to my beliefs. As James said in the course today, there is none worse than tester who is “pathetically complying”. I could have said “OK. I won’t publish! Just don’t yell at me.” and I would have lost all my credibility. I learned how to defend something even though I might be wrong. Ilari Henrik Aegerter gave me a coaching session once where we practiced exactly that: how to be able to defend your point. And so I became better at explaining myself and defending my point under pressure.

What I would have done differently is that I never really tried to sympathize to James’ point of view as I so aggressively tried to get mine across. I could have got more out of the conversation if I had listened more carefully and sought for meanings and advice that he gave between the lines.

Having shared this experience also enforced the learning that I experienced, for I was able to verbalize some of the stuff that I had thought only briefly. Next steps for me are to revisit the article bearing the real purpose of the article in mind, and try to make it better (if not perfect). The article is resting and collecting dust currently, but I will tackle the beast soon enough. I believe that the Rapid Software Testing course will give the inspiration boost that I need to get it done (although I think extrinsic motivation plays no part in this, as I already WANT to finish the article). Too bad I didn't sign in for the Let's Test! conference with the paper. ;)

Porridge is bad for you!

"What?! What is he talking about?" This blog post is about challenging one's criticism and trying to make it more effective using simple methods. This post is about moving away from unhealthy criticism into constructive critique and feedback. This is about finding the right mind-set.

Why do people criticize?

"You're doing it all wrong!" "Your tie is hideous." You've seen it. You've heard it. Probably you've even done it. I know I have. And in most occasions I have let my self-criticism be clouded by someone else’s opinion about the same subject. By not having a concrete opinion of one's own it's easy to adapt to criticism of someone else.

Let's take an example of a guru that has strict criticism against one subject - a porridge (seems like a neutral enough). We all know that porridge is good for us, right? What if a nutrition guru says that porridge is bad? What do we do? If we have huge respect on that guru's thoughts and doings, might we blind our own judgment with the upward gaze towards the guru? We might just take the guru's opinion granted and start proclaiming that porridge is bad for you.

One way out of this bad equation is to step back and challenge one’s own critique. Is it justified? Are you making an assumption? (Great blog post about defeating assumptions by Ilari Henrik Aegerter) What if the guru was wrong? After making sense of what do YOU think, then you should back the critique up with facts, not opinions. By finding the facts, you might be looking for biased facts, but at least you have something to back it up. It's obvious (to some) that a biased opinion should stay as an opinion, but they rarely do. Instead of being opinions they become statements supported by chosen facts.

Doing basic critique, source checking, challenging, context projecting, you can find the root cause of the guru's opinion about the porridge. Does he (our guru is a he today) have an agenda of his own? Are there hidden meanings in the critique itself? Does it provoke thinking instead of criticizing the product?

How do people criticize?

"When giving feedback, do it like so: Always give good feedback in public and be precise about what was done well. Always give negative feedback in private and be precise. Try to find the solution instead of the one to blame." This was said by my father who has decades of experience in management and leading people. I have always thought this as the fundamental guideline of critique. I think most people know this and agree with this, but how come most people don't act accordingly?

Let's say that the guru had discovered some facts that "Ye olde bran porridge" has all sort of chemicals in it that disable some growth hormones on a child. Obviously that's a statement to be told to the public, right? And as we hold the guru in high regard, he is mandated to present his opinion (possibly supported by facts) in some public media. There are channels in which you can present a complaint about food (health inspector or some kind of an agency) and they will take the necessary precautions to tell the public that "porridge is bad for you". Possibly they have first discussed with the porridge company, who might have taken the product off the market.

The guru might give criticism about porridge in public and have the wrath of the porridge company on his shoulders. He might not care as he's a nutrition guru and has an agenda of his own (hoes he?). Is the guru doing the right thing expressing his opinion so loudly in public? Is the guru promoting himself instead of giving critique?  Was the bad thing in the porridge, in the chemical, or in the company making the porridge?

Where's the difference in the approach between the two models of critique? Was the guru able to achieve the goal of his criticism through a public channel (which ever the goal might have been)? Was the "behind closed doors" critique more efficient than the "in your face" critique? They all depend on the context, obviously. What was the goal of the critique?

Feed-forward

Some people think critique is feedback. Well it kinda is in some extent. Feedback however can be constructive even when the feedback is negative. Feedback is given when someone asks for it; critique is given when ever. Feedback is not trying to make one feel happy/sad but to make them improve; critique is about making a statement. When giving feedback don't sugarcoat it, instead say what YOU like and you'd like to see improved. "I liked the taste of porridge and how my stomach feels afterwards. To make it even more healthy I would not put in the chemicals that prohibit my growth."

As the feedback is a kind of a thing to be asked for, critique is the kind of a thing you just blurb out. Feedback has a purpose and it is meant to improve the one receiving the feedback. Critique has the tendency to provoke something. Conversation, debate, hatred, etc. Challenging can be more effective a way than critique. Challenging the critique itself can become the most valuable feedback there is!

Is the content self-justifying or do we need to empathize to support the critique?

There are tons of guides in how to give feedback without being critical. I know a dozen occasions where I have let my judgment be clouded by numerous things that have lead into bad critique and undesired results. Here's one:

I try to promote intelligent testing and intelligent approach to quality in general. I also believe that certifications that focus on the certificate itself are no good. A certificate that focuses on skills in a field that requires skills is a good thing; artificial certificate concentrating on a narrow view about best-practices (and only knowledge thereof) is a bad thing. This is what I thought and still think. I was having a discussion with people I think highly of about “what is your opinion about ISTQB-provided series of certificates”. By making a comment that the certificate looks good on paper (with some unflattering spices), I provoked a series of questions about “how do I back up my statement” and "do you even know what you're speaking of".

The questions stuck home and I started to think of how I really thought about the issue. The fundamental thought behind the issue remains the same, but as I have not delved deep enough into the syllabus, the history thereof, the initial goal behind the syllabus. Am I eligible to make claims about the issue? Was I repeating what the other people were saying and them making myself feel important about myself by making a rash claim? Does my opinion really matter in this case and could I do some good without being so loud about it? Is there a possibility to raise conversation about the issue within the certificate organization without sounding like a zealot?

With the comment I made (which was criticism at its worst) I thought the content of the comment was self-justifying. "Obviously all the people were thinking the same so I just said it out loud." Even though some of them were, they rightfully challenged my comment and forced me to think about it. What was my goal when stating something like that? What was the desired outcome? Praises to me? More Twitter followers? To raise conversation? To sound like a dumb-ass?

What I did achieve with the comment was for me to be able to criticize my own behavior and claims. I once claimed (in Finnish) that one way to achieve the best quality of an end-product is to "Murder you darlings" - by finding the most direct route from the current point into the desired point. By removing all the excess and self-promotion from the content. To go directly towards results. In making the comment I a was focusing on "sounding cool" instead of trying to use the words as a tool to achieve a goal (which apparently was shrouded).

Did I hurt someone in the process? Can't tell. Not directly, I assume (Pekka, you're assuming things).

Did I achieve the goal? Can't tell. I wasn't aware that there was a goal.

Did I learn something? Oh boy, did I!? ;)