Testing, terminology and misperceptions
Confusing terminology contributes to misperceptions of testing and testers. And it often makes it even harder for people to understand the value off professional testers. For example: describing someone as a “manual tester” may create a perception of someone who’s not adding a lot of value. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the term “manual”, but culturally, at least here in the U.S., the term implies someone who doesn’t have valuable skills but can be given straightforward, well-defined tasks to do.
A lot of people use the term “manual” in the sense of “as opposed to having test automation skills”. While test automation is a critical area for most software teams, and can be a big challenge, it makes no sense to classify testing as “automated” and “everything else”. This is just one of the symptoms of the huge lack of understanding about testing, and the people who specialize in testing. But it is a good place to start.
(Note, I will use the term “tester” for simplicity. Many self-identify as “QAs”, “Quality Engineers”, “Quality Advocates” and many other terms. Also note, I did plenty of solo test automation in my time, but learned about 20 years ago that collaborating with the developers on my team to automate tests was exponentially more effective)).
Testing (including test automation) and quality should belong to the whole team
We know from Google’s DORA research that high-performing teams are ones where the developers (coders, engineers, whatever you want to call them)
own the automated tests and collaborate with the testers to create them. (See the Accelerate book’s chapter on test automation explaining the data). Testers help the team identify risks, define quality attributes, specify and design tests, help decide appropriate coverage. Developers write the code that sends test inputs to the production code and compares the actual and expected results. We have so many lovely frameworks these days that let testers and developers collaborate for this.
Many people call themselves “automated testers”, meaning that their sole job is to create and maintain automated tests. I suspect, or at least hope, that they are doing lots of other activities as well. Learning about the app, looking at risks, collaborating with other team members, for example.
I doubt anyone spends 100% of their time working with automated test code. It makes no sense in most contexts to separate testers who are involved with automating tests from testers who are doing dozens of other testing activities but are not writing code. I have nothing against people who work as “SDETs”, there is often a better market for someone in that specialty and often better pay. In my opinion, though, separate test automation specialists are an anti-pattern in most contexts.
The side effects of not understanding testing and quality
Testing encompasses a vast and complex area of skills and expertise. Janet Gregory and I once started listing all the different types of testing activities we could think of. We stopped when we got to 100, we could have continued. CXX level people generally have no idea about the breadth and depth of testing. They generally don’t even understand the value of quality, and why the business should make an investment to building quality in.
This ignorance extends down the ranks. Many development managers I’ve encountered don’t know much about testing. So when it’s time to hire a tester, ignorant practices like putting tester candidates in the “can code” and “can’t code” category happen. Even some developers I have worked with were reluctant to hire a tester who wasn’t also a coder. They feared they would not be able to communicate well with them. I know some recruiters who have a good grasp of what makes a good tester. But most rely on buzzwords and GenAI tools to scan resumes.
Raising awareness of the value of quality, testing and testers
Today, many people in the software profession still look down on testers. They think they should be paid less than coders. Most organizations fail to provide a workable career path for testing specialists. I think that stems from the days when most “testers” were people isolated in cubicles, working their way down manual regression test scripts, doing things that could indeed be automated and not adding value. (And sadly, this is still all too common, however wrong it is!)
As a profession, we have done a lot to change that view. But it persists in people who don’t take the time to learn about testing and testers.
Are you a “manual tester”? If you’re fine with that title, no worries. And, please make sure that you make your contributions to your organization visible. Your work adds value and should be appreciated. Take time to keep track of what you do. Make notes, use a spreadsheet, use an app like CounterPT to help you capture and share your wins and ideas. Even if your organization isn’t investing enough in quality, I hope you will invest in yourself.
For those of you who aren’t testers, or are testers but don’t consider yourself a “manual tester”, how about we just park that term and say “tester”, “quality engineer”, “quality advocate” or whatever your favorite term is that doesn’t involve any words that some people would perceive as demeaning?
My call to action
More importantly, whatever your skill set, if you haven’t already, build relationships with people in other specialties. Reach out to people in your team and
other parts of your organization. It’s an old cliché that we can’t test quality in. We have to build it in from the start. That requires everyone working together, regardless of where they are in the software delivery team.
Here are some resources that I hope will inspire people to get a better grasp of the wonderful world of testing.
- Isabel Evans, ““Breaking Stereotypes: Who is testing and why it matters”:
- Information about the CounterPT app
- Dr. Nicole Forsgren, Jez Humble and Gene Kim, Accelerate: The Science of Lean Software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations
- Callum Akehurs-Ryan, “Is Manual Testing a Dirty Word?“
- Beren Van Daele, “Case – A Testerless Team“
Many thanks to the people who discussed the topic of the “manual tester” term with me in a Slack chat and gave me some awesome insights to consider: Anna Baik, Sidney Karoffa, Suzanne Kraalij, Rhian Lewis, Christine Harmut, Isabel Evans
The post Testing, terminology and misperceptions appeared first on Holistic Testing with Lisa Crispin.