James Bach:易变的测试工程师

译者注:读到一篇James Bach最新的文章,说的是如果正确理解和对待测试者的"善变"的.大多数管理者都期望测试工程师能像其他工程师一样,呈现一个相对稳定工作过程和结果,但


由于测试工作的特殊性,这种期望并不十分合理,下面看一下James Bach是怎么理解这件事的.
出自:Variable Testers-James Bach's Blog 
原文:http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/1453


我以前曾听一个负责软件工程的副总要求他的员工,要他们把工作固化下来.
当时我是以一个无偿顾问的身份出席这次研讨会,所以我会更无拘束的提出反对意见.
我举手说:"先生,我认为您不应该这么说,固化意味着千篇一律,您真的介意您的员工总是以不同的方式完成工作吗?在我看来,您关心的只是效果,也就是说,是不是能完成工作.如果


每次工作都以不同的方式完成,但都完成的很好,您还会介意吗?说到这里,您真的知道您的员工具体是怎么工作的吗?"


这是几年前的事了,我怎么都想不起当时这位管理者具体的反应了,只是记得他并没怎么搭理我,被一个来发表演讲的陌生人纠正,使他看起来不是很高兴.


但不管怎么说,我认为我必须去纠正他.
我曾经听几个经理说过他们的测试人员很善变,其中一些做的很好,但另外一些不是很令人满意,这种善变确会带来很多问题.
虽然这么说,但善变本身并不是问题.
当你开车时,每天路上那么多车,每个人转弯或踩刹车的习惯都不一样,这说明什么?
奇怪的是,这么明显的现象却被人忽略.试想一下,经理,设计人员,编码人员,用户,每个和工程有关的人,都很善变.
那么为什么单独抱怨测试人员善变呢?就好像他们很特殊,这让我很奇怪.


我猜可能以下两点可以解释这些人为什么有这样的想法.
第一,他们可能认为,其他工程师总能让我满意,而测试人员却时好时坏.
要解释这个现象,我们必须搞清楚经理们的真正期望是什么,是不是合理(译者:只有测试管理者的期望很明确,才能要求测试工程师呈现一个稳定的测试结果).
或许,还需要一个更完善的系统去培训和管理测试人员.
译者注:以上这点说的是有一个明确的测试目标和一个系统的管理过程.


第二,他们可能会认为,测试天生就是一件非常严格的工作,这是那些不懂测试的人们的典型想法.他们需要的是一个懂测试的人给他们解释和论证什么是测试


原文内容:
I once heard a vice president of software engineering tell his people that they needed to formalize their work. That day, I was an unpaid consultant in the 


building to give a free seminar, so I had even less restraint than normal about arguing with the guy. I raised my hand, “I don’t think you can mean that, 


sir. Formality is about sameness. Are you really concerned that your people are working in different ways? It seems to me that what you ought to be concerned 


about is effectiveness. In other words, get the job done. If the work is done a different way every time, but each time done well, would you really have a 


problem with that? For that matter, do you actually know how your folks work?”


This was years ago. I’m wracking my brain, but I can’t remember specifically how the executive responded. All I remember is that he didn’t reply with 


anything very specific and did not seem pleased to be corrected by some stranger who came to give a talk.


Oh well, it had to be done.


I have occasionally heard the concern by managers that testers are variable in their work; that some testers are better than others; and that this 


variability is a problem. But variability is not a problem in and of itself. When you drive a car, there are different cars on the road each day, and you 


have to make different patterns of turning the wheel and pushing the brake. So what?


The weird thing is how utterly obvious this is. Think about managers, designers, programmers, product owners… think about ANYONE in engineering. We are all 


variable. Complaining about testers being variable– as if that were a special case– seems bizarre to me… unless…


I suppose there are two things that come to mind which might explain it:


1) Maybe they mean “testers vary between satisfying me and not satisfying me, unlike other people, who always satisfy me.” To examine this we would 


discover what their expectations are. Maybe they are reasonable or maybe they are not. Maybe a better system for training and leading testers is needed.


2) Maybe they mean “testing is a strictly formal process that by its nature should not vary.” This is a typical belief by people who know nothing about 


testing. What they need is to have testing explained or demonstrated to them by someone who knows what he’s doing.