Wednesday, May 24, 2006

The Schools of Software Testers

So, i have learned that there are essentially 4 schools of software testing:

- Analytic School - sees testing as rigourous and technical with many proponents in academia
- Quality School - Emphasises Process, Policing Developers and acting as the Gamekeeper
- Factory School - sees testing as a way to measure progress with emphasis on cost and repeatable standards
- Context Driven School - Emphasises People, setting out to find the bugs that will be most important to stakeholders

Personally, i found this interesting and pondered for a little while before deciding which school i fell into - To be honest im fairly split between Analytic & Context Driven but as a judge of myself, perhaps i am more than a little biased :-)

I would be interested to see what others felt and how they selected which school was theirs!!
Have a read of this article and let me know

3 comments:

Bj Rollison said...

"Schools of testing" are a rediculous concept in my opinion. And the whole "context-driven" school is just another attempt to justify less technically skilled individuals in testing roles. (Yes, some of them are good bug finders, but are they really good testers capable of performing various aspects of the role with a high degree of competence?)

In truth, a professional tester understands processes, can accurately collect critical metrics for better analysis of KPIs, is analytical enough to reduce redundant testing, and is capable of designing tests within the context of importance to stakeholders.

Anonymous said...

I agree that categorising testers into specific groups (schools) is in no way helpful. In fact, defining people or segmenting groups is something in general that does not lie well with me, nobody likes to branded...

A good tester is a good tester (full stop) but different people of course do certain tasks differently, set about completing the task in an alternative manner but still all strive to complete the task to the best of their abilities and on time (hopefully :-)!!)

It's what makes a great tester is where perhaps the debate should begin?

Anonymous said...

I have seen before and discussed this material in depth with other testers. We were were almost unanimous that this categorisation was NOT at all helpful. In fact, we thought that these ideas were actually quite devisive.

In reality, we deceided that we would desire a mix of ALL of these qualitiers in a GOOD tester!