Unfortunately, you’re a bad shot. What James left out of his story about me being laid off is that one month after me and most of my team were notified of the layoff, my boss offered me a new job to stay on. Was it because of my ability to influence? I dunno, but I like to think it was due to being a graceful, professional leader who wanted to provide value despite a tough situation.

Alas, even though I was offered a position at my same salary, I turned it down. It was not QA-focused, it was as a SME on a project where I would no longer be leading testers. So I said no thanks. I finished out my transition period, head held high and a new opportunity met me as I left the building.

Rajesh
http://ShoftwareTestingNet.com

On Not-a-Fan’s comment.: Notice that Not-a-Fan, with some potentially valid criticisms, is too shy to sign. Note also that James, with reasoned responses to those potentially valid criticisms, is brave enough to sign. What’s up with that?

I’ve noticed this pattern in my own blog, too. For example, note the reaction from Anonymous here: http://www.developsense.com/2009/09/testing-checking-and-changing-language.html

To me, this is an important issue for the testing community. Why be afraid to speak your truth? And having done so, why be reluctant to identify yourself? Anonymity would make sense if, say, you were making some kind of argument that is directly at odds with your organization’s stated policy, or that threatens some value other than your reputation. In fact, a reasoned criticism threatens neither, and neither “Not-A-Fan” (in James’ case) or “Anonymous” (in mine) have said anything that appears to fall into those categories.

The only thing that anonymity affords here is the opportunity to say “insane blathering” without having to take responsibility for saying it. That’s not being a critic; that’s being a wimp.

—Michael B. (brave enough to sign)

In my experience, this extends beyond the world of testing. It’s a truth that applies to most (if not all) disciplines — whether it’s marketing, product, finance or other.

-Matt J.

I wrote: “…an empty *story* about testing couched in numbers to make it look rational”

It was NOT an empty story. It was a story justified using empty numbers. The difference is important. Actually it’s one of the reasons these numbers continue to be used in our business.

For instance, you might feel good. You might say “I feel like an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.” The “8″ represents “good”. The eight does not say anything that “good” does not already say, even though it looks more objective and scientific. The selection of the number 8 is subject to all sorts of unconscious biases.

The thing about numbers is that they are easily separated from their context. I think that’s one reason people like them. “We have 94% coverage” substitutes for a conversation about what we tested. But as a man who loves mathematics, I cannot in good conscience allow that to happen to my numbers. Therefore, when I use numbers, I keep the context close by. And I don’t use numbers when they contribute nothing material to my point.

In the example I gave, I was not making up the need for testing, I was making up numbers that communicated nothing more than “I think we need to test this thing, here, and I think that will take some time.” These days, I forego the numbers and have the conversation.

– James