Computer error

[Mich the Tester]

When I was younger I thought I knew what constituted good testing but I don't any more. I'm a bit concerned that those who would write legislation on what good testing is would be those sitting on the first peak of Mount Stupid.

 

[eek]

When I was younger I thought I knew what constituted good testing but I don't any more. I'm a bit concerned that those who would write legislation on what good testing is would be those sitting on the first peak of Mount Stupid.

I think in the case of the most computer systems in the public sector Mount Stupid is far further to the right than that diagram shows.

Most managers think we've paid millions for this so it most be perfect......

 

[vetran]

I agree on giving 'senior people' the accountability that fits their remuneration, something that's painfully missing in the corporate world, but who's going to write the legislation? Have standards prevented crises? Did Basel 2 prevent banking crises? Did SOX prevent corruption?

What is a 'reasonable standard' of testing? I'd love to know; I've been in testing for more than 15 years and the more I learn, the less certainty I have of what constitutes good testing.

SOX has caused perceptible improvements, whilst it has not eradicated misbehaviour it has reduced it and made those responsible more accountable:

Sarbanes-Oxley law has been a pretty clean sweep - ABC News
Learning To Love Sarbanes-Oxley - Businessweek

It has also made many businesses that embraced it more secure and successful.

A reasonable level of testing? Agree its a challenge but I'm sure you recognise that in this case they obviously didn't do a reasonable level of testing. There must be a set of golden rules like making sure the numbers add up when random values are entered into every input and every process.

At each prosecution they should have reviewed the system to make sure.

Of course I don't blame the testers(if there were any professional ones hired) as no doubt they were underfunded and pressurised but making senior management culpable would improve testing in most firms a hundred fold.

 

[mudskipper]

When I was younger I thought I knew what constituted good testing but I don't any more. I'm a bit concerned that those who would write legislation on what good testing is would be those sitting on the first peak of Mount Stupid.

There would be little point in legislating good testing if you don't legislate good requirements, good design, good coding etc...

Surely this was what ISO9001 et al were intended to do.

 

[Mich the Tester]

... making senior management culpable would improve testing in most firms a hundred fold.

And push testers' rates up Carry on with this reasoning, please !!!

On the other hand, it would push our professional indemnity premiums up too

 

[Mich the Tester]

There would be little point in legislating good testing if you don't legislate good requirements, good design, good coding etc...

Surely this was what ISO9001 et al were intended to do.

So why did Agile emerge? Process thinking obviously didn't solve the problems. Quite simply, we can't agree on standards; if that means we're constantly challenging each other I'd say that's actually better than standards set in stone.

 

[mudskipper]

And push testers' rates up Carry on with this reasoning, please !!!

On the other hand, it would push our professional indemnity premiums up too

If there's a bug, responsibility doesn't clearly lie with one area (unless, for example you said you'd run test script A which would have identified the bug, but didn't) One of the first premises of testing is that you're never going to prove a system is bug free.

 

[mudskipper]

So why did Agile emerge? Process thinking obviously didn't solve the problems. Quite simply, we can't agree on standards; if that means we're constantly challenging each other I'd say that's actually better than standards set in stone.

I wasn't suggesting ISO 9001 as a solution, more as an illustration that people have tried to solve the problem. Legislating on testing alone isn't the answer.

 

[Mich the Tester]

If there's a bug, responsibility doesn't clearly lie with one area (unless, for example you said you'd run test script A which would have identified the bug, but didn't) One of the first premises of testing is that you're never going to prove a system is bug free.

Indeed. And you're also never going to prove that professional standards or legislation are bug free.

I just have a feeling that if we go down the route of professional standards, the big corporates and the training companies are going to dictate; that means the usual suspects, plus Rex Black and the ISTQB, who IMO are sitting on the summit of Mount Stupid.

 

[vetran]

in most systems proving the system works more or less as specified would be a massive improvement.

Culpability and a minimum level of basic testing would be what I would aspire to for legislation.