Testing Good News

What if I will say I have some good news? Almost all my audience will come into the impression that I have something that will bring joy and happiness to their faces. That will be welcomed by all and will spread a positive energy to all the recipients.

Now this is all about general good news. Consider a Software industry scenario. A tester had to say something which is good news from his/her perspective. The work if a tester is to improve the quality of the software and find out defects as many as it can be. Now what if a tester will say that I have good news? Good news for a tester will be definitely a defect that he/she had found. But that will be a bad news for the party on the other side of the table i.e. for the programmers. So my good news will be a bad news for others.

I have seen in my carrier that most of the programmers have a red fired eye through which they always scan the testers. The situation becomes worst when the management also have the same attitude as the programmers. Sometimes, management plays very carefully when they have to appreciate the efforts done by testing team. They have to make balance between the programmers and testers and sometimes, by doing this activity, they become biased towards development (or seem to be biased) from the external view.

A very especial comment that I received recently is that it is due to test team only that software delivery get delayed to the customer. Because we always talks about defects in the software, and fixing and re-verification of all those defects takes more time to analyze, more time to re-code, more time to test, more time to deliver to test team and further more time to deliver the software to customer. These kinds of people have a mindset which clearly states that all the defects in the software are because of testing team. Is that meaning that testing always increases development cost? Definitely not. But only wise person can think like this. This is something really strange that it is these guys only (programmers) who inject the defects in the software, but the responsibility cracks on the testing team.

Few days back, I witnessed a great example of delivering the software to customer where the development totally got confused that what needs to be done before releasing the software to customer. Those guys behaved like a ……, (what would I say), but the whole storey was very hilarious and comic. I will not disclose that event here as it is against my professional liabilities.

-- Sanat Sharma

CMM

CMM – Capability Maturity Model. It is a model of the maturity of certain business model. Most of the software firms are running behind this without even knowing what does that mean? Would it mean value to the organization? And if yes, at what cost? And the most important. From where it all started? What was the background when it all happened?

CMM original context was for defense-related development projects (for United States Air Force) where human lives are at stake, and where time, money, and manpower are all available in quantity.

Now if we talk about the current software industry, who else will accept this fact that they have time, money and manpower in good quantity. Now days, where each customer wants their software development cycle good, fast and cheap, how can we think about time, money and manpower in good quantity?

Are CMM practices appropriate for every software development context? Certainly not; no way. In my opinion, without tailoring the processes defined in the CMM, any organization should not even think of about the CMM.

I have seen in some organization how they have implemented the CMM certification. As a process of CMM, the organization should be through with the CMM audit that is being done by the CMM auditors. I have seen some companies discussing and giving lectures to all the target employees who will be responsible and will be a part of CMM audit and that too, one day before the audit. I also encountered some great examples where the management invests a lot of time to understand and correlate the actions that are required for a CMM certified company. And the people, who have a good knowledge about the topic, sitting outside doing their regular tasks.

Most of the times, the organization receives the CMM certification but it remains as decorative as Chinese lamps. I mean no one follows what had been promised while CMM certification activities. That is why initiation of a task is easy but continuation of the same task is a real challenge.

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.–“William Shakespeare”. This means it is bad if the management is only thinking about getting the CMM certified tag and after that, no control on the same. On the other side, it is really appreciable if we continue with the same practices that we are practicing while getting the certification.

Just because you have the CMM certification doesn’t mean that you will remember all the processes when the need arises. But it is the responsibility of the management to continue with the same to maintain the dignity of CMM.

-- Sanat Sharma

EPP and 3H

EPP – a new term came to my mind just now and I started writing this blog. EPP means Effectiveness of Professional Performance © Sanat Sharma.

Most of the managers are under impression that it is near to impossible to measure the professional performance effectiveness of any individual using any criteria or parameters. I do agree with this. In my opinion, this is true that the management cannot evaluate the level of performance done by any individual in any organization.

Three things should be in a committed mode towards your working organization. Then only, one will get a professional performance expertise and henceforth good level of performance. Those three things are the vital parts of any professional’s body. And those are Head, Heart and Hand. And that is why I called it 3H performance. © Sanat Sharma.

-- Sanat Sharma

Feedback to your Manager

Feedback – We all need feedback. It plays a major role in improving anything. Improvement is a never ending process and feedback is an efficient fuel for it. We all need feedback to know how the things are going on and where to adjust their actions.

Across horizontal and vertical hierarchical structure in any organization, feedback is required from each and every individual to concerned people whom they are interacting on regular basis. This is something called as 360 degree feedback cycle, a new term invented by HR recently. Now providing feedback is quite simple for anyone to his/her subordinates. But unfortunately, it’s not always easy to obtain feedback from direct reports. Somehow, we've come to believe that feedback only flows downhill. Vice presidents give feedback to directors, directors gives feedback to managers, and so on, all the way down the hierarchy. But managers need feedback from their groups, as well, to understand how they are performing their jobs. I mean direct information from the people who rely on their managers to create an atmosphere where they can be successful.

Some of the very common thoughts about “hesitation of providing feedback to your manager” are:

1. “If I criticize him, I will see the effects when it comes to annual salary review”.
2. “Feedback is one-way street with my manager”.
3. “It’s not my job. He should know how he’s doing. He’s the manager, after all”.
4. “How can I provide feedback to my manager? He is boss, who is always right.”
5. “He is not my manager. He is my ideal.”
6. “He will not listen to whatever I will say. Better to keep my mouth shut.”
7. “He will not improve even if I say something to him.”
8. “I don’t trust my manager. He will take my comments on other side.”

Now all the above points are valid at some place or other. So the whole story of all the above 8 points have come up to a summary line that it is really difficult for any individual to provide the feedback comments to his/her superior. So what to do?

The manager’s should come up in this scenario and ask for the honest feedback from their direct reports. So as a manager, one must have to work extra hard to create a comfortable environment with T2 (Trust and Transparency) so that each and every individual feel free to provide feedback to you. The first way to build trust with the people, who report to you, is to demonstrate that you trust them. Demonstrating trust includes both the absence and presence of behavior from both the parties. One should be transparent, consistent and committed towards his/her professional responsibilities to create trust within the group. It is the only trust which will create a healthy environment for each and every individual. And trust redirects everyone to provide an honest and true feedback to everyone in the group, either to your seniors or to your juniors.

But how to do that? In my opinion, managers should create a feedback document with all the points that is required to all the direct reports for smoother operations with in the group. These points could be availability, approachability, commitments, transparency, technical expertise, managerial aspects, problem solving skills and many more. It depends on case to case. Seeking feedback shows that you value the group’s perceptions and want to provide them what they need to do their jobs.

-- Sanat Sharma