Peggy and Josh discussed how they might implement a specifc risk analysis component to their employer’s test analysis and definition process — which is HUGE!. At the end of it, I am glad I don’t work where they do; waaaay too process heavy I think. In fact that was my question for them after their presentation to which they admitted that their process has scaling issues, especially for smaller features. Perhaps I’m blessed with having only worked on pure software and not software/hardware and the associated nonsense of being ISO certified.

Another question that was asked was ‘What are you actually trying to achieve?’ I know I sometimes lose sight of this point when launching into battle sometimes. Maybe writing it out will burn it into my memory. (It’s worth a shot).

I’ve been of the opinion that the software testing community is too fragmented and that there needs to be more intermixing between the groups. This presentation did very little to alieve that fear. Not that I’m not part of the problem too. I for instance hang out with mainly people who subscribe to contextual beliefs and theories. We goto the same workshops and conference, read the same books, etc. Anyways, coupled with this fragmentation is the associated cult of personality that forms around those at the core of each group. When asked what they meant by ‘heuristic’, a word they used often, they stumbled. Again, I’m somewhat on the alert for this sort of thing, but it seems to me that appropriated it from James because he, and others at the core of the context group use it. Lots of people do this, but they were unfortunate enough to get called on it. Perhaps not a fair comment, but as disclaimed, that was just the impression I got.