Book: Why Software Gets In Trouble

Why Software Gets In Trouble

by Gerald M. Weinberg

"Why Software Gets In Trouble" is part 2 of the latest edition of Weinberg's "Quality Software" series.

In it, Jerry describes many of the ways errors occur, the correct way of thinking about errors (such as "Errors are not a moral issue" and "Quality is not the same thing as absence of errors"), how companies and processes get into a state where errors are more likely to occur (increased pressure, high levels of stress, poor estimation, lack of control, etc), and the effects of breakdowns.

This book is fairly short, yet surprisingly thorough over its seven chapters:

Chapter 1: Observing and Reasoning About Errors

Chapter 2: The Failure Detection Curve

Chapter 3: Locating The Faults Behind The Failures

Chapter 4: Fault Resolution Dynamics

Chapter 5: Power, Pressure, and Performance

Chapter 6: Handling Breakdown Pressure

Chapter 7: What We've Managed To Accomplish

For me, this was a very timely book.  My team is going through some of the same pressure patterns Jerry writes about.  For virtually every point made, I found myself saying "I remember when that happened", and sometimes "That's happening right now!"

If you are a Software Testing professional, you should read this book.  You should then give a copy to your manager, and to your manager's boss.  Then, be prepared to discuss with them the realities of software development from a tester's point of view.  After reading "Why Software Gets In Trouble", you'll almost certainly have a more enlightened (and hopefully more receptive) audience.

One note: You should read the appendices first, so you will understand the diagrams and references to "Patterns" scattered throughout the book.

A disclaimer: Jerry put out a call for reviewers on his website (http://secretsofconsulting.blogspot.com/2011/02/free-books-looking-for-few-more-book.html) and gave a free e-copy of this book to those who would agree to post a review.  Since I enjoyed his book "Perfect Software: And Other Illusions About Testing" so much, I agreed - this is my review.

---

This article originally appeared in my blog: All Things Quality

	My name is Joe Strazzere and I'm currently a Director of Quality Assurance. I like to lead, to test, and occasionally to write about leading and testing. Find me at http://strazzere.blogspot.com/.

Are You People?

Are you people?

Specifically, would you like to be added to the People in Testing page here at All Things Quality?

The only requirements are:

• You are in fact people (sorry Watson)
• You have a website or blog
• Your site deals mostly with QA or Testing, or at least has a significant amount of QA/Testing content
• Your site is relatively active
• Your site isn't just commercial
• Your site contains articles that QAers/Testers would find interesting

If so, Send me a note!

I'll add you to the list and you'll become famous!^*


*   Your mileage may vary. No purchase required. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. For external use only. No animals were harmed in the production of this article. Contents may settle during shipment. Some assembly required. Other restrictions may apply.  Do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle. Reproduction without expressed written consent is prohibited.  At participating locations only.

---

This article originally appeared in my blog: All Things Quality

	My name is Joe Strazzere and I'm currently a Director of Quality Assurance. I like to lead, to test, and occasionally to write about leading and testing. Find me at http://strazzere.blogspot.com/.

I'll Take Deep QA for $1000, Alex

Last week, after three years and over $100 million in research and development by IBM, we saw the 3-day advertisement/gameshow that was "Watson vs the best (human) Jeopardy players ever".

Predictably, Watson won.  And equally predictably, it did surprisingly well with some questions and surprisingly poorly with others.  I found it fascinating television.

I suspect it's difficult for folks who aren't in the software business to get any sense of how difficult it must have been to develop Watson.  This is software that can take the quasi-natural language surrounding the Jeopardy category names and clues, quickly search an internal database, come up with the top three responses, calculate a probability of correctness for each, then (if the top probability is high enough) press the buzzer and give the response.  All of this faster, and more accurately than the best people to ever play the game. copyrightjoestrazzere

I watched it with the same awe that I watch computer-animated graphics in games and movies.  Smart people, creating interesting systems.

If the goal was to attract attention to IBM, then certainly this was a success.  But I wonder why the audience (in the studio built at IBM facilities) was packed with suits, rather than younger folks?  Wouldn't IBM want to use this opportunity to attract (presumably younger) smart new talent to their company?  To me, seeing a room full of mostly VP-types clapping loses some of that "this would be a cool place to work" aura that could have happened.  Do you think the studio audience would have had a slightly different demographic had Google developed the Jeopardy champ instead of IBM?  I do.

Anyway, well done IBM.  Now that you've conquered chess and Jeopardy, what's next?  Obviously Wheel of Fortune is too simple, and there's too much chance involved.  Probably not Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader.  How about American Idol?  Maybe Celebrity Apprentice?  Perhaps Dancing with the Stars?

"There's no shame in losing to silicon,"
- Ken Jennings 

"What is Toronto????"
- Watson, in the Final Jeopardy category "US Cities" 

"The challenge is over.  Watson, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter concluded their final round of Jeopardy and the winner was... resoundingly, humankind."
- IBM 

"The opening line of the sales pitch is already written:  "This uses the same technology that beat Ken Jennings on Jeopardy!"  "
- Hellerman Baretz Communications 

"How would I test something like that?"
- me 

"It was Watson's "human attributes" that make him so compelling,"
- Joanna Weiss, The Boston Globe. 

"The big winner in this contest was science."
- St. Petersburg Times 

"I for one welcome our new computer overlords"
- Ken Jennings 

P.S.
I wish IBM had named the project "Deep Q&A", rather than "Deep QA".  I have a hard enough time differentiating those terms for actual humans I meet.

---

This article originally appeared in my blog: All Things Quality

	My name is Joe Strazzere and I'm currently a Director of Quality Assurance. I like to lead, to test, and occasionally to write about leading and testing. Find me at http://strazzere.blogspot.com/.