Yes, if we look expansively—not narrowly—at what it means to add value, then you're right. Remember the context of the original post. The point was that testers bring dollars in (which is what people often mean when they're talking about "adding value"), testers mostly defend the value that's there. That's a worthwhile activity, not a worthless one. In one narrow sense, building inspectors add no value to a building, but they help to defend the value of the value that's there. Yet in an alternative frame of reference—one in which we consider the value as "the building PLUS all the information we have on it", there's more information and thus more value there. You've provided a couple of excellent examples of adding value in this more inclusive way. So thanks!

—Michael B.

I think it is great the way you analyze your use of vocabulary to understand its implications.

In these two examples, testers don’t add value, but they shine light on places where value might be added.

Would you agree to my assumption that testers add value “to the team”, by “shining light on places where value might be added”. I usually argue with a lot of people about their testing practices and their relationship with the project team. A lot of the time I would express my doubts that they are adding value to the team, and hence their dissatisfaction. Many times I would suggest that they need to consider the context in which they are working and really analyze how they can serve the expectations of the team. For example, if the tester is able to identify critical problems in an unreasonable deadline (set by management) and as a result convinces management to reconsider shipping, I would assume the tester added value to the management by helping them make the right decision at that time. But I totally understand your point when you say that the tester simply defended the assumed value of the product.

In another example, I had once identified a number of security vulnerabilities that were taken very seriously by the project lead. However it was apparent that this was a system wide problem and would take time to resolve. Although no attempts were made to fix the issue immediately, the project lead made it a point to remind everyone quite frequently that they will need to schedule the fix very soon, before anyone else figures out the vulnerability. So although my shining light did not actually add value to the product (yet), it probably did set the wheels in motion. Nevertheless I would assume that the project lead did experience the added value. What are your thoughts on this?