I am currently in a new position where the current testing approach is to “bang around” in the software before shipping it to clients. As I implement SBTM I am receiving great acceptance and feedback such as “it’s great to have a name for what we already do”. The catch is that they haven’t been doing ET because there was no tracking or significant accountability.

As I am coming in and learning about the team, I desperately need to be able to track my testers so I know what they are testing and where the training is needed. I recognize the value of ET and this week will be implementing SBTM to facilitate that happening instead of the un-managed “banging around” that has been happening thus far.

I have enjoyed reading your tweets about #PMI and managers over the last month. Every time I read them I am grateful I work with intelligent critical thinkers. Keep ‘em comin’.

I'd like to note that there are tools out there that let you record these items as well so the number of things the tester has to document manually shrinks which to me is a good thing.

That can be helpful, but be careful. A tool can't tell how much time a tester has spent on design and execution vs. bug investigation and reporting vs. setup. Those aren't intended to be precise categorizations anyway; we're just trying to capture the general level of interruption. Far more important information, for this purpose, in conversation; information immediately, rather than mediately as a tool would provide it.

But it's also harder to manage, it's a lot easier to throw test scripts and logs over the wall, tick the box and say, done and here's what we did in writing. (Thomas)

and

…they are required to be more in touch with the field, talk to their people on a daily basis, conduct daily team meetings. Some managers will prefer sitting at the comfort of their desk and reviewing detailed spreadsheets. (Gali)

Yes. But it's time to be clear: You can observe the work and help to guide people. You can use your authority and responsibility to provide them what they need and to remove obstacles that limit them or slow them down. If you do that, you're a manager. But if you sit at the comfort of your desk and review detailed spreadsheets, you're not a manager; you're a clerk. Now, Dear Manager: you're not a clerk, are you?

@Martin…

Thanks for the comments.

Scientific management has over 150 years of brain washing. Yup. And no matter how much people try to whitewash it, the stains are still visible if you're looking. But actually, good science and good natural history is much older than that.

I'm sure I'll comment on your blog post at some point fairly soon.

—Michael B.

I wrote this article:
http://thetesteye.com/blog/2009/07/scripted-vs-exploratory-testing-from-a-managerial-perspective/
as a way to hammer on the ET concept, perhaps a bit naive but I tried to understand why it was hard to sell ET into an organisation.

In a sense,this approach might require a lot more from managers; they are required to be more in touch with the field, talk to their people on a daily basis, conduct daily team meetings . Some managers will prefer sitting at the comfort of their desk and reviewing detailed spreadsheets. but your approach is for sure more beneficial to the entire process.

I like the idea of brief ET sessions. and it's easy to implement.

I'd like to note that there are tools out there that let you record these items as well so the number of things the tester has to document manually shrinks which to me is a good thing.

You wrote: "Between a charter, the session sheet, the oral report, data files, and the logs and the debrief, it's hard for me to imagine a more accountable way of working."
I agree. You are listing 6 different items here that make sure ET is accountable. You could argue that in test scripts you only have two, the test scrript and the test log. To me it's a given that your approach adds more value as you get more information. But it's also harder to manage, it's a lot easier to throw test scripts and logs over the wall, tick the box and say, done and here's what we did in writing. It's not managing but if no one complains…

The crux as far as I can see is that it's harder to actively manage, provide useful information and account for your actions than it is to put something on paper and say it's done.