Software Quality Assurance Forums: exploratory test methodology

It's easier to train people, speaking from experience, using structured technique.

I read with interest an article by Jon Bach, where he was talking about test planning for rapid test projects. In it, he said the type of work done by their firm is that where testing is required, but deliverables (standard, formal regression test cases, etc.) were not. That explained quite a bit for me.

I work in aviation, and yes, I agree, I wouldn't trust applications tested via exploratory methods. At the same time, I've been in this field for over 20 years and can honestly say I have never tested anything, using any methodology, where I have not done a measure of exploratory testing. We used to call it "intuitive testing" and add time in the test schedule specifically for such testing. I think an intelligent, thinking individual is not going to be limited by a set of test cases if they see something odd, different, or that sparks their curiosity.

That said, people do not just normally get "born" as good testers. They need to be trained on standard technique and how a tester "thinks" and methodically decomposes an application. Or document.

I wouldn't shy away from calling exploratory testing a "methodology"; I think many proponents have taken great pains to get it considered such, as it adds to the acceptance and legitimacy of the approach. There are also some basics and recognized good practices for employing agile techniques in the testing arena.

I have a few areas in which I disagree with those that believe primarily in the methodology. One is that it is often employed by consultants, who are long gone when the fallout from having no regression test case occurs. Such lack of standard test artifacts results in the wheel being reinvented over and over; a total waste of money and time. The other is the mistaken belief that preparing test artifacts in advance - or preparing test cases at all - is not a creative, exploratory task in and of itself. Nothing, in my opinion, could be further from the truth. If I have a competent tester on my hands, they can take a picture drawn on a cocktail napkin and construct tests for it - and write them down. Creativity and intelligence doesn't manifest only when an application is turned over on the fly. Creativity and intelligence come into play regardless of when that creative and intelligent resource begins work. The only difference I see is when, how, or if test artifacts are created. My own feeling is that I will pretty much test the same things, in the same order, regardless of whether I write stuff down in advance or sit down in front of something for the first time. And if I see something I didn't expect, I'm free to add whatever makes sense based on the additional "exploration". I guess what I promote is a combination of techniques, and producing basic test artifacts that feed the lifespan of the product. For me, the difference between a professional and a hack is what they produce to meet not just the current need, but potential future testing needs of a given app. I think exploratory testing is easy, creative, and fun. I think structured testing requires more discipline. I think both require training.

- Linda