Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Dedicate Tester in an Agile Team

Expand Messages
  • Adam Sroka
    ... Yes. Hire people with a testing background and include them on your team. Don t create a separate QA team, just mix the testers right in with everyone
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:11 PM, brian_bofu <brian_bofu@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hi there,
      >
      > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that they'd
      > like to have a tester who could look at the application in a different
      > angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a dedicate tester be
      > a great helpful with respect to the quality? What's your thoughts?
      >

      Yes. Hire people with a testing background and include them on your
      team. Don't create a separate QA team, just mix the testers right in
      with everyone else. This works best if you also pair program, but it
      works even if you don't.
    • Adam Sroka
      ... People with a background in testing definitely bring something unique to the table. At the very least they: a) are familiar with methods and tools for
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM, brian_bofu <brian_bofu@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > The developers are practising TDD. My question is, is there a need for a
        > tester in the team if we have not had one yet? Can developers who are doing
        > TDD/AT ensure the quality without testers' invlovement?
        >

        People with a background in testing definitely bring something unique
        to the table. At the very least they: a) are familiar with methods and
        tools for testing that aren't strictly related to TDD. b) have spent a
        lot of time thinking about how to break things and where things might
        be likely to break. c) understand how to think about and communicate
        about quality.

        Are these things strictly necessary to do TDD effectively and ensure
        quality? No. Could they help to do it faster/better? Definitely.
      • Jaideep Khanduja
        ... the table. At the very least they: a) are familiar with methods and tools for testing that aren t strictly related to TDD. b) have spent a lot of time
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 17, 2009
        • 0 Attachment

          Adam wrote:

          >People with a background in testing definitely bring something unique to the table. At the very least they: a) are familiar with methods and tools for testing that aren't strictly related to TDD. b) have spent a lot of time thinking about how to break things and where things might be likely to break. c) understand how to think about and communicate about quality.

           

          But who says in TDD: a) is devoid of methods and tools for testing (are there any standards about methods and tools that aren’t strictly related to TDD, atleast I am not aware of!), b) does it mean none of TDD team members spend time thinking about how to break things and where things might be likely to break, c) again does it mean TDD team members do not understand how to think about and communicate about quality.

           

          I think, TDD is at par all these qualities and above that. (I might be wrong!)

           

           

          Best Regards,

           

          Jaideep

           


          From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
          Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:15 PM
          To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Dedicate Tester in an Agile Team

           




          On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM , brian_bofu <brian_bofu@yahoo. com.cn> wrote:

          >
          >
          > The developers are practising TDD. My question is, is there a need for a
          > tester in the team if we have not had one yet? Can developers who are
          doing
          > TDD/AT ensure the quality without testers' invlovement?
          >

          People with a background in testing definitely bring something unique
          to the table. At the very least they: a) are familiar with methods and
          tools for testing that aren't strictly related to TDD. b) have spent a
          lot of time thinking about how to break things and where things might
          be likely to break. c) understand how to think about and communicate
          about quality.

          Are these things strictly necessary to do TDD effectively and ensure
          quality? No. Could they help to do it faster/better? Definitely.

          Confidentiality Notice:

          The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender at admin@... immediately and destroy all the copies of this message and any attachments

        • Adam Sroka
          On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Jaideep Khanduja ... I didn t say that (And you ll have to explain the parenthetical because it doesn t make sense to me.)
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 17, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Jaideep Khanduja
            <jaideep.khanduja@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Adam wrote:
            >
            >>People with a background in testing definitely bring something unique to
            >> the table. At the very least they: a) are familiar with methods and tools
            >> for testing that aren't strictly related to TDD. b) have spent a lot of time
            >> thinking about how to break things and where things might be likely to
            >> break. c) understand how to think about and communicate about quality.
            >
            >
            >
            > But who says in TDD: a) is devoid of methods and tools for testing (are
            > there any standards about methods and tools that aren’t strictly related to
            > TDD, atleast I am not aware of!),

            I didn't say that (And you'll have to explain the parenthetical
            because it doesn't make sense to me.) TDD does have methods and tools.
            QA as a discipline includes all of the same methods and tools and
            quite a bit more.

            b) does it mean none of TDD team members
            > spend time thinking about how to break things and where things might be
            > likely to break,

            I didn't say that either. AFAIK, most developers devote at least a
            portion of their time to designing and writing code. Whereas testers
            devote themselves to testing.

            A successful janitor is good at mopping floors. Most developers are
            capable of mopping floors. There is value in hiring janitors. Your
            logic would suggest otherwise.

            c) again does it mean TDD team members do not understand
            > how to think about and communicate about quality.
            >

            They might not have devoted as much time or energy to it. They might
            not wish to.

            >
            >
            > I think, TDD is at par all these qualities and above that. (I might be
            > wrong!)
            >

            I think that you are wrong, but I would suggest that you research it
            for yourself. There is a large body of knowledge related to QA. Their
            are entire websites, conferences, academic courses (And at least a
            couple degree programs), a huge amount of literature, etc. I am
            convinced that some of this has value and is above and beyond what
            most developers (even those versed in TDD) are exposed to.
          • Cenk Çivici
            Hi, TDD with unit testing is for building the code right Acceptance Testing and QAs are for building the right code.. Cheers Cenk
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 17, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi,

              TDD with unit testing is for building the code right
              Acceptance Testing and QAs are for building the right code..

              Cheers
              Cenk

              On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM, brian_bofu <brian_bofu@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hi there,
              >
              > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that they'd
              > like to have a tester who could look at the application in a different
              > angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a dedicate tester be
              > a great helpful with respect to the quality? What's your thoughts?
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > Brian
              >
              >
            • Dave Rooney
              I agree with your separation of the types of testing, but would suggest that TDD is a design specification activity rather than a testing one. -- Dave Rooney
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 17, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree with your separation of the types of testing, but would suggest
                that TDD is a design specification activity rather than a testing one.

                --

                Dave Rooney
                Mayford Technologies
                "Helping you become AGILE... to SURVIVE and THRIVE!"
                http://www.mayford.ca
                http://practicalagility.blogspot.com
                Twitter: daverooneyca


                Cenk Çivici wrote:
                > Hi,
                >
                > TDD with unit testing is for building the code right
                > Acceptance Testing and QAs are for building the right code..
                >
                > Cheers
                > Cenk
                >
                > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM, brian_bofu <brian_bofu@...> wrote:
                >
                >> Hi there,
                >>
                >> We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that they'd
                >> like to have a tester who could look at the application in a different
                >> angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a dedicate tester be
                >> a great helpful with respect to the quality? What's your thoughts?
                >>
                >> Regards,
                >>
                >> Brian
                >>
                >>
              • Michael Sahota
                ... +1 (I Agree).
                Message 7 of 24 , Apr 17, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Adam Sroka wrote:

                  Yes. Hire people with a testing background and include them on your
                  team. Don't create a separate QA team, just mix the testers right in
                  with everyone else. This works best if you also pair program, but it
                  works even if you don't.







                  +1 (I Agree).
                • George Dinwiddie
                  ... I ve found that having a dedicated tester (or several) on the team pays big dividends. They bring a viewpoint similar to the product owner angle, bit with
                  Message 8 of 24 , Apr 17, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    brian_bofu wrote:
                    > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that
                    > they'd like to have a tester who could look at the application in a
                    > different angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a
                    > dedicate tester be a great helpful with respect to the quality?
                    > What's your thoughts?

                    I've found that having a dedicated tester (or several) on the team pays
                    big dividends. They bring a viewpoint similar to the product owner
                    angle, bit with more depth and variety of considerations. This is
                    really helpful for coming up with acceptance criteria for a story that
                    will hold up under real-world usage.

                    They can also help (often with a developer) automate regression scripts.

                    - George

                    --
                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
                    Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
                    Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  • Ryan Shriver
                    ... To follow up, on our agile teams we d have embedded testers in each team that would be responsible for testing new stories that iteration their teams were
                    Message 9 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:06 PM, George Dinwiddie wrote:

                      > brian_bofu wrote:
                      >> We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that
                      >> they'd like to have a tester who could look at the application in a
                      >> different angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a
                      >> dedicate tester be a great helpful with respect to the quality?
                      >> What's your thoughts?
                      >
                      > I've found that having a dedicated tester (or several) on the team
                      > pays
                      > big dividends. They bring a viewpoint similar to the product owner
                      > angle, bit with more depth and variety of considerations. This is
                      > really helpful for coming up with acceptance criteria for a story that
                      > will hold up under real-world usage.
                      >
                      > They can also help (often with a developer) automate regression
                      > scripts.
                      >
                      > - George

                      To follow up, on our agile teams we'd have embedded testers in each
                      team that would be responsible for testing new stories that iteration
                      their teams were developing (writing FitNesse and Selenium scripts).
                      We also had a separate, independent group of "end-to-end" testers
                      that did more thorough, lifecycle testing with each iteration's code
                      drop and especially before a major release. For example, they would
                      do a transaction, cycle the system forward a few days, then do
                      another transaction and ensure things worked correctly. I thought
                      this setup worked well.

                      The "end-to-end" testers had deep domain experience and knew how the
                      system should work whereas the agile team testers were younger and
                      generally had more technical skills but lacked deep domain experience
                      (along with many developers).

                      Before adding the "end-to-end" testers, we completely relied on the
                      agile team testers, but got bitten by a few nasty bugs that got
                      shipped. Adding this team, especially because they had deep domain
                      experience, was a big help in improving release quality.

                      -ryan
                    • Ron Jeffries
                      Hello, Ryan. On Saturday, April 18, 2009, at 7:22:45 AM, you ... Were you able to be Done in every Sprint, or did this extra line of testers require a
                      Message 10 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello, Ryan. On Saturday, April 18, 2009, at 7:22:45 AM, you
                        wrote:

                        > The "end-to-end" testers had deep domain experience and knew how the
                        > system should work whereas the agile team testers were younger and
                        > generally had more technical skills but lacked deep domain experience
                        > (along with many developers).

                        > Before adding the "end-to-end" testers, we completely relied on the
                        > agile team testers, but got bitten by a few nasty bugs that got
                        > shipped. Adding this team, especially because they had deep domain
                        > experience, was a big help in improving release quality.

                        Were you able to be Done in every Sprint, or did this extra line of
                        testers require a separate testing phase?

                        Ron Jeffries
                        www.XProgramming.com
                        www.xprogramming.com/blog
                        In times of stress, I like to turn to the wisdom of my Portuguese waitress,
                        who said: "Olá, meu nome é Marisol e eu serei sua garçonete."
                        -- after Mark Vaughn, Autoweek.
                      • andaluri sai prasad
                        Hi But as per Scrum guide lines , is it suggestable to have a dedicated tester . Scrum says the team should have members who are multi skilled. -Sivaram On
                        Message 11 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi
                           
                          But as per Scrum guide  lines , is it suggestable to have a dedicated tester . Scrum says the team should have
                          members who are multi skilled.
                           
                          -Sivaram


                           
                          On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM, George Dinwiddie <lists@...> wrote:


                          brian_bofu wrote:
                          > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that
                          > they'd like to have a tester who could look at the application in a
                          > different angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a
                          > dedicate tester be a great helpful with respect to the quality?
                          > What's your thoughts?

                          I've found that having a dedicated tester (or several) on the team pays
                          big dividends. They bring a viewpoint similar to the product owner
                          angle, bit with more depth and variety of considerations. This is
                          really helpful for coming up with acceptance criteria for a story that
                          will hold up under real-world usage.

                          They can also help (often with a developer) automate regression scripts.

                          - George

                          --
                          ----------------------------------------------------------
                          * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
                          Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
                          Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
                          ----------------------------------------------------------




                           

                        • davenicolette
                          Hi Sivaram, If my understanding of Scrum is correct, then the guideline is that teams should include all the skills necessary to deliver the product; teams are
                          Message 12 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Sivaram,

                            If my understanding of Scrum is correct, then the guideline is that teams should include all the skills necessary to deliver the product; teams are cross-functional. Scrum itself doesn't dictate exactly how to achieve that. Team members who are individually multi-skilled is often a very good way to do it, but I don't think that's actually defined in Scrum as such. It would still be consistent with Scrum if you had a team comprising individual experts in each required discipline.

                            So, if your team members have both development and testing skills, that's fine. If your team includes some developers who aren't skilled at testing, and some testers who aren't skilled at development, that's also fine as far as Scrum guidelines are concerned (although I personally think the former model is more effective for general business application development, which rarely demands narrow-and-deep specialized skills).

                            Cheers,
                            Dave

                            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, andaluri sai prasad <andaluris@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi
                            >
                            > But as per Scrum guide lines , is it suggestable to have a dedicated tester
                            > . Scrum says the team should have
                            > members who are multi skilled.
                            >
                            > -Sivaram
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM, George Dinwiddie
                            > <lists@...>wrote:
                            >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > brian_bofu wrote:
                            > > > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that
                            > > > they'd like to have a tester who could look at the application in a
                            > > > different angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a
                            > > > dedicate tester be a great helpful with respect to the quality?
                            > > > What's your thoughts?
                            > >
                            > > I've found that having a dedicated tester (or several) on the team pays
                            > > big dividends. They bring a viewpoint similar to the product owner
                            > > angle, bit with more depth and variety of considerations. This is
                            > > really helpful for coming up with acceptance criteria for a story that
                            > > will hold up under real-world usage.
                            > >
                            > > They can also help (often with a developer) automate regression scripts.
                            > >
                            > > - George
                            > >
                            > > --
                            > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                            > > * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
                            > > Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
                            > > Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
                            > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • Mike Dwyer
                            If you want to get into this come join Scott Barber and me at CAST 2009 where we are going to get into Agile QA, software testing, and best of all a face to
                            Message 13 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              If you want to get into this come join Scott Barber and me at CAST 2009 where we are going to get into Agile QA, software testing, and best of all a face to face conversation on subjects like this with serious test types and folks like Gerry Weinberg.
                              What we as Scrummies need to remind ourselves is that we are not the center of the universe and that REALLY scarce resources like good testers are too valuable to baby sit every team writing a couple of dozen lines a code a day.
                              Pay attention to equally scarce ressources like Ron or better Chet who take responsibility for their work by first writing out their tests. I bet if you ask them they might tell you that test folks are great to sit down with at the BEGINNING of the project and come up with a collaborative strategy that integrates all the tests they will build. The test gang can then go rock the integration system and performance end.
                              Ron? Care to comment?

                              Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


                              From: "brian_bofu"
                              Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:11:26 -0000
                              To: <scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com>
                              Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Dedicate Tester in an Agile Team

                              Hi there,

                              We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that they'd like to have a tester who could look at the application in a different angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a dedicate tester be a great helpful with respect to the quality? What's your thoughts?

                              Regards,

                              Brian

                            • Michael James
                              ... One thing I ll add to this discussion is the TDD habit of mocking out the UI layer and the persistence layer (in order to make tests run in less than 10ms)
                              Message 14 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Dave Rooney <dave.rooney@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I agree with your separation of the types of testing, but would suggest
                                > that TDD is a design specification activity rather than a testing one.
                                >

                                One thing I'll add to this discussion is the TDD habit
                                of mocking out the UI layer and the persistence layer
                                (in order to make tests run in less than 10ms) leaves
                                holes in the areas a lot of customer bug reports tend
                                to come in: the UI (especially in browser-based apps),
                                and the interaction of multiple components at the
                                persistence layer.

                                So yeah, you need end to end system testing, and it's
                                the whole team's responsibility. Fortunately nowadays
                                we can do a lot of it using unit test tools that can
                                plug into our continuous integration environments,
                                which helps mitigate the slower turnaround time.

                                Knowing whether to add this particular person to
                                the team is a whole different question that can't be
                                answered just from his resume.

                                --mj
                              • Michael James
                                ... I m wondering how cross-functional team often gets misconstrued into team of cross-functional individuals ? Getting Scrum out there would be so much
                                Message 15 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "davenicolette" <dnicolet@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > If my understanding of Scrum is correct, then the guideline is that teams should include all the skills necessary to deliver the product; teams are cross-functional.

                                  I'm wondering how "cross-functional team" often gets
                                  misconstrued into "team of cross-functional individuals"?
                                  Getting Scrum out there would be so much easier without
                                  all these misconceptions.

                                  It's true I've seen individuals become more generalized from
                                  working closely together. But that doesn't always happen,
                                  and (as you wrote) isn't *required* by Scrum anyway.

                                  --mj
                                • Ken Schwaber
                                  Scrum does not say that. It says that a team commits to developing an increment of potentially shippable functionality from the product backlog items it
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Scrum does not say that. It says that a team commits to developing an increment of potentially shippable functionality from the product backlog items it selects. Hopefully the team is insightful enough to only commit to those things that it has the skills to do (whether multi-skilled or whatever). The proof is determined when the increment is inspected in the Sprint Review meeting.
                                    Ken


                                    On Apr 18, 2009, at 8:31 AM, andaluri sai prasad wrote:




                                    Hi
                                     
                                    But as per Scrum guide  lines , is it suggestable to have a dedicated tester . Scrum says the team should have
                                    members who are multi skilled.
                                     
                                    -Sivaram


                                     
                                    On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM, George Dinwiddie <lists@idiacomputing .com>wrote:


                                    brian_bofu wrote:
                                    > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that
                                    > they'd like to have a tester who could look at the application in a
                                    > different angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a
                                    > dedicate tester be a great helpful with respect to the quality?
                                    > What's your thoughts?

                                    I've found that having a dedicated tester (or several) on the team pays 
                                    big dividends. They bring a viewpoint similar to the product owner 
                                    angle, bit with more depth and variety of considerations. This is 
                                    really helpful for coming up with acceptance criteria for a story that 
                                    will hold up under real-world usage.

                                    They can also help (often with a developer) automate regression scripts.

                                    - George

                                    -- 
                                    ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                                    * George Dinwiddie * http://blog. gdinwiddie. com
                                    Software Development http://www.idiacomp uting.com
                                    Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemar yland.org
                                    ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -




                                     



                                  • Tobias Mayer
                                    ... team of cross-functional individuals ? For very good reason, And misconstrued is the wrong word; intelligently interpreted would be more accurate. A
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > I'm wondering how "cross-functional team" often gets misconstrued into "team of cross-functional individuals"?

                                      For very good reason,  And 'misconstrued' is the wrong word; 'intelligently interpreted' would be more accurate. 

                                      A team should consist of specialists, sure, but we absolutely need individuals capable of taking on many different types of tasks.  Why is this important?  Because people take vacations, get sick, have babies, get new jobs.  We never want to be in a situation where the one person with all the testing skill, or all the web design skill isn't there.

                                      I remember a while ago Jeff Sutherland (I think it was Jeff) coined "the two truck rule": your development may only stop if two of your developers get hit by a truck on the same day.

                                      Scrum doesn't really say much at all.  Common sense says don't have narrow specialists.  Strive for cross-functional, multi-skilled individuals, don't let it happen as a side-effect. 

                                      Tobias



                                      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Michael James" <michael@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "davenicolette" dnicolet@ wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > If my understanding of Scrum is correct, then the guideline is that teams should include all the skills necessary to deliver the product; teams are cross-functional.
                                      >
                                      > I'm wondering how "cross-functional team" often gets
                                      > misconstrued into "team of cross-functional individuals"?
                                      > Getting Scrum out there would be so much easier without
                                      > all these misconceptions.
                                      >
                                      > It's true I've seen individuals become more generalized from
                                      > working closely together. But that doesn't always happen,
                                      > and (as you wrote) isn't *required* by Scrum anyway.
                                      >
                                      > --mj
                                      >
                                    • davenicolette
                                      +1. Another part of the post of mine that was quoted below mentions that most business application development doesn t really demand the skills of
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        +1.

                                        Another part of the post of mine that was quoted below mentions that most business application development doesn't really demand the skills of narrow-and-deep specialists (at least, not most of the time). For that sort of work (and I think that accounts for most of our work), a team of generalizing specialists often performs better than a group of specialists because they can (a) eliminate hand-offs and interim artifacts, and (b) shift their activities to handle changing workloads during each sprint; in addition to the benefits Tobias mentioned.

                                        If we limit ourselves to what Scrum "requires," we are in effect setting those "requirements" as our end goal. What might we achieve if we saw Scrum's "requirements" as a baseline or starting point for ongoing improvement? Cross-functional team is a good baseline; a /minimum/ requirement for an effective team.

                                        Cheers,
                                        Dave

                                        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Tobias Mayer" <scrum@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > I'm wondering how "cross-functional team" often gets misconstrued into
                                        > "team of cross-functional individuals"?
                                        >
                                        > For very good reason, And 'misconstrued' is the wrong word;
                                        > 'intelligently interpreted' would be more accurate.
                                        >
                                        > A team should consist of specialists, sure, but we absolutely need
                                        > individuals capable of taking on many different types of tasks. Why is
                                        > this important? Because people take vacations, get sick, have babies,
                                        > get new jobs. We never want to be in a situation where the one person
                                        > with all the testing skill, or all the web design skill isn't there.
                                        >
                                        > I remember a while ago Jeff Sutherland (I think it was Jeff) coined "the
                                        > two truck rule": your development may only stop if two of your
                                        > developers get hit by a truck on the same day.
                                        >
                                        > Scrum doesn't really say much at all. Common sense says don't have
                                        > narrow specialists. Strive for cross-functional, multi-skilled
                                        > individuals, don't let it happen as a side-effect.
                                        >
                                        > Tobias
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Michael James" <michael@>
                                        > wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "davenicolette" dnicolet@
                                        > wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > If my understanding of Scrum is correct, then the guideline is that
                                        > teams should include all the skills necessary to deliver the product;
                                        > teams are cross-functional.
                                        > >
                                        > > I'm wondering how "cross-functional team" often gets
                                        > > misconstrued into "team of cross-functional individuals"?
                                        > > Getting Scrum out there would be so much easier without
                                        > > all these misconceptions.
                                        > >
                                        > > It's true I've seen individuals become more generalized from
                                        > > working closely together. But that doesn't always happen,
                                        > > and (as you wrote) isn't *required* by Scrum anyway.
                                        > >
                                        > > --mj
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • Michael James
                                        I also prefer generalists (in general!), but specialists need not be forced to be generalists to do Scrum. --mj
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Apr 18, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I also prefer generalists (in general!), but specialists need not be
                                          forced to be generalists to do Scrum.

                                          --mj
                                        • andaluri sai prasad
                                          Hi Thank you . This is clear. ... -- ANDALURI
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Apr 20, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi
                                             
                                            Thank you . This is clear.

                                            On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, davenicolette <dnicolet@...> wrote:


                                            Hi Sivaram,

                                            If my understanding of Scrum is correct, then the guideline is that teams should include all the skills necessary to deliver the product; teams are cross-functional. Scrum itself doesn't dictate exactly how to achieve that. Team members who are individually multi-skilled is often a very good way to do it, but I don't think that's actually defined in Scrum as such. It would still be consistent with Scrum if you had a team comprising individual experts in each required discipline.

                                            So, if your team members have both development and testing skills, that's fine. If your team includes some developers who aren't skilled at testing, and some testers who aren't skilled at development, that's also fine as far as Scrum guidelines are concerned (although I personally think the former model is more effective for general business application development, which rarely demands narrow-and-deep specialized skills).

                                            Cheers,
                                            Dave



                                            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, andaluri sai prasad <andaluris@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Hi
                                            >
                                            > But as per Scrum guide lines , is it suggestable to have a dedicated tester
                                            > . Scrum says the team should have
                                            > members who are multi skilled.
                                            >
                                            > -Sivaram
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM, George Dinwiddie
                                            > <lists@...>wrote:

                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > brian_bofu wrote:
                                            > > > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that
                                            > > > they'd like to have a tester who could look at the application in a
                                            > > > different angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a
                                            > > > dedicate tester be a great helpful with respect to the quality?
                                            > > > What's your thoughts?
                                            > >
                                            > > I've found that having a dedicated tester (or several) on the team pays
                                            > > big dividends. They bring a viewpoint similar to the product owner
                                            > > angle, bit with more depth and variety of considerations. This is
                                            > > really helpful for coming up with acceptance criteria for a story that
                                            > > will hold up under real-world usage.
                                            > >
                                            > > They can also help (often with a developer) automate regression scripts.
                                            > >
                                            > > - George
                                            > >
                                            > > --
                                            > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                            > > * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
                                            > > Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
                                            > > Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
                                            > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >




                                            --
                                            ANDALURI
                                          • Sean Hart
                                            Well put. QA is important to reconcile the product being shipped with the wants/needs of the business. Ideally, in addition to being part of the team, QA
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Apr 24, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Well put. QA is important to reconcile the product being shipped with the wants/needs of the business. Ideally, in addition to being part of the team, QA folks should work with the PO and the customer during backlog creation. It's amazing the kinds of ambiguities you can avoid if you identify and resolve them before they get to the team. QA has to be both pig and chicken (picken?) in a sense. This makes for a very busy quality assurance staff, but do it right and you have a much happier and more productive team as a result.


                                              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Cenk Çivici <cenk.civici@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Hi,
                                              >
                                              > TDD with unit testing is for building the code right
                                              > Acceptance Testing and QAs are for building the right code..
                                              >
                                              > Cheers
                                              > Cenk
                                              >
                                              > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM, brian_bofu <brian_bofu@...> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Hi there,
                                              > >
                                              > > We're using Scrum and TDD. But I heard from some team members that they'd
                                              > > like to have a tester who could look at the application in a different
                                              > > angel. I'm bit curious, in an Agile environment, would a dedicate tester be
                                              > > a great helpful with respect to the quality? What's your thoughts?
                                              > >
                                              > > Regards,
                                              > >
                                              > > Brian
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.