Dangerous Assumptions
Alarming-Like a bucket of water over the head
One of the best things I'm taking home with me from pnsqc was the one paper presentation that I left a red card for. The speaker was nice. No problems at all with the person. The red card wasn't one bit personal. It was the dangerous assumption that their company made and was proudly sharing. They assumed, as a large and experienced group, without asking or verifying that the main thing that caused customer dissatisfaction was stability. This was not based on customer surveys, user research, or really anything at all. I know because I asked. Shocking!
The time, money, and effort they spent to reduce crashing was VAST. It raised customer satisfaction less than one percent! They still don't know why their customers aren't satisfied. Really? This is a group of smart and scientific educated people, but where is the common sense? Heavily investing in a solution when you don't understand the problem is a very common mistake.
It is part of my job to stick my neck out and give the red flag. "Hey,..wait a minute, did we ASK the customer? How do we know? What proof do we have?" What if one person in the first meeting had said instead, "The idea that stability in the form of crashes (that can be logged) is the main cause of dissatisfaction for users of our software is an interesting THEORY. How should we verify that, Bob?" (See, much like the movie Office Space, the person who stated this idea as fact has to be one of The Bobs).
So, I ask you, what research do you know of that explains what the leading causes of software dissatisfaction is for users? Does it vary widely by industry? Does it vary by program? If no one has studied this, how is Fortune Magazine able to write it's annual "Most Admired Software Companies" article? Are we just in business for the stockholders now, is it the awards our product gets? Is it the reviews, or the sales? Of course not. For the long term, we need satisfied customers who will recommend our products to others AND buy it again. How can we fail to gather data in this area? I'm just saying, this hole is a huge gaping one and it struck me, right before I slipped in the red card, which may not have been entirely fair, as I think this mistake is common in quality. What else are we assuming as "common truth" that we aren't even bothering to verify? This isn't just bad science, this is bad for software quality.
Comforting-Like a cup of tea
The best thing I learned wasn't from a speaker at all. It was from the conference participants and volunteers. There is something amazing about PNSQC and CAST that some other conferences don't have. It isn't commercial. The reason I went to this conference is not because I have an agenda. It is because I have true passion that needs to be shared for collaborative testing. These are very like minded individuals who sincerely care about the profession of testing as a craft, not just as an item to be sold. That is refreshing. Someone asked me why my blog wasn't on the corporate website and why it wasn't somewhere free like blogspot. I didn't want to advertise and I didn't want to edit. Personal content has "no place on a corporate blog". What? I can't write an interesting blog in my own voice with strict "on topic" rules. If you've met me in person, staying on one topic isn't likely. I try to be myself wherever I go, and in real life, I'm crazy about computer software. I have been since the early 90's. I don't share my ideas so I can gain profit and clicks from my google links, although I'm sure it wouldn't be considered that rude. When you come read what is on my mind, I think you'll know that it is real, it is candid, and as one of the paper reviewers said, I am colloquial. I pay a small fee for this website, to own it, because it is worth it to me that you can read what I say and interact with me here and know that I'm talking to you as one person interested in another about testing and not with any other agenda. This blog is for software quality, and nothing else.
Spoiled-Like a cat lounging in the sun
Before I sign off, I must say, WHAT A DAY! CS4 is now shipping. The larger team sent me flowers! My boss gave me a prize, and I was able to thank the people who helped me put together my presentation and share the news. For those who were not there, I did the encore paper presentation to close out PNSQC last night because Karen Johnson, who was voted first place for her paper, had to leave. She was an invited speaker who also taught an all day seminar the first day. Because I came in 2nd place and she wasn't available, I took the "Best Paper" honor in her place. You must admit, for a first time paper writer and conference presenter, that's basically a Cinderella story, with a few less seamstress mice. I am beyond thankful for the opportunity and will share the link to the presentation since the encore presentation was recorded and will be shared on the cpnference website in a few days or so.
One of the best things I'm taking home with me from pnsqc was the one paper presentation that I left a red card for. The speaker was nice. No problems at all with the person. The red card wasn't one bit personal. It was the dangerous assumption that their company made and was proudly sharing. They assumed, as a large and experienced group, without asking or verifying that the main thing that caused customer dissatisfaction was stability. This was not based on customer surveys, user research, or really anything at all. I know because I asked. Shocking!
The time, money, and effort they spent to reduce crashing was VAST. It raised customer satisfaction less than one percent! They still don't know why their customers aren't satisfied. Really? This is a group of smart and scientific educated people, but where is the common sense? Heavily investing in a solution when you don't understand the problem is a very common mistake.
It is part of my job to stick my neck out and give the red flag. "Hey,..wait a minute, did we ASK the customer? How do we know? What proof do we have?" What if one person in the first meeting had said instead, "The idea that stability in the form of crashes (that can be logged) is the main cause of dissatisfaction for users of our software is an interesting THEORY. How should we verify that, Bob?" (See, much like the movie Office Space, the person who stated this idea as fact has to be one of The Bobs).
So, I ask you, what research do you know of that explains what the leading causes of software dissatisfaction is for users? Does it vary widely by industry? Does it vary by program? If no one has studied this, how is Fortune Magazine able to write it's annual "Most Admired Software Companies" article? Are we just in business for the stockholders now, is it the awards our product gets? Is it the reviews, or the sales? Of course not. For the long term, we need satisfied customers who will recommend our products to others AND buy it again. How can we fail to gather data in this area? I'm just saying, this hole is a huge gaping one and it struck me, right before I slipped in the red card, which may not have been entirely fair, as I think this mistake is common in quality. What else are we assuming as "common truth" that we aren't even bothering to verify? This isn't just bad science, this is bad for software quality.
Comforting-Like a cup of tea
The best thing I learned wasn't from a speaker at all. It was from the conference participants and volunteers. There is something amazing about PNSQC and CAST that some other conferences don't have. It isn't commercial. The reason I went to this conference is not because I have an agenda. It is because I have true passion that needs to be shared for collaborative testing. These are very like minded individuals who sincerely care about the profession of testing as a craft, not just as an item to be sold. That is refreshing. Someone asked me why my blog wasn't on the corporate website and why it wasn't somewhere free like blogspot. I didn't want to advertise and I didn't want to edit. Personal content has "no place on a corporate blog". What? I can't write an interesting blog in my own voice with strict "on topic" rules. If you've met me in person, staying on one topic isn't likely. I try to be myself wherever I go, and in real life, I'm crazy about computer software. I have been since the early 90's. I don't share my ideas so I can gain profit and clicks from my google links, although I'm sure it wouldn't be considered that rude. When you come read what is on my mind, I think you'll know that it is real, it is candid, and as one of the paper reviewers said, I am colloquial. I pay a small fee for this website, to own it, because it is worth it to me that you can read what I say and interact with me here and know that I'm talking to you as one person interested in another about testing and not with any other agenda. This blog is for software quality, and nothing else.
Spoiled-Like a cat lounging in the sun
Before I sign off, I must say, WHAT A DAY! CS4 is now shipping. The larger team sent me flowers! My boss gave me a prize, and I was able to thank the people who helped me put together my presentation and share the news. For those who were not there, I did the encore paper presentation to close out PNSQC last night because Karen Johnson, who was voted first place for her paper, had to leave. She was an invited speaker who also taught an all day seminar the first day. Because I came in 2nd place and she wasn't available, I took the "Best Paper" honor in her place. You must admit, for a first time paper writer and conference presenter, that's basically a Cinderella story, with a few less seamstress mice. I am beyond thankful for the opportunity and will share the link to the presentation since the encore presentation was recorded and will be shared on the cpnference website in a few days or so.
Comments