Ineffective Tests and Unintentional Delays
Why is it that medical tests don't have to show much to still be run often?
I had 3 ultrasounds fail to detect endometriosis. When they finally gave up and gave me surgery I had over 81 implants of Endometriosis and stage 3 out of 4. In my support group for this chronic disease (one of the more minor health issues I'm dealing with, but still problematic), a majority of the women had been given an Ultrasound which had turned up nothing, yet they are still routinely run. This test is terrible at detecting this particular disease, yet it seems to be the first diagnostic tool they use. The second thing they do is inject women with this terrible hormone reducing medication that has side effects such as bone loss, and memory loss. When I was on this medication I would walk outside and promptly forget where I was going. I had to request things in writing at work because I couldn't remember what I'd agreed to. Needless to say, I refused the second dose (each dose lasts 6 months). They do these tests all to avoid what is now an EASY and fairly safe laproscopic surgery. The surgery is excellent at not only diagnosing the issue, but also at treating the symptoms. I'd have surgery every 6 months before enduring another round of those drugs.
So, why do we as testers use ineffective tests and put up with terrible side effects, such as spending more time troubleshooting WHY our automation broke again with each version and each change rather than just getting in there and doing what needs done? Is it an irrational fear? Is it habit? Is it because it sounds better on paper? Is it because of this false idea that it is more efficient? Why is it so unpopular to point out that it might be faster, more accurate, and save time and money to "just do it", especially in one off cases or a situation where the test just doesn't need to be run that often.
I'm had a meeting today about one of those things. You know something where there is the "right way" to do something, but it's so expensive and so many people would have to agree that it's unlikely to happen? I really hope that the "right way" happens, but I'm thinking I'm not the best person to get involved in that part of the task. A person with patience who strongly desires to negotiate a deal between two managers is the right person. I could show that leadership and be that person, but it doesn't excite me in this case. I should allow someone the opportunity who really WANTS to work on this. Passion makes many things happen that wouldn't otherwise. Part of the request was that it be "as automated as possible". I am not sure I have the heart to share the truth. The truth is that it isn't worth the cost to automate. We measured, and the automation they have created is SLOWER than manually doing what needs to be done and unfortunately, a human still needs to evaluate when to kick off the process, so it can't be entirely unmanned.
I added up the cost and I was sad to find that my best way to make this happen would be to do it myself and to do it manually. All of the time would be eaten up with numerous people telling me why it won't work, why it isn't good enough, who should be doing it, and a million other negative things would take longer than just doing it. I just want to try it, to see what I can do, just one person investing a small amount of time and effort. It won't work on a grand scale, but I think that the demand isn't on a grand scale, so we'll see. All I know is when I think about me trying something on this I feel excited, and when I think about the game of "pass the responsibility" that has been played thus far I just feel tired and frustrated, but when I think of the difference that one person could make with a small manual effort, it adds up to more than I thought!
I hope you all had wonderful holidays! I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get my health back under control in a few ways and I'm no longer subject to the medications that were making me constantly nauseated. I'm now much more stable in terms of pain control and I've managed to get back up to my goal weight. I no longer am scaring my co-workers and looking like skelator in the office. In fact, I passed my latest blood tests with flying colors and have finally been declared "healthy"! I am starting back at the gym today and able to even take a Pilates class, so I feel wonderfully refreshed and ready to be back at work. I hope to be with you here blogging far more often now that I'm capable of returning in full to my career and my love of testing.
I had 3 ultrasounds fail to detect endometriosis. When they finally gave up and gave me surgery I had over 81 implants of Endometriosis and stage 3 out of 4. In my support group for this chronic disease (one of the more minor health issues I'm dealing with, but still problematic), a majority of the women had been given an Ultrasound which had turned up nothing, yet they are still routinely run. This test is terrible at detecting this particular disease, yet it seems to be the first diagnostic tool they use. The second thing they do is inject women with this terrible hormone reducing medication that has side effects such as bone loss, and memory loss. When I was on this medication I would walk outside and promptly forget where I was going. I had to request things in writing at work because I couldn't remember what I'd agreed to. Needless to say, I refused the second dose (each dose lasts 6 months). They do these tests all to avoid what is now an EASY and fairly safe laproscopic surgery. The surgery is excellent at not only diagnosing the issue, but also at treating the symptoms. I'd have surgery every 6 months before enduring another round of those drugs.
So, why do we as testers use ineffective tests and put up with terrible side effects, such as spending more time troubleshooting WHY our automation broke again with each version and each change rather than just getting in there and doing what needs done? Is it an irrational fear? Is it habit? Is it because it sounds better on paper? Is it because of this false idea that it is more efficient? Why is it so unpopular to point out that it might be faster, more accurate, and save time and money to "just do it", especially in one off cases or a situation where the test just doesn't need to be run that often.
I'm had a meeting today about one of those things. You know something where there is the "right way" to do something, but it's so expensive and so many people would have to agree that it's unlikely to happen? I really hope that the "right way" happens, but I'm thinking I'm not the best person to get involved in that part of the task. A person with patience who strongly desires to negotiate a deal between two managers is the right person. I could show that leadership and be that person, but it doesn't excite me in this case. I should allow someone the opportunity who really WANTS to work on this. Passion makes many things happen that wouldn't otherwise. Part of the request was that it be "as automated as possible". I am not sure I have the heart to share the truth. The truth is that it isn't worth the cost to automate. We measured, and the automation they have created is SLOWER than manually doing what needs to be done and unfortunately, a human still needs to evaluate when to kick off the process, so it can't be entirely unmanned.
I added up the cost and I was sad to find that my best way to make this happen would be to do it myself and to do it manually. All of the time would be eaten up with numerous people telling me why it won't work, why it isn't good enough, who should be doing it, and a million other negative things would take longer than just doing it. I just want to try it, to see what I can do, just one person investing a small amount of time and effort. It won't work on a grand scale, but I think that the demand isn't on a grand scale, so we'll see. All I know is when I think about me trying something on this I feel excited, and when I think about the game of "pass the responsibility" that has been played thus far I just feel tired and frustrated, but when I think of the difference that one person could make with a small manual effort, it adds up to more than I thought!
I hope you all had wonderful holidays! I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get my health back under control in a few ways and I'm no longer subject to the medications that were making me constantly nauseated. I'm now much more stable in terms of pain control and I've managed to get back up to my goal weight. I no longer am scaring my co-workers and looking like skelator in the office. In fact, I passed my latest blood tests with flying colors and have finally been declared "healthy"! I am starting back at the gym today and able to even take a Pilates class, so I feel wonderfully refreshed and ready to be back at work. I hope to be with you here blogging far more often now that I'm capable of returning in full to my career and my love of testing.


I think automation has the spotlight right now, so it sounds like the "most advanced state of the testing art" to people who don't take the time to consider context and cost. In your case, you did.
Reply to this