Trust in Test Planning

Test planning might originally be the activity of producing tests. From the outside it might even seem a derivative and automatic task. Something you could automate or generate with the right prompt. Thinking this way makes it all about the output: test cases generated, test automation built, scenarios covered. Yet, we can have all the tests generated, and still missing proving sustainable value to the business.

Not where we are – but where we’re going

Two examples of Test Planning

I’m currently running two different engagements, both are three digit million $/€ contracts spanning multiple years. Both are for IT systems that support local public services with each it’s elements of case handling and citizen interaction. Yet there is an interesting difference in the approach to test plans and test planning. Both approaches are right, and both approaches are similarly wrong if switched around.

	context A..	context S…
Format	Word document, 20 pages	Confluence, 1-2 screens
Contract interpretation	Strict, explicit	Loose, the contract is a guideline
Content	Volumes of texts that elaborate conditions and considerations	Simple listings of what was covered and what was found
People involved	Legal teams, customer subject matter experts, test leads	Agile teams, embedded testers
Document feedback cycles	Formal versions, tracked changes and comments	Direct edits in a shared space
Explicit test cases	Required in a test case management tool	Any form of testing evidence will do

In both situations we could use tools to generate all the tests and even all the texts in the documents. Yet something profound would be missing – the socializing and alignment that generates the test plans and identifies the tests. The learnings discovered while using the test plan templates as tools for discovery. The building of trust and relationships between the parties is the remaining component.

The amount of planning in each situation is a systemic tell. A tell about the level of trust between the parties. The more text the more need for social alignment.

This challenge is not exclusive to test planning activities. It’s an inherent challenge in many fields. The default reacting is to add more structure to control the problems and avoid previous missteps – unfortunately the better approach is to lean back. Cecilia Weckstrom shares this quote:

I’ve seen both versions up close. Companies that try to cover every situation end up with documentation that goes stale the moment context changes. Companies that invest in principles end up with people who can navigate contexts the principle-writers never imagined.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7440784560499515392/

Intentionally Loose Test Planning

Start with Trust

Even I always highlight the mantra from Daniel Pink to Start with Why. The more I consider it – the more important it is to start with trust. If our stakeholder doesn’t trust us – aligning with the business purpose is a lost cause. Mistrust will build barriers, review gates and hierarchical hoops. It can take years to recover on a business relationship if trust is not extended at the start. Christina Garnett recently shared the below quote on a post on how trust is the reason customers stay, and how when issues occur – the trust was lost long before.

So coming back to the art of test planning – producing a set of tests to uncover something about a thing under test. We might be at a time where we have ample tooling. That the problem of generating reasonable tests is no longer a novel human act but commodity to be generated. The amount of tests never mattered – what mattered, is that the testing investigate the right things. The challenge is not about technology or tinkering with a given solution, but about direction, communication and human interaction.