When a tester joins an agile team, the tester should inspire within the team by enabling [Laing 2016]
In this implementation, the tester will act as a test coach within the team in the same way as [Moustier 2019b] :
To help him, a good knowledge of testability and Lean practices is essential, but before achieving excellence, it is probably necessary to allow the team to acquire the prerequisites that are essential.
To achieve this, [TMMi 2020] provides a scale of progression inherited from a maturity system close to CMMi [CMMi 2010] and is presented on 5 levels with for each level a gradation of practices from level 1 (the organization is capable of producing something but with a random level of quality) to level 5 where the processes are defined, managed, measured and constant optimization based on the measurements makes it possible to move towards excellence.
In an equivalent vein, [Rohen-Harel 2010] proposes ATMM (Agile Testing Maturity Model) with a gradation rather oriented towards the agilization of different aspects of testing on 5 levels:
As with CMMi with its generic practices used to institutionalize each practice, ATMM also provides a path to maturity [Rayaprolu 2020]. This kind of system dates back to the 1970s [Mettler 2011] and tries to correspond to the classical learning curve of [Thurstone 1919] by anticipating the needs of the next phase [Gibson 1974] but these systems have some drawbacks:
Moreover, the agile culture is so much about demonizing anything pushed from the top of the organization; one can recall Henrik Kniberg (the 'creator' of the Spotify model) demonizing SAFe, as a rehash of an old model named RUP that comes from the top. Although he recognizes the wisdom contained in it [Kniberg 2015], the company's base (the employees) rejects the very idea from the start and reduces the chances of success. Also, the model regularly cited is rather the Japanese term "Shuhari - 守破離" in which ATMM tries to fit:
Another approach is to provide a catalogue of good practices from which the team can draw. The table proposed by [Rohen-Harel 2010] provides an evolution of each aspect of the test by describing the effects, but it is difficult to design a catalogue that would contain one half of a practice, so each practice in such a catalogue can be characterized by [Jacobson 2007] :
But such a catalogue does not dispense with the notion of interaction between individuals as proposed in the agile manifesto because :
Experimentation generates guides that form frameworks from which principles emerge. This is how Craig Larman developed LeSS [Larman 2017]. In turn, the principles are a foundation for the culture and practices that tools can implement.
As we have seen, a maturity system is a tool to achieve progress in a given direction. The few practices that follow are also complemented by principles that must be observed. To help you understand them :
The description that can be found behind the QR Code is a generic description close to a "state-of-art" with adherences to tests aspects and test automation with Agilitest. The description of the practice as per [Jacobson 2007] should be done within your organization to adapt it to your culture.
The progression of a team is a delicate matter. Beyond the practices and principles that might be relevant to an organization, two factors compete at the level of each individual who is subject to two competing models [Argyris 2010] [Moustier 2020]:
For example, when someone tries to promote peer programming, which has real added value and profitability, yet has been proven by studies [Gilb 1993] [North 2006] [Shull 2002], but the view of the hierarchy that may not understand could be detrimental to a manager subject to this conflict of reasoning. Argyris explains this conflict of positions as a form of addiction where the I-model feeds on what it generates and the first step out of this rut is to :
1. Work on the traps that appear in everyday life (notably through testimonies)
2. 2. Use education on the problems generated by Model I practices, as a way of combating addictive behavior (e.g. "The 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous")
3. Gradually replace Model I reflexes with Model II reflexes
4. Build a consensus
5. Taking action
To do this, the proposed card game can be used for the different stages and provoke discussion around each of the themes. For steps 4 and 5, this can be done in a workshop:
Inapplicable practices or principles (column D) are due to :
In addition to education that may emerge from communities of practice and coffee discussions, Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless propose a workshop called "15% SOLUTION". It is part of Liberating Structures and is designed to be scaled up [Lipmanowicz 2014]. Its aim is for everyone to contribute to a general problem. This workshop can be combined with other LS workshops such as :
In 1994, James Bach had already pointed out the inadequacy of a maturity model such as CMMi [Bach 1994] because they are not built on any theoretical foundation other than the views of experts and experiences of other companies than yours. In contrast, a simple catalogue of correctly formulated practices should help each individual, then each team and eventually the organization to find its own way by applying the principle of subsidiarity [Appelo 2010] [Moustier 2020]:
"The responsibility for action remains with the individuals until they can no longer perform the task effectively"