Author Archives: iesavage

About iesavage

Oregon software quality pioneer. Writing about quality, Oregon, software, and pioneering in no particular order.

Why I Dislike “Non-functional” Requirements

Over the years, I have said bad things about the term “non-functional” when used in conjunction with “requirements.” Until today my best argument is that the term “non-functional” already has a meaning – in the vernacular it means “not working.” … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Right brain, left brain

Summary: As my journey toward reconciling the two halves of my brain continues, I have realized that my left brain (the analytical half) is building scaffolding out toward my right brain (the feelings half). The rest of the story: I … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Better quality from less testing

Alternative titles: Death of the Iron Triangle Attributes Testing for Software Quality Driven Development Part 1: Using test matrices to prioritize your testing and risk taking Part 2: Iron Triangle demise: Project constraints are product variables, too Part 3: Flow … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quality management elevator speech

“So, what do you do?” asks the company president. Influential people ask these things. It’s a valid question and deserves a solid answer AND it is a great opportunity gain a strong ally.  She truly wants to know my general … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Tester location scenarios

Quality ownership scenarios for developers large and small.

Discussion to follow.
Continue reading

Image | Posted on | Leave a comment

What Testers Do

A recent tweet claimed, rightly, that we testers lose effectiveness when we cannot describe what we do and what we are doing.  I agree.  And toward having a general response to that “What do you do?” question, I submit the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quality in-the-small

Summary: Quality driven dev, when dialed to 11, can quickly reduce error rates to near zero.  At least that’s the theory. More Big Bang fails too big. Frequent delivery fails more often and provides better learning opportunities. That’s a huge … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment