
- •Contents
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •About the author
- •About the cover illustration
- •Higher product quality
- •Less rework
- •Better work alignment
- •Remember
- •Deriving scope from goals
- •Specifying collaboratively
- •Illustrating using examples
- •Validating frequently
- •Evolving a documentation system
- •A practical example
- •Business goal
- •An example of a good business goal
- •Scope
- •User stories for a basic loyalty system
- •Key Examples
- •Key examples: Free delivery
- •Free delivery
- •Examples
- •Living documentation
- •Remember
- •Tests can be good documentation
- •Remember
- •How to begin changing the process
- •Focus on improving quality
- •Start with functional test automation
- •When: Testers own test automation
- •Use test-driven development as a stepping stone
- •When: Developers have a good understanding of TDD
- •How to begin changing the team culture
- •Avoid “agile” terminology
- •When: Working in an environment that’s resistant to change
- •Ensure you have management support
- •Don’t make test automation the end goal
- •Don’t focus on a tool
- •Keep one person on legacy scripts during migration
- •When: Introducing functional automation to legacy systems
- •Track who is running—and not running—automated checks
- •When: Developers are reluctant to participate
- •Global talent management team at ultimate software
- •Sky Network services
- •Dealing with sign-off and traceability
- •Get sign-off on exported living documentation
- •When: Signing off iteration by iteration
- •When: Signing off longer milestones
- •Get sign-off on “slimmed down use cases”
- •When: Regulatory sign-off requires details
- •Introduce use case realizations
- •When: All details are required for sign-off
- •Warning signs
- •Watch out for tests that change frequently
- •Watch out for boomerangs
- •Watch out for organizational misalignment
- •Watch out for just-in-case code
- •Watch out for shotgun surgery
- •Remember
- •Building the right scope
- •Understand the “why” and “who”
- •Understand where the value is coming from
- •Understand what outputs the business users expect
- •Have developers provide the “I want” part of user stories
- •When: Business users trust the development team
- •Collaborating on scope without high-level control
- •Ask how something would be useful
- •Ask for an alternative solution
- •Make sure teams deliver complete features
- •When: Large multisite projects
- •Further information
- •Remember
- •Why do we need to collaborate on specifications?
- •The most popular collaborative models
- •Try big, all-team workshops
- •Try smaller workshops (“Three Amigos”)
- •Pair-writing
- •When: Mature products
- •Have developers frequently review tests before an iteration
- •When: Analysts writing tests
- •Try informal conversations
- •When: Business stakeholders are readily available
- •Preparing for collaboration
- •Hold introductory meetings
- •When: Project has many stakeholders
- •Involve stakeholders
- •Undertake detailed preparation and review up front
- •When: Remote Stakeholders
- •Prepare only initial examples
- •Don’t hinder discussion by overpreparing
- •Choosing a collaboration model
- •Remember
- •Illustrating using examples: an example
- •Examples should be precise
- •Don’t have yes/no answers in your examples
- •Avoid using abstract classes of equivalence
- •Ask for an alternative way to check the functionality
- •When: Complex/legacy infrastructures
- •Examples should be realistic
- •Avoid making up your own data
- •When: Data-driven projects
- •Get basic examples directly from customers
- •When: Working with enterprise customers
- •Examples should be easy to understand
- •Avoid the temptation to explore every combinatorial possibility
- •Look for implied concepts
- •Illustrating nonfunctional requirements
- •Get precise performance requirements
- •When: Performance is a key feature
- •Try the QUPER model
- •When: Sliding scale requirements
- •Use a checklist for discussions
- •When: Cross-cutting concerns
- •Build a reference example
- •When: Requirements are impossible to quantify
- •Remember
- •Free delivery
- •Examples should be precise and testable
- •When: Working on a legacy system
- •Don’t get trapped in user interface details
- •When: Web projects
- •Use a descriptive title and explain the goal using a short paragraph
- •Show and keep quiet
- •Don’t overspecify examples
- •Start with basic examples; then expand through exploring
- •When: Describing rules with many parameter combinations
- •In order to: Make the test easier to understand
- •When: Dealing with complex dependencies/referential integrity
- •Apply defaults in the automation layer
- •Don’t always rely on defaults
- •When: Working with objects with many attributes
- •Remember
- •Is automation required at all?
- •Starting with automation
- •When: Working on a legacy system
- •Plan for automation upfront
- •Don’t postpone or delegate automation
- •Avoid automating existing manual test scripts
- •Gain trust with user interface tests
- •Don’t treat automation code as second-grade code
- •Describe validation processes in the automation layer
- •Don’t replicate business logic in the test automation layer
- •Automate along system boundaries
- •When: Complex integrations
- •Don’t check business logic through the user interface
- •Automate below the skin of the application
- •Automating user interfaces
- •Specify user interface functionality at a higher level of abstraction
- •When: User interface contains complex logic
- •Avoid recorded UI tests
- •Set up context in a database
- •Test data management
- •Avoid using prepopulated data
- •When: Specifying logic that’s not data driven
- •Try using prepopulated reference data
- •When: Data-driven systems
- •Pull prototypes from the database
- •When: Legacy data-driven systems
- •Remember
- •Reducing unreliability
- •When: Working on a system with bad automated test support
- •Identify unstable tests using CI test history
- •Set up a dedicated continuous validation environment
- •Employ fully automated deployment
- •Create simpler test doubles for external systems
- •When: Working with external reference data sources
- •Selectively isolate external systems
- •When: External systems participate in work
- •Try multistage validation
- •When: Large/multisite groups
- •Execute tests in transactions
- •Run quick checks for reference data
- •When: Data-driven systems
- •Wait for events, not for elapsed time
- •Make asynchronous processing optional
- •Getting feedback faster
- •Introduce business time
- •When: Working with temporal constraints
- •Break long test packs into smaller modules
- •Avoid using in-memory databases for testing
- •When: Data-driven systems
- •Separate quick and slow tests
- •When: A small number of tests take most of the time to execute
- •Keep overnight packs stable
- •When: Slow tests run only overnight
- •Create a current iteration pack
- •Parallelize test runs
- •When: You can get more than one test Environment
- •Try disabling less risky tests
- •When: Test feedback is very slow
- •Managing failing tests
- •Create a known regression failures pack
- •Automatically check which tests are turned off
- •When: Failing tests are disabled, not moved to a separate pack
- •Remember
- •Living documentation should be easy to understand
- •Look for higher-level concepts
- •Avoid using technical automation concepts in tests
- •When: Stakeholders aren’t technical
- •Living documentation should be consistent
- •When: Web projects
- •Document your building blocks
- •Living documentation should be organized for easy access
- •Organize current work by stories
- •Reorganize stories by functional areas
- •Organize along UI navigation routes
- •When: Documenting user interfaces
- •Organize along business processes
- •When: End-to-end use case traceability required
- •Listen to your living documentation
- •Remember
- •Starting to change the process
- •Optimizing the process
- •The current process
- •The result
- •Key lessons
- •Changing the process
- •The current process
- •Key lessons
- •Changing the process
- •Optimizing the process
- •Living documentation as competitive advantage
- •Key lessons
- •Changing the process
- •Improving collaboration
- •The result
- •Key lessons
- •Changing the process
- •Living documentation
- •Current process
- •Key lessons
- •Changing the process
- •Current process
- •Key lessons
- •Collaboration requires preparation
- •There are many different ways to collaborate
- •Looking at the end goal as business process documentation is a useful model
- •Long-term value comes from living documentation
- •Index

Chapter 6 Specifying collaboratively |
79 |
Many teams I interviewed made similar mistakes early on. When developers wrote speciications in isolation, those documents ended up being too closely tied to the software design and hard to understand. If testers wrote them in isolation, the documents were organized in a way that was hard to maintain. In contrast, successful teams quickly moved on to more collaborative work models.
The most popular collaborative models
Although all the teams I interviewed collaborated on speciications, the ways they approached that collaboration varied greatly, from large all-hands workshops to smaller workshops, and even to informal conversations. Here are some of the most common models for collaboration along with the beneits the teams obtained.
Try big, all-team workshops
When: Starting out with Speciication by Example
Speciication workshops are intensive, hands-on domain and scope exploration exercises that ensure that the implementation team, business stakeholders, and domain experts build a consistent, shared understanding of what the system should do. I explain them in detail in Bridging the Communication Gap. The workshops ensure that developers and testers have enough information to complete their work for the current iteration.
Big |
speciication |
workshops |
that |
involve the entire team are one of |
the most |
|
efective ways |
to |
build a |
shared |
understanding and produce a set of |
examples |
|
that |
illustrate |
a |
feature. |
|
|
|
During these workshops, programmers and testers can learn about the business domain. Business users will start understanding the technical constraints of the system. Because the entire team is involved, the workshops eficiently use business stakeholders’ time and remove the need for knowledge transfer later on.
Initially, the team at uSwitch used speciication workshops to facilitate the adoption of Speciication by Example. Jon Neale describes the effects:
It particularly helped the business guys think about some of the more obscure routes that people would take. For example, if someone tried to apply for a loan below a certain amount, that’s a whole other scenario [than applying for a loan in general]. There’s a whole other raft of business rules that they wouldn’t have mentioned until the last minute.

80 Speciication by Example
Speciication workshops helped them think about those scenarios up front and helped us go faster. It also helped the development team to interact with the other guys. Having that upfront discussion helped drive the whole process—there was a lot more communication straight away.
Implementing Speciication workshops into PBR workshops
Product |
Backlog |
Reinement |
(PBR) |
|
workshops |
are |
one |
of |
the |
key |
|
elements |
|
of |
||||||||||||||||||||
well-implemented Scrum processes. At the |
same |
time, |
I’ve |
found |
|
that |
most |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teams |
that |
claim |
|
to |
run Scrum |
|
actually |
|
don’t have PBR workshops. |
PBR |
work- |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shops |
normally |
involve |
|
the |
entire |
team |
and |
|
consist |
of |
splitting |
large |
items |
on |
||||||||||||||||||||
the top of the backlog, detailed analysis |
of backlog items, and re-estimation. |
|
In |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practices for Scaling Lean and Agile,† Bas Vodde |
and |
Craig |
Larman |
suggest |
|
that |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBR workshops should take between 5 and 10 percent of each iteration. |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Illustrating requirements using examples during a Product Backlog Reinement |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
workshop |
|
is |
an |
easy |
way |
to |
start |
implementing |
Speciication |
by |
|
Example |
|
in |
||||||||||||||||||||
a mature Scrum team. This requires no |
additional |
meetings |
and |
|
no |
special |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scheduling. It’s a matter of approaching the middle portion of the |
PBR |
|
workshop |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
diferently. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
The Talia team at Pyxis |
Technologies |
runs |
|
their |
workshops |
like |
|
this. |
André |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brissette |
|
explains |
this |
process: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
‘‘ |
This usually happens when the |
|
product owner |
and |
the |
|
Scrum |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
master see that the top story on the |
backlog |
is |
not |
detailed |
|
enough. |
For |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
example, if the story is estimated at |
20 |
story |
points, they |
schedule |
|
a |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
maintenance |
workshop |
during |
|
the |
sprint. |
We |
think |
that |
it’s |
a |
good |
habit |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
to |
have |
this |
kind |
of |
a |
session |
every |
week |
or |
every two |
weeks |
in |
order |
t |
||||||||||||||||||||
be certain that the top |
of |
the |
backlog |
is easy to work with. We |
look |
at |
th |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
story; |
|
there |
is |
|
an |
exchange |
between |
the |
product |
owner |
and |
the |
develop- |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ers on the feasibility of |
it. |
We |
draw |
some |
examples |
on |
the |
|
whiteboard, |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
identify |
|
technical |
risk |
and |
usability |
risks, |
|
and |
developers |
will |
have |
to |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
make an evaluation or appraisal |
of |
the |
scope. At this time we |
|
do |
|
planning |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
poker. |
|
If |
everyone agrees |
on |
|
the |
scope |
of |
the |
feature |
and |
the |
efort |
that |
||||||||||||||||||||
it |
will |
|
take, |
then |
that’s |
it. |
If |
we |
see |
that |
it |
is |
a |
challenge |
|
to |
have |
|
a |
c |
||||||||||||||
mon |
agreement, |
|
then |
we |
try |
to |
split |
the |
story |
until |
we |
have |
items |
that |
are |
|||||||||||||||||||
pretty |
|
clear |
and |
the |
efort |
is |
|
evaluated |
and |
agreed to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
† Craig |
Larman and |
|
Bas Vodde,Practices for Scaling Lean & Agile Development: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Large, Multisite, and Ofshore Product Development with Large’’-Scale Scrum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Pearson |
Education, |
|
2010). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|