Tying Up Some Loose Ends

I think it is time for a follow-up on my experience of applying Thread-Based Test Management (TBTM). In October last year I blogged about my attempt at setting up my tests for a new project using TBTM.

It was a smaller project, with me as the only tester which gave me a lot of freedom to try new things, and I actually did what I set out to do! First I created my mind map, or fabric. I added all test activities I could think of to the fabric as threads. Using different colours and icons I visualised the priority of the threads. The first version of the fabric as it looked before I started testing I kept as my test plan, and this I sent to the external customer. To my joy the mind map version of a test plan was quite well received!


Thereafter I started testing. I would typically be working on two or three threads at the same time, and I would not “tie off” or finish a thread, but rather do some testing and then come back to the same thread later, after having worked on some other threads too. This way I ended up digging into the details of most threads at the same time, rather than focusing on one test task and “completing” it before moving on. As my testing progressed I kept updating the fabric. The visual presentation of the current status turned out not only to be a great help to me, but also to the developer I worked with. In the end, he would actually only use the fabric to see what work remained and not our usual defect reporting system.

I had planned to write daily status reports, but instead I actually ran my tests as unfinished, not time-boxed SBTM inspired sessions and wrote session reports. It turned out I needed the reports to keep track of what I was doing. For test charters, I drew a lot of activity diagrams.

When all testing I had time to do was done I had a fabric with a lot of green threads and unfortunately some red too. I took my “final” fabric and used it as my test report. Together with some clarifying notes it constituted all test documentation the external customer received.

My conclusion after this experiment is that for me personally I think a hybrid of SBTM and TBTM is the way to go. I do feel the need to work on things in parallel whereas I usually do not feel the need to time-box, but on the other hand I really like my session reports. I will continue to work like this – it has been exploratory, controlled (in the good sense) and well documented (in the sense of “as needed”). Oh, and I left very few defects for the customer to find and they were all of low priority…

About Christin Wiedemann

Christin Wiedemann (@c_wiedemann) is the Co-CEO and Chief Scientist of PQA Testing. After finishing her PhD in Physics at Stockholm University, Christin Wiedemann started working as a software developer for the Swedish consulting company HiQ. Christin soon discovered that software testing was more interesting and challenging than development and subsequently joined the Swedish test company AddQ Consulting. At AddQ, she worked as a tester, test lead and trainer, giving courses on agile testing, test design and exploratory testing throughout Europe. Christin developed a course on exploratory testing, and is a co-creator of the exploratory testing approach xBTM. Christin currently lives in Vancouver, where she joined Professional Quality Assurance (PQA) Ltd. in 2011. In her current role as Chief Scientist, she drives PQA’s research and method development work. She continues to use her scientific background and pedagogic abilities to develop her own skills and those of others. LinkedIn Profile
This entry was posted in  All, Agile Testing, Test Planning & Strategy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.