Skip to main content
Log in

Testing in the Wild: The Social and Organisational Dimensions of Real World Practice

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Testing is a key part of any systems engineering project. There is an extensive literature on testing, but very little that focuses on how testing is carried out in real-world circumstances. This is partly because current practices are often seen as unsophisticated and ineffective. We believe that by investigating and characterising the real-world work of testing we can help question why such ‘bad practices’ occur and how improvements might be made. We also argue that the testing literature is too focused on technological issues when many of the problems, and indeed strengths, have as much do with work and organisation. In this paper we use empirical examples from four systems engineering projects to demonstrate how and in what ways testing is a cooperative activity. In particular we demonstrate the ways in which testing is situated within organisational work and satisfices organisational and marketplace demands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahonen, J., Junttila, T., & Sakkinen, M. (2004). Impacts of the organizational model on testing: three industrial cases. Empirical Software Engineering, 9(4), 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alby, F., & Zucchermaglio, C. (2009). Time, narratives and participation frameworks in software troubleshooting. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(2–3), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, J. (1998). A framework for good enough testing. IEEE Computer, 31(10), 124–126.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Beizer, B. (1983). Software testing techniques. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blythin, S., Hughes, J., Kristoffersen, S., Rodden, T., & Rouncefield, M. (1997). Recognising ‘success’ and ‘failure’: Evaluating groupware in a commercial context. In Proceedings of Group’97, The ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Phoenix, USA, November 16–19, 1997, pp. 39–46.

  • Brooks, F. (1975). The mythical man month. Essays on software engineering. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büscher, M., O’Neill, J., & Rooksby, J. (2009). Designing for diagnosing: introduction to the special issue on diagnostic work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(2–3), 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, G. (2000). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies, 21(4), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1992). Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers. In M. Jirotka & J. Goguen (Eds.), Requirements analysis: Social and technical issues (pp. 217–240). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1996). Project work: the organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 5(4), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1998). The organisational accountability of technological work. Social Studies of Science, 28(1), 78–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capretz, L. (2003). Personality types in software engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(2), 207–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen, P., & Sørensen, C. (1995). Let’s talk about bugs!. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (1988). Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: the core set revisited. Social Studies of Science, 18(4), 725–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornford, J., & Pollock, N. (2003). Putting the university online. Information technology and organisational change. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Cunha, A., & Greathead, D. (2007). Does personality matter? An analysis of code-review ability. Communications of the ACM, 50(5), 109–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dant, T., & Francis, D. (1998). Planning in organisations: rational control or contingent activity? Sociological Research Online, 3(2), <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/2/4.html>.

  • Dijkstra, E. (1972). The humble programmer. Communications of the ACM, 15(10), 859–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downer, J. (2007). When the chick hits the fan: representativeness and reproducibility in technological tests. Social Studies of Science, 37(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. (1984). Productive software test management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2001). Understanding open source software development. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, R. (2000). The organisation in ethnography. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9(2), 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Home Office Identity and Passport Service. (2007). Report on key projects implemented in 2007. http://www.ips.gov.uk/passport/downloads/IPS-report-on-key-projects-implemented-2007.pdf (retrieved 20th September 2008).

  • House of Commons Transport Committee. (2008). The opening of Heathrow Terminal 5. Twelfth Report of Session 2007-08. London: The Stationary Office Limited.

  • Jorgensen, P. (2002). Software testing a craftsman’s approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juristo, N., Moreno, A., & Strigel, W. (2006a). Guest editors’ introduction: software testing practices in industry. IEEE Software, 23(4), 19–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juristo, N., Moreno, A., Vegas, S., & Solari, M. (2006b). In search of what we experimentally know about unit testing. IEEE Software, 23(6), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaner, C., Bach, J., & Pettichord, B. (2002). Lessons learned in software testing. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippert, M., Roock, S., & Wolf, H. (2002). Extreme programming in action. Practical examples from real world projects. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, D. (1990). Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile Guidance. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, D. (2001). Mechanizing proof. Computing, risk and trust. Cambridge: MIT.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., Hartswood, M., Slack, R., & Voss, A. (2007a). Achieving dependability in the configuration, integration and testing of healthcare technologies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(5–6), 467–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., Rooksby, J., & Rouncefield, M. (2007b). Users as contextual features of software product development and testing. In Proceedings of Group’07, pp. 301–310.

  • Martin, D., Rooksby, J., Rouncefield, M., & Sommerville, I. (2007c). ‘Good’ organisational reasons for ‘bad’ software testing: An ethnographic study of testing in a small software company. In Proceedings of ICSE’07, pp. 602–611.

  • Miller, J., & Zhichao, Y. (2004). A cognitive-based mechanism for constructing software inspection teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(11), 811–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (1976). The art of software testing. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, R. (2006). Software testing. Indianapolis: Sams.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T. (1993). “Testing—One, two, three… testing!”: towards a sociology of testing. Science Technology & Human Values, 18(1), 25–41.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., Harper, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2007). Fieldwork for design: Theory and practice. London: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, M., Dourish, P., & Pratt, W. (2006). Temporality in medical work: time also matters. Computer Supported cooperative work, 15(1), 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rönkkö, K., Dittrich, Y., & Randall, D. (2005). When plans do not work out: how plans are used in software development projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(5), 433–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royce, W. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems. In Proceedings of WESTCON, August 1970, reprinted in Proceedings of ICSE ‘87 the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, Monterey, USA. pp. 328–338.

  • Runeson, P. (2006). A survey of unit testing practices. IEEE Software, July/August 2006, pp. 22–29.

  • Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(1–2), 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, J. (2005). When software engineers met research scientists: a case study. Empirical Software Engineering, 10(4), 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1993). Working towards agreement. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in working order (pp. 149–161). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1994). The user as a scenic feature of design space. Design Studies, 15(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action: The problem of the human—machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G. (2002). The economic impacts of inadequate infrastructure for software testing. National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce Technology Administration. RTI Project Number 7007.011.

  • Whittaker, J. (2000). What is software testing? And why is it so hard? IEEE Software, 17(1), 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, J. (2002). How to break software: A practical guide to testing. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, J., Rönkkö, K., Ahlberg, M., & Hotchkiss, J. (2008). Meeting organisational needs and quality assurance through balancing agile & formal usability testing results. In Proceedings of CEE-SET the 3rd IFIP TC2 Central and East European Conference on Software Engineering Techniques, Brno, Czech Republic, Oct. 13–15.

  • Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user, the case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power technology and domination (pp. 58–100). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Rooksby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rooksby, J., Rouncefield, M. & Sommerville, I. Testing in the Wild: The Social and Organisational Dimensions of Real World Practice. Comput Supported Coop Work 18, 559 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-009-9098-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-009-9098-7

Keywords

Navigation