#BREWT… so it begins

There Be Dragons

Over the past years, peer conferences on software testing have sprung up all over the world. Europe in particular has seen a lot of strange acronyms emerge: DEWT, DWET, SWET, CEWT, LEWT, TITAN, PEST,…

When initial talks started for DEWT (the Dutch Exploratory Workshop in Testing) in 2010, I jumped on the Dutch train. It’s been a great – nay, fantastic – ride so far. But there was always that undisclosed little area that was conspicuously absent in the peer conference landscape. One country that testing-wise had “Here Be Dragons” written all over it: Belgium.

Sure, there were plans, ideas and good intentions, but rarely the energy. This is were Beren Van Daele decided to kick things up a notch. With energy to spare, he registered a site, fired off some invitatons and started planning that first peer conference on Belgian soil.

BREWT force!

That is how BREWT was born. The Belgian Research Event and Workshop on Testing. Undoubtedly similar to DEWT but with a distinguished Burgundian twist (and most likely some uncut Belgian surrealism thrown in the mix). I see BREWT not only as a peer conference, but also a sounding board of professionals, a place to discuss and share ideas, an opportunity to sharpen our skills and thinking. A movement? Let’s see where it leads us.

Et tu, BREWT?

Our first major event will be a peer conference in the fall of 2017. If you’re interested in joining, we would like to hear from you!

For more information, visit us at http://brewtconf.wordpress.com.





DEWT 5 – sketchnotes

A week ago, the fifth edition of our Dutch Exploratory Workshop in Testing (DEWT) peer conference took place. DEWT5.

The elevator speech: DEWT is a weekend full of experience reports and facilitated discussions with a pleiad of (inter)national testers. And fun, of course: games, beer, walks in the woods! And let’s not forget that good old friend Laphroaig. The theme this year was “Test Strategy”, hand-picked by this year’s content owner Ruud Cox. The diversity in the reports was striking, as was the diversity of ways in which people interpret the notion of a test strategy. Yes, let’s assume it was long elevator trip.

I set out to take notes of all the talks, and I learned a valuable lesson in the process. It is very hard for me to combine focused note-taking (sketchnote-style) while critically thinking about the matter at hand. Then again, I have always known that  multitasking is really a my… oooh shiny scans:

Marjanna Shammi:


Maaret Pyhäjärvi: 


Ruud Teunissen:


Richard Bradshaw:


Peter Schrijvers & Massimo D’Antonio:


Ilari Henrik Aegerter:


Simon Knight:


Joris Meerts:


DEWT4 – a peer conference on teaching testing


From left to right: Jeanne Hofmans, Rob van Steenbergen, Jurian van de Laar, Peter Simon Schrijver, Jean-Paul Varwijk, Bernd Beersma, Huib Schoots, Arjen Verweij, Zeger van Hese, Joris Meerts, Markus Gärtner, Bart Broekman, Angela van Son, Pascal Dufour, Ard Kramer, Jeroen Mengerink, Kristoffer Nordström‏, Philip Hoeben, Daniël Wiersma, Joep Schuurkes, Duncan Nisbet, Eddy Bruin, Wim Heemskerk, Ruud Cox, Richard Scholtes, Ray Oei

Teaching Software Testing

DEWT IntroIn the weekend of 7-9 February, the fourth edition of DEWT took place at Hotel Bergse Bossen in Driebergen, the Netherlands. DEWT stands for the Dutch Exploratory Workshop on Testing and is a LAWST-style peer workshop on testing like its older siblings LAWSTLEWT and SWET. This means a presentation is followed by a facilitated discussion that goes on as long as it brings value.

This edition was extra special to me since I volunteered to be the Content Owner during our preparatory meeting in september. Jean-Paul Varwijk agreed to fill the Conference Chair role and Peter Simon Schrijver would be the main facilitator. Why yes, you do need a good facilitator to make this kind of thing work.

The main theme of this edition was “Teaching Software Testing”

In this edition we also added the obligation – for all attendees – to send in a proposal for an experience report. I wanted attendees to look at teaching software testing in a broad sense, and asked for experience reports on:

  • How software testing is taught
  • Unconventional or alternative ways of teaching software testing
  • Lessons learned by teaching software testing
  • Learning how to teach software testing
  • The receiving end of teaching – learning (being taught)
  • The transfer of theoretical versus practical knowledge
  • Teaching novice testers versus teaching experienced ones
  • Acquiring teaching skills

Apart from the DEWT core members (10), an additional 16 people were invited, of whom three came from abroad – Markus Gaertner (D), Duncan Nisbet (UK) and Kristoffer Nordström (SE). Actually, that makes four since I am from abroad (B) as well – I keep forgetting that I am DEWT’s legal alien.

Friday, February 7

The first night of a DEWT conference is usually an informal meetup, with a welcoming dinner for the people that can make it in time. A great evening it was, with strangers getting to know each other and old friends catching up. Lots of games and testing talk – and in some way or another, My Little Pony () became a topic as well. There were not as many drinks as we would have liked, though, since our first evening happened to coincide with a wedding in our regular hangout, the Grand Cafe. This meant we were banned to a room with a part-time waiter, dividing his inevitably part-time attention (I’m guessing 85/15) between drunk party people and relatively sober software testers. His selection of Belgian beers and copious amounts of deep-fried snacks (it is common knowledge that Markus Gaertner will attend any meetup that involves bitterballen) made up for it.

We ended the night giving the bride and groom some heartfelt marital advice, and by sipping from that curious bottle Duncan brought from Gibraltar – Patxaran (Zoco). When Duncan started cleaning tables to compensate for our invisible waiter, we knew it was time to go to bed.

Saturday, February 8

In front of a notably bigger group than we ended the day with on friday (some people were only joining in on saturday morning), Jean-Paul, Peter and myself kicked off the conference. In the previous weeks, the three of us had come to an agreement on which talks should go highest on the list, being well aware that in the end, a schedule like this is always tentative since you never know when discussions are going to end or where the energy of the group will be going.

The roomKristoffer Nordström went first with “Learning and change in a dysfunctional organisation“, illustrating the difficulties of a consultant that represents both management and the outside. Are learnings and change even possible is this situation? He compared a team with a spring that is attached to context and culture. When a string is attached to something, it is very hard to change. You can bend the spring and make it work at first, but inevitably, the spring – the team – will veer back to its original position. He explained how he tried to cope with his plight: establish trust, show passion and enthusiasm, lead by example, show respect, take time to teach instead (not tell). Even simple things like smiling and saying hello to people helped him to achieve his goals. Kristoffer’s experience report was rich and well-prepared, and touched many things which I could relate with. The discussion afterwards went on longer than planned, but hey, we’re all flexible, right?

Next up was Arjen Verweij with “Preaching software testing: evangelizing testers among non-testers“. In his experience report, he described how he advocates for testing with different stakeholders:

  • Talk to project managers about value
  • Inform and explain customers about changes in the software
  • Convince engineers that you need their expertise.
  • Help support people by providing them with good tools that facilitate bug reporting
  • Work with sales to set reasonable expectations
  • Get buy-in from the developers by supporting their work

One of Arjen’s take-aways was to not mention “testing” if you want non-testers to test, which spawned a hefty discussion on-site in which several people on twitter got involved.

After lunch we decided to go for a walk in the woods to avoid that dreaded carb coma. The hotel staff provided us with instructions for a walk, and it turned out to be a strictly scripted procedure: no map, but a list of written instructions. Great, a bunch of (mostly) context-driven testers asked to follow a walking script. As could be expected, we got lost in a heartbeat. Our explorer’s instinct – supported by many a gps module – got us back with only 20 minutes delay.

Aside from harassing us with more space unicorn songs then we could handle, Markus Gaertner got us up and about with a workshop that used the principles from the book “Training From the Back of the Room!: 65 Ways to Step Aside and Let Them Learn” by Sharon Bowman, after which he elaborated on the 4 C’s, a framework to help design classes that leverage accelerated learning. The acronym stands for “Connection, Concept, Concrete Practice, Conclusion”. During the connections step, learners make connections with what they already know about the topic at hand. In the concepts step, learners take in new information in multi-sensory ways: hearing, seeing, discussing, writing, reflecting, imagining, participating and teaching it to others. The concrete practice step serves to actively practice a new skill using the new information, participate in an active review of what they have learned and again teach others what they know or can now do. During the conclusions step, learners summarize what they have learned, evaluate it and make a commitment to use it at work or in their lives.

Joep Schuurkes and Richard Scholtes were up next with “Teaching testing with a chain testing simulation“, in which they described their experiences in designing an apparently simple chain testing simulation exercise. In it, participants were provided with five laptops running the applications that make up the chain, and each was assigned to one of the laptops (or was assigned the role of testing coordinator), after which the group was given the assignment to “perform a chain test”. Joep and Richard contrasted the things they thought should happen with the things that actually happened, which lead to a couple of nice surprises. Chaos ensued, apparently, and people stayed on their own island for way too long. But it proved an engaging format for all involved – people continued during breaks, were discussing it the days after and it led to quite some aha-moments as well. Another take-away: putting an empty chair in between two people is an effective means to stop all communication.

Bart Broekman‘s experience report brought us “Back to the Middle Ages“. Or at least, a part of the theory did. He talked about the master-apprentice model, which is fundamentally different from the teacher/student model which is now so common. Later on he linked it to the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. Bart saw the biggest gap to be bridged in going from “competent” to “proficient”. How can we make our students make that big leap? Bart went on to explain how he tried to do that through organising masterclasses, working with the student’s own content and real-life problems to solve.

By the time the discussion after Bart’s report died down, dinner was calling, and we gladly obliged. The evening was filled with drinks, puzzles, games, poetry recitations and Dutch people winning gold, silver and bronze medals in the Winter Olympics. Leave some for us, would you?

Sunday, February 9

Sunday morning saw the first (granted, UK-imported) Gibraltarian DEWT-invitee ever take the stage: Duncan Nisbet with a report on his experiences teaching testing to new/non testers, “You can’t learn to drive by reading a book“. A misleading title, since he proceeded to compellingly relate it to how he used to train his pupils in wildwater kayaking. In that line of sport, it is important that you first give your students a safe place to fail, like clear, calm and warm water. Whitewater is an unforgiving place for newbies. Slowly progress, and if you fail, do it more often. Books don’t prepare you for the whitewater experience. Duncan then explained how he tries to teach testing to newbies in the same way. Start simple and build confidence gradually. First, give them a Web/GUI to play wit, later make them aware that of the existence of logs that can help them in testing, and then on to other more specialised disciplines like performance and automation. The facilitated discussion afterwards spawned so many question threads that Simon Schrijver dedicated a whole blogpost on how he facilitated it.

Angela Van Son is a DEWT regular, although she is not a tester. Angela is a professional (procrastination) coach, and she made the program because I was convinced that she could contribute to the topic by offering a view on teaching in general. In “The skill of teaching: How do you make them WANT it?“, she told us about the 30 Day Video Challenge put out by Holly Sugrue that she participated in. She witnessed how Holly managed to energize and inspire the group to deliver in this challenge, a remarkable feat considering that the different people all had different goals to participate. Angela then analyzed what was so peculiar about this challenge. How did the challenge make the people want to master it? As it turned out, it was a combination of many things. It was well chosen, with clear limits. There was a lot of playful repetition that never got boring, and great group dynamics that pushed people forward. There were no obligations – it was a safe place to learn.

After lunch, to finish on a lighter and more active note, we scheduled a workshop on the design of exercises to teach testing, led by Huib Schoots and Ruud Cox. The crowd got divided in several small groups and given the task to design an exercise to teach some testing concepts. That exercise would then be run by one of the other groups followed by a debrief. The tricky part was of course that the time to accomplish this was very limited. I already knew from attending Jerry Weinberg’s Problem Solving Leadership that designing a good and fun experiential exercise can be very, VERY hard. But given the circumstances, the teams did a good job – resorting to ruthless peppermint crushing and exploratory walking. I felt that the debrief helped a lot in seeing where our own exercise could be improved.

This concluded DEWT4. Two + days filled with learning and fun. I hoped to achieve a good variety in the topics and I am glad how it turned out. The atmosphere was focused yet relaxed, and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. A big thank you to all the participants for their time, their stories and their passion.


To finish of this lengthy report, here are some sketch-notes I made during the weekend. Click the thumbnail to see a bigger version.

For other reports and impressions of DEWT4, check out the DEWT after party blog page.

Back to the middle ages - Bart Broekman You cant learn to drive by reading a book - Duncan Nisbet Learning and change in a dysfunctional organisation - Kristoffer Nordstrom Preaching software testing - Testing with non-testers - Arjen Verweij Teaching testing with a chain testing simulation - Joep Schuurkes Richard Scholtes The skill of teaching - how to make them want it - Angela Van Son

What happened at DEWT1 doesn’t just stay at DEWT1 (June 11, 2011)

A report on the first DEWT (Dutch Exploratory Workshop on Testing) on May 11, 2011 in Driebergen, NL

What started on twitter in november last year, culminated in a first major milestone last weekend: DEWT1, our first peer – and Exploratory – Workshop on Testing (yes, the D is for Dutch, but these Dutchmen happily accepted this Belgian foreign element in their midst). Michael Bolton added to the international character by agreeing to be our special guest for the weekend.

It turned out to be an inspiring and fun event. Here’s my write-up.

The venue

Hotel Bergsebossen, Driebergen, NL

The participants

People on DEWT-y, from left to right:

Jeroen Rosink, Ray Oei, Jeanne Hofmans, Michel Kraaij, Huib Schoots, Jean-Paul Varwijk, Ruud Cox, Zeger Van Hese, Michael Bolton

Peter “Simon” Schrijver (who was roaming the earth the Better Software conference at the time)  and Anna Danchenko could not attend

The pre-conference

We gathered on friday night as a warm-up to the conference. When Michael Bolton is around, this usually means getting lured into some tricky testing puzzles, and some beers to ease the pain of messing up. And yes, jokes too. And Talisker. After we discovered the versatility of the average Dutch hotel bouncer (half bouncer, half God ad-hoc bartender), we called it a night. A dream-ridden night it was, filled with newly learned terms, such as…

Shanghai (transitive verb) \ˈshaŋ-ˌhī, shaŋ-ˈhī\ (shanghaied / shanghaiing)

1 a : to put aboard a ship by force often with the help of liquor or a drug b : to put by force or threat of force into or as if into a place of detention

2 : to put by trickery into an undesirable position

The conference

Artful Testing

Speaking of which… during our last preparatory DEWT-meet-up, my fellow DEWTees shanghaied me into doing the first talk of the day, which they promptly called a keynote to make it sound like an invitation. I thankfully accepted though, since I wanted to get some feedback on my work-in-progress presentation. The link between art and testing has been consuming me for more than half a year now. I premiered my ideas on it at the second Writing About Testing (WAT) conference in Durango last month (if you haven’t done it already, you should check-out the great WAT write-ups from Marlena Compton, Alan Page and Markus Gärtner).

Ruud (who facilitated the morning sessions) kicked off the conference and invited me to take the proverbial stage. Based on the feedback from WAT, I made some modifications to the presentation and put it out here again for a second time. I don’t know if the subject was really fit for an early morning session, but I received some gratifying feedback that convinced me to pursue my efforts in this direction.


Transpections (basically a way of learning and sharpening your ideas by putting yourself in someone else’s place in some kind of Socratic dialog) were on our DEWT wish list for quite some time already. We had been reading all sorts of interesting stuff on it (see James Bach’s post here, some Michael Bolton posts here and here, and Stephen J. Hill’s post here), so we asked Michael Bolton if he would be willing to give us a quick roundup on the subject. Michael agreed and made it into an interactive session, inviting us to pair up to gather information about transpections and then transpect on that. Meta-transpection for the win!

The information gathering exercise was enlightening, and brought up some good food for thought. Michael compared a transpection session with the play between a hammer and an anvil, where the hammer would be the initiator of the transpection, the anvil the person whom the initiator is transpecting with, and the metal the idea being shaped.

In the end, we didn’t get to try an actual transpection session, partly because I artfully exceeded my allotted time in the previous session. Oh well…  It was a valuable exercise nonetheless.

Lightning talks

After lunch there were some lightning talks to fight the afternoon dip:

  • Jeroen got started about the hierarchic “testing pyramid” model (testers / test coordinators / test managers) and how he wants to challenge that classical view
  • Huib followed, on “the power of knowing nothing”, about how starting with a (mentally) clean slate reduces the chances of being biased. “It’s not about the what, it’s about the “why”
  • I touched upon the topic of the Baader Meinhof phenomenon and how testers could leverage the effect by absorbing as much knowledge as possible, on several subjects (a blog about that has been sitting in my drafts since january 2010 – I’ll try to finish that)

Introducing exploratory testing in Dutch projects

Ray then presented an experience report on how he was able to introduce exploratory testing and session based test management in classic, T-Map-style projects, using the principles he learned from Rapid Software Testing. Discussion ensued on how to prove the benefits of RST, and what the major differences between the approaches are. But we ended up talking mostly about “release advice”, and what to do when you’re asked to give it. One take-away phrase for me: “it’s not declining, it’s empowering the product manager”.

Walking break & Positive Deviance

Although we finished the previous topic way ahead of schedule, everyone felt like the last discussion drained our energy (our staying up late the night before probably didn’t help either). Jeanne, who facilitated the afternoon sessions, had the brilliant idea to just go out for a walk in the “Utrechtse Heuvelrug” national park, which turned out to be a conference session in its own right: relaxing, fun and informative. A beautiful spot, too. There was a moment where I thought we were getting lost, but here’s another lesson: do not underestimate the power of nine explorers, without a map.

Back at the hotel, Michael talked about positive deviance and positive deviants (people whose uncommon but successful behaviors or strategies enable them to find better solutions to a problem than their peers, despite having no special resources or knowledge). He also showed us a video of Jasper Palmer, a patient transporter at the Albert Einstein hospital (and a positive deviant) who became famous for his “Palmer Method”, which is now a standard life-saving practice in a number of hospitals. A mighty fascinating topic, that I’ll be exploring more for sure.


Ruud delivered the closing presentation, on credibility – the quality of being trusted and believed. The main issues Ruud addressed were: how do we – testers – build credibility, and how do we manage to maintain it? After all, trust is built slowly, but destroyed in seconds. Simple questions, but a very complex subject indeed. “Trust” and “credibility” are relations: you can be credible to some person at a certain moment in time, but totally incredible to another. Trying to build your credibility is not always something controllable. Sure, you can do your very best to improve your credibility on a personal level, but you don’t really have an influence on how people will perceive you. Ruud then explained how he tries to build credibility. He impressed me with the personal mnemonic he developed, and the matching artwork as a personal reminder to stick to these principles:


  • Safety language
  • Two ears one mouth
  • Yes but
  • Lighten up a little
  • Empathy
I’m not going in detail here, because I specifically want Ruud to finish that blog post he’s been mulling over for ages now. So, yes Ruud, the pressure is on. You’ve got some great material – time to share it with the world!

DEWT1 ended with drinks, testing games and dinner. I ended the day way more energized than I started it, which is always a good sign (silly extroverts like me get fueled by events like this). DEWT1 rocked. It was informal, informative and entertaining. When is the next?