ISO29119 criticisms and feedback tell us that the Debate Continues. Perhaps a little more sensible than what we’ve seen on TV lately — or maybe not.
During our webinar in July with Jon Hagar (@jonduncanhagar), we had a few that put forth their opinions on ISO 29119, tweeting and posing questions and commenting on the event. I had a discussion with Jon Hagar on these views:
As stated by Griffin Jones @Griff0Jones:
- This #ISO29119 conversation is emphasizing the separation of testing and dev – which is counter to the direction of agile #stop29119
- So #ISO29119 is a collection of “you might want this, just in case” materials. And this creates value and is lean, how? #stop29119
- A standard should be so obvious and practical that it is accepted, and accepted because it is so obvious and practical. #ISO29119 fails
As mentioned by Patrick Prill @TestPappy
- If #ISO29119 should be used more like PMBoK, then why does need to be an ISO standard? And why not design it like a BoK?
- And here comes the scary part of #ISO29119. “might be used to assess 3rd parties” So if not fully compliant, how can that be useful?
- Is it helpful to create a standard that does not reflect all views? Can you ensure that companies requiring #ISO29119 understand that?
I’d like to note that both Patrick and Griffin have good points. I could see myself agreeing with them in many respects. I don’t like some of the wording in the standard on compliance, and I definitely think that some organizations may misinterpret the standard that would hurt not only themselves in their quest for software quality, but also not empower individuals to do their best and think outside the box (outside the standard). I also like the BoK viewpoint rather than a “standard.” I’m starting to think that ISO bit off more than it could chew and should chew.