Assume you cut your hand in the kitchen, then didn’t notice for an hour and had to be rushed to the ER. You do this 3 times per day.
You spend most of your time in the ER and very little time cooking. You want to fix that.
TheÂ improve testingÂ strategy says “we’re going to cut ourselves all the time. How could we notice that so that we don’t bleed out?”
So we write something that will check every minute to see whether we’ve cut our hand in any of the specific places we’ve cut ourselves before. Of course, if we cut ourselves in the leg, we still don’t notice it and we end up in the ER.
And then we start checking our leg. Over time we are catching many our cuts in time to put on a bandage. We spend less time in the ER, but we’re still all covered in bandages and spend a lot of time looking for wounds.
SafeguardingÂ would instead ask “why are we cutting ourselves 3 times a day? Why is this kitchen so unsafe?”
So we look and realize that the tilted counters are causing knives to slide off, people lunge for them so that the knife isn’t ruined on the floor, and then they cut themselves.
Safeguarding is to flatten the counter top.
One thought on “Improving Testing is Not Safe (A parable)”
Maybe it would be safer if available gloves that can protect the fingers when we cook?