DZone
Thanks for visiting DZone today,
Edit Profile
  • Manage Email Subscriptions
  • How to Post to DZone
  • Article Submission Guidelines
Sign Out View Profile
  • Post an Article
  • Manage My Drafts
Over 2 million developers have joined DZone.
Log In / Join
Refcards Trend Reports Events Over 2 million developers have joined DZone. Join Today! Thanks for visiting DZone today,
Edit Profile Manage Email Subscriptions Moderation Admin Console How to Post to DZone Article Submission Guidelines
View Profile
Sign Out
Refcards
Trend Reports
Events
Zones
Culture and Methodologies Agile Career Development Methodologies Team Management
Data Engineering AI/ML Big Data Data Databases IoT
Software Design and Architecture Cloud Architecture Containers Integration Microservices Performance Security
Coding Frameworks Java JavaScript Languages Tools
Testing, Deployment, and Maintenance Deployment DevOps and CI/CD Maintenance Monitoring and Observability Testing, Tools, and Frameworks
Culture and Methodologies
Agile Career Development Methodologies Team Management
Data Engineering
AI/ML Big Data Data Databases IoT
Software Design and Architecture
Cloud Architecture Containers Integration Microservices Performance Security
Coding
Frameworks Java JavaScript Languages Tools
Testing, Deployment, and Maintenance
Deployment DevOps and CI/CD Maintenance Monitoring and Observability Testing, Tools, and Frameworks
  1. DZone
  2. Culture and Methodologies
  3. Agile
  4. BDD and The Feynman Technique

BDD and The Feynman Technique

With a slight modification, the Feynman Technique can help you understand your user stories better and produce better acceptance tests.

Antony Marcano user avatar by
Antony Marcano
·
Feb. 14, 17 · Opinion
Like (3)
Save
Tweet
Share
3.50K Views

Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.

Join For Free

Nobel Prize winner and accomplished physicist Richard Feynman was renowned for his ability to explain complex subjects.

It was for this reason that he was known by many as “The Great Explainer.”

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it enough.” - Albert Einstein/Richard Feynman

Feynman learned by trying to explain things. If he couldn’t explain it simply, he didn’t understand it as thoroughly as he had thought. It is from this that the Feynman Technique for learning emerged:

  1. Pick a concept — write it at the top of a fresh page in your notebook.
  2. Pretend to teach it to a student — explain it on paper as if you are teaching it.
  3. Study it more when you get stuck — keep studying until you can resume explaining it.
  4. Simplify and use analogies — relate it to things people already understand.

This is what we are doing at a team level when we’re practicing BDD…

If we can’t tell the user story simply, we don’t understand it enough.

The purpose of writing a customer scenario isn’t to produce an artifact or an automated test. The purpose of writing a customer scenario is to drive a conversation, drawing it down to the right level of detail to establish a shared, coherent understanding — to learn together.

If the scenarios that tell variations on a user story can’t be explained simply, we don’t understand the story enough as a team.

Each edit, each refinement we try to make, takes the conversation and our understanding deeper. We gradually get closer to a better understanding of what the customer is trying to achieve and why.

When we can articulate our understanding of a scenario simply and our customer agrees that we’re aligned, that’s a good sign that we understand it enough to take the next step — implementing just enough to see that scenario pass. Now we’re stuck and it’s time to explore the next scenario.

An example of how we might describe configuring Slack’s automated Slackbot responses.
The simpler the scenario, the more the team understands what the customer is trying to do.

The process of reflecting and evolving our understanding in the actual product continues into the process of implementation. Unit-level specs (unit tests) drive the conversation with our pair-programming partner (or mob) — capturing our understanding of how we’ll achieve the outcome we’re looking for — and expressing the way we’ve achieved it through our system metaphor (arguably, XP as a whole is a software development approach analogous to the Feynman Technique).

This process is iterative. There will still be gaps in our understanding — we don’t need it to be perfect the first time, every time. Addressing that is exactly what short cycles and frequent feedback are for.

User story Software development teams Conversations (software) Testing Concept (generic programming) Pass (software) IT Papers (software)

Published at DZone with permission of Antony Marcano, DZone MVB. See the original article here.

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

Popular on DZone

  • Three SQL Keywords in QuestDB for Finding Missing Data
  • Using QuestDB to Collect Infrastructure Metrics
  • Handling Virtual Threads
  • A Beginner's Guide to Back-End Development

Comments

Partner Resources

X

ABOUT US

  • About DZone
  • Send feedback
  • Careers
  • Sitemap

ADVERTISE

  • Advertise with DZone

CONTRIBUTE ON DZONE

  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Become a Contributor
  • Visit the Writers' Zone

LEGAL

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy

CONTACT US

  • 600 Park Offices Drive
  • Suite 300
  • Durham, NC 27709
  • support@dzone.com
  • +1 (919) 678-0300

Let's be friends: