Three arguments against the verification-validation dichotomy

Joep Schuurkes — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:53:24 GMT

Last week while talking with two colleagues, one of them mentioned the verification/validation thing. And I noticed it made me feel uneasy. Because I know well enough what is meant by the distinction, but on a practical level I simply can't relate to it. When I think about what I do as a software tester and how verification versus validation applies to it, nothing happens. Blank mind. Crickets. Tumbleweed. So after giving it some thought, I present you with three arguments against the verification-validation dichotomy.

First of course, we have the obligatory interlude of defining these two terms. A place to start is the Wikipedia page on Software verification and validation. Unfortunately it contains conflicting definitions, so if anyone cares enough, please do fix. Luckily there's also the general Verification and validation page of Wikipedia, which gives us (among others) the tl;dr version of the distinction:

Verification: Are we building the product right?
Validation: Are we building the right product?

Finally there's the ISTQB glossary v2.4 that borrows from ISO 9000:

Verification: Confirmation by examination and through provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled.
Validation: Confirmation by examination and through provision of objective evidence that the requirements for a specific intended use or application have been fulfilled.

Now on to the three arguments.

Joep Schuurkes (Posts about verification and validation)

Three arguments against the verification-validation dichotomy