I am a certified tester. I hold CSTE certification.
When I read the text (of course of myself) “Certified Software Testing Engineer”, I always wonder what I mean by that.
Doesn’t it mean that I don’t have my own mind to think and do testing but I learnt it (not practiced as none of the certifications are based on practical experiments), rather copying (legitimately) or re-using (famously) some one else’s idea?
During the early part (comparatively) of my career, I chose to sit for CSTE because
I wanted to prove a point to my managers that I am the best in the lot
I wanted to differentiate myself
I wanted to see myself in the newsletter (internal) and magazines (that used to carry the successful CSTE names with photographs at that time)
Company reimbursed the money that I spent for registration so I was anyway not spending money from my pocket
More than all the above, I wanted a motivation and a reason to read something about Testing
I registered myself, picked up the CBOK and started reading. I should admit there are some favorite chapters of mine in the book which I enjoyed reading. Eventually, I did clear the paper.
I can confidently say that the reading I did, the discussions I had with fellow CSTE aspirants certainly helped me in understanding a lot of details. If someone cites this as a reason to sit for the exam I wouldn’t give too much a piece of my mind.
A step further, in a way I would approve CSTE to some extent (not 100% though) because as testers we do have a 50% chance to write what we think is correct with the context we understand in the descriptive papers which I can safely call a kind of experimental based (atleast that’s what I did).
But the reality is that there are too many who use those CBOK as Bible or Bhagwat Geeta for testing principles. Much worse,
I saw a lot of people using certification as a token to call themselves as tester without bothering about either practicing or even an attempt to do practice
I saw people with no experience getting job by faking about it in big companies because they held a certification
Certifications compel the testers to a very dangerous extent, that we always tend to look for one CORRECT ready-made answer for all questions. Certifications restricts us from the thought process of,
All the options given could very well FIT
NONE of the options given (to choose from) may NOT fit
Dangerous of all is, it tunes the certified minds to an extend to look for even “Above All” or “None of the “Above” as answers when there isn’t clarity on what to choose from !!
We get accustomed to always look-for/think of a “Point-blank” answer for all questions, for contexts and certifications go out of their way to advocate and spread this at full throttle. A very simple example is one of the polls that I happened to see in an internal website, eventually ended up as post.
Reason to test software before releasing it is:
To find as many bugs as possible before release
To make a decision when the software is of good quality to release
To confirm that software will work after the release
To give information for a risk based decision about release
A classic question that appears in certification exams. I, to some extent understand that we still as a community yet to get matured to understand and think in contexts’. The reason why I felt all the more sorry for the certified testers is that the certifications have influenced so much, so that the author failed to see that “ALL” can also be an option if not an answer.
One of the eye openers for me was “A difficult testing quiz” in Pradeep’s Blog (that’s how I started reading his posts). I honestly attempted all the questions and the result was a lesson. That’s when I felt confident, that I don’t have to always worry about being correct.
There are a good number of testers who are trying to win credibility for “testing” as an activity and for testers. Meanwhile it’s disheartening to see there are large number of people who are still comparing/writing/discussing/arguing (??!!), if CSTE is good or ISTQB.
PS: CSTE’s CBOK is really a subset (edited) of William Perry’s book on Software Testing, which I read fully later and I think a good one to read.
7 comments:
Certifications compel the testers to a very dangerous extent, that we always tend to look for one CORRECT ready-made answer for all questions. Certifications restricts us from the thought process
Good Post. Certifications are dangerous for misleading people. People misled by certifications are even more dangerous. Unless, more and more people set out to spread this word, it is going to be a challenge to get this pandemic out!
Happy Testing,
Parimala Shankaraiah
Good post Parthi,
I find myself in complete agreement with what you said. However few "positive" things that I learnt and feel that it changed my thinking towards testing are
1) Code of Ethics of CBOK which helped me in changing "How others (non-testers) see testing" to a good extent. This happened 2 years back.
2)I understood What is also important for testing other then testing the product. etc
I think,Certification is the "starting" point of a long, unending learning process only. After Certification (if one goes for it) One has to excercise it in day to day business.
However, people who simply ridicule the Certificaion, have yet to prove their point which can be done either by proposing something better or giving enough reasons to justify or convince the applicants.
I often read that, "These all institutes for Certifications are big time thieves, they rob people like us" and if you read about these 'people' and check their background, they themselve are running such institutes (certainly not for charity) and don't leave a chance to ridicule others (without justification).
I have utmost respect for few of them and their views because of their commitment towards testing but certainly I do not follow them blindly (I am not supposed to).
I know, if someone of that "School of Thought" reads this reply, s/he will feel offended (good for me actually, probably we all will learn something) so here are 2 examples in support of Certifications not just CSTE but CMMI as well.
CMMI
We all know what we do while going for CMMI. We prepare Different Test Assets, measure different parameters, show an improvement in Efficiency-Productivity, come up with lot of Data that is validated at different levels etc etc.
Explanation:
In CMMI we gather lot of data for different kind of Metrices and make "decisions" on "Existing Maturity level", a kind of "Health Checkup" for testing team, individual tester and whole approach. I believe if implemented correctly, this is the best available thing in the market.
CSTE
Consider preparing Reports.
e.g. Test Status Report, Defect Reports, Release Closure Docs etc.
CSTE has a very practical and detailed chapter on this "Skill Category".
I remember that once you told me the importance of "Reporting" in my very first month of life as a tester.
Now there is another methodology I came across "Session Based Test Management", I read it thoroughly, tried to implement it sincerely but believe me its not Complete, its not an easily adaptable solution and certainly not one where we can show and prove the validity of data, there is a huge scope for improvement though I never came across a person who had implemented it and happy about it.
So 'experts' (really?) still don't have an answer.
Most of the testers around the world are working for some Organization, a very few are as Independent Consultants.
So, as an employee of an organization, we have limited freedom in experimenting with things like processes etc.
And, amount of money that is being spent on testing is not small. Since money is invested so a "measurement" is necessary.
People say "Testing is about Learning a Product and one should not fall into measurement of 'Learning'" agreed.
But measurement has to be done and CSTE, CMMI are a good way to do that. For example a metric "DAR: Defect Acceptance Ratio" will give insight of How good understanding a tester has, of an Application Under Test.
People are talking about Exploratory Testing, where it is still a challenge to measure things. (read somewhere on Cam Caner's site)
Having said that, I think there is always a room for error and an area of improvement, in anything we do.
Its our responsibility, as committed testing professionals to make it a respected field to work in.
Cheers!!
Rahul Gupta
Sorry for mis-spelling Cem Kaner.
@BugMagnate
However, people who simply ridicule the Certificaion, have yet to prove their point which can be done either by proposing something better or giving enough reasons to justify or convince the applicants.
Good Insight. I have taken ISTQB Foundations and CSTP certifications exams myself. I still ridicule these because I did not see any value add in the learning process, the assignments or the exam that I passed with flying colors. People may think that I was incapable of seeing value. May be or May be not. But I observed that a larger set of people like me who took certifications felt the same way. Even if they did not, I did not see any positive impact or change in the work that these people do.
I liked your point on 'Proposing something better'. Yes. Context Driven School does propose something better. This school puts across a set of ideas and asks you to choose what works best for you. It may not certify that you are one of the best testers in the world for sure.
I know, if someone of that "School of Thought" reads this reply, s/he will feel offended (good for me actually, probably we all will learn something) so here are 2 examples in support of Certifications not just CSTE but CMMI as well.
I am glad you mentioned this. Personally, I am not offended. If you have passed certifications and you have learned something that has really changed you to be better in what you do, that is still good for you. What I do get irritated with is the fact that people who have not passed these certifications are thought of as being incapable or ineffective.
In general, I am amused by the cold wars between different schools of thought. If only, every school had to survive on its own, I bet that would not be possible. It is all about getting people from different schools, taking the best from each of these schools and putting it to use based on the context of the projects or products. Again, I would not dare to call them ‘Best Practices’.
I have a post on certifications - http://curioustester.blogspot.com/2009/08/are-you-ostrich-sticking-your-head-in.html which might interest you.
Good Discussion,
Thank You,
Parimala Shankaraiah
Thanks so much Rahul, you always surprise me !! Thanks for two things
1. The thought process you have put yourself into
2. More important, you sharing it
I think,Certification is the "starting" point of a long, unending learning process only. After Certification (if one goes for it) One has to excercise it in day to day business.
Rahul, the theme when I read this is about “learning” and like me many are a little lazy when it comes to serious reading. As I said in the post, “some of us seek that inclination/motivation” in the name of certifications and that is perfectly fine.
And what you have written about is your experience/process that you went through while CSTE, but the irony is not all and the worst part is most of them don’t and that’s where the certifications become dangerous.
I accept your point that we are yet to figure out an alternate to the certifications and in my opinion, probably we don’t have to. Certification is just a tool, what and how do we do with it what makes the tool either extremely useful or vulnerable.
• How many CSTEians look beyond and explore the knowledge/challenge/learning that testing has in offer?
• How many people think/suggest/do certifications for a simple reason that they want a job in testing and need an “approved” stamp on the fake experience they print
• how many managers think the people take certifications in year are the ones who meet their learning goals for the year during their performance review process [even though the rating, financial hike is just by product of a year’s work, they are products of an year’s work put in associates !!!!]
CSTEians are better-off but I just couldn’t imagine the ISTQBinas way, it’s pure “Copy-Paste” process of reading through a document and selecting one of the 4 or 5 options given.
One quick example of “Certified” thinking is
Certification way:
The life cycle of a bug: There has be a set of (New, Open, Fixed, Re-Open, Closed, Deferred) status and these status have to be used while classifying the status of the bug. There has be some standards/consistency followed”
My thought on this:
What’s big deal? If I want to bring my business users (BU) to do testing and I want a process where first the testers sign off each defect and then the BU, then I bring in the status Signed off by QA, Signed off by BU.
How many “certified’ testers you think will accept this? Surprise Surprise!!! Am already a minority on this subject.
Now think about how I would answer the question “The different bug status that are used” in the certification exams we have today!!
• Do you think I can apply my mind in this? Someone else has already done the thinking for me !!??!!
• Don’t you think I, as an aspirant is being sold the idea that there are ONLY {New, Open, Fixed, Re-Open, Closed, Defered} and this is the present danger.
hi Parimala,
thanks for your comment on my reply to this post. Well, just to inform you, I am regular reader of your posts (probably I have read all of these) though you will not always find my comments on that. The link you have mentioned is one of the earliest posts I read on the subject. Thanks again.
Regards,
Rahul Gupta
http://www.BugMagnate.blogspot.com
hey Parthi,
Again I agree with you. Many questions that you asked in reply to my comment on you post starts with "How many....". So answer can be summarized in one line
How many....? == "Number of people who are committed to testing, passionate about it and working hard/smart to make it a coveted field of work"
Rest all are in testing just for the sake of "salary".
I am sure you will understand my point.
Post a Comment