It is without doubt one of the most
contentious points in software testing at the moment. “Do we need
an official certification to be software testers”.
There are arguments all over the place,
and I've found myself inspired by an article by my fellow Twitter collaborator Jari Laakso to write up my own opinion. You can read his article here.
In favour of certification of course is
the fact that “anyone can call themselves a software tester”.
Any industry where you can just call yourself a role without needing
some form of registration, means that the “cowboys” bring down
the reputation of the industry. I might be able to call myself a
plumber, but the almighty mess I'd leave your house in, coupled with
a crippling bill for call-out would lead you to curse plumber-dom if
I was allowed to behave in such a way.
However against certification, there is
the fact that it very much becomes a whole “industry” in itself
to sell you the course, the exam and the shining certificate. And
how do you measure someone's ability? Frankly the way it's examined
in a multiple choice exam is laughable – give any good tester
options A, B, or C and they will always come up with a brand new
answer D.
I myself qualifying for the ISEB exam
back in 2005 – it was a compulsary course for my company, and I
took it with someone who was new to testing. I found myself
wrestling with the syllabus, because in many ways the material hooks
into such an idealised form of software delivery that I've never seen
it in the real world. I kept finding myself asking “but what if
...” and “but surely ...”.
That said, I really enjoyed the course,
and I managed to learn from some formal ways and background theory of
doing things which I'd previously just done intuitively (without
really being able to say way). And despite being the slight heckler
in the class, I formed a good relationship with Rob my tutor, and we
kept in touch for a few years afterwards.
As a test manager myself I do find
myself looking for someone with the foundation qualification, as I
know we'll have a relatively similar framework of testing vocabulary
to work from.
However I also agree with a lot of the
criticism. The exam based on this certification is based on multiple
choice and a rigid syllabus. It's the idea that there's a “right
way” and a “wrong way” to test, like everything is
black-and-white.
Sure there are many “wrong ways” to
test. But there is also no single “right way” to do it either.
Testing is taking the pure theory of software delivery model, and
then using imagination to find a best model for the project in front
of you, the way it demands updates, the way software is developed,
the methods used to update your test environment. You don't put
together a test plan using multi-choice …
I had a great boss (Stephen Pedrick) in
2005 when I took my course. Not only did he book me on the ISEB
course, but he booked me on a following course “Testing – Putting
Theory Into Practice”. This dealt with really looking at the
theory and making practical test plans, evaluating sample projects.
This was almost an antidote to the ISEB course, taking the theory
we'd learned (which I did enjoy) and really thrashing it in real work
scenarios.
The ISEB course was good, the Putting
Theory Into Practice was invaluable. Sadly though, where 30 people
took the ISEB certification, only 4 took the one follow on (for which
you didn't get a shiny certificate). And this indeed is one of the
many potential traps of certification, believing that certification
is “all you need” to train as a tester.
It's not, as Obi Wan said to Luke
Skywalker, “You've just taken your first step into a larger world”
...
