Skip to main content

Value in QA Courses/Qualifications?

I have in the past questioned the value in getting certifications/going on courses for the sake of getting a certificate in testing.

Whilst I do still question the worth of such an issue, I have recently read some articles which has shown me there is more value in these courses/certificates than I previously gave them credit for.

The main positive that I can think of, upon completing a course like an ISEB Foundation, is that it ensures that testers are on the same page when it comes to communicating. A bug is a bug, or if I'm speaking to someone about Integration testing, they know exactly what I am talking about and won't get confused.

I think in ensuring that everybody is on the same page when it comes to discussing testing issues/testing activities, it helps in gaining respect and confidence from other teams and other team members, as we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. 

It isn't just about communication in the term of words however, it is important to understand what automated testing is for example, and when or how it might be useful, which you can possibly get from a course/certificate.

What I don't like about certificates is that they are mandatory in some roles/jobs, or the stigma associated with some, just because someone has a qualification, does not mean they are a good tester. I have met many testers with qualifications who I would question their ability, as well on the other hand I have met good testers who don't necessarily have the same qualifications who I think are awesome testers!

So, what I am trying to get at is that I don't believe that certifications should be a pre-requisite for getting jobs, nor should they be held in such high esteem as they are in some places, what they could and perhaps should be used for is ensuring that there is a level of understanding within/across teams. What I am open to is how we gain that level of understanding, in my opinion it doesn't have to be from a qualification, so long as there is something in place to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing, then I'd be happy. If people think qualifications help them get to this level, then who am I to judge? 
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous1 August 2013 at 06:11

    Spend some time on testing forums and you'll find many different variations on what is a bug, what is integration testing. Rather than trying to get people to use an ISEB definition isn't it better to learn how to communicate and understand what the other person means?

    and to carry on with this, you say "it is important to understand what automated testing is for example" - given the amount of blog posts and arguments about what it meant by this I'd like to know what you mean by 'automated testing'...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gareth Waterhouse1 August 2013 at 06:48

      Whilst it is good to learn how to communicate and understand, if the people using the terms understand them fully, then there isn't the need to spend time understanding what someone meant when really they meant something else?

      I'm not talking industry wide, my reasoning behind this is more around teams within a company, here it is important to have standard definitions for certain terms surely?

      With regards to 'automated testing' it was just a generic example to be honest :p

      But to expand, to me, automated testing is any testing that is done by a machine, doesn't matter if it's unit tests or acceptance tests, they are all a form of automated testing.

      Obviously there will be big discussions over some terms and when to use them, as people believe in different things, but in my opinion it's important to at least have some form of understanding within teams of what it is being discussed.

      Delete
  2. Sharath Byregowda2 August 2013 at 05:31

    I agree with your point that certifications should never be pushed as a mandatory requirement. But I still have my doubts that certifications can help achieve that "We all understand each other" - claim.
    My question is how hard is it for a team to introduce the team's 'words/terminologies' to a new tester? Will this simple step not solve someone sitting thru and spending loads of money on a certification? Also I find it interesting to know why a tester would use the same word in a different context. May be his/her word could be more appropriate to what I have been using?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gareth Waterhouse2 August 2013 at 06:55

      You could, but in having the course before you join, you're more than likely understand what's being said and when to use certain terminology :)

      Delete
  3. halperinko20 August 2013 at 22:06

    The economic fight against certifications flushed the need for basic training down the toilet with it...
    With all the noise around it, people return to think that training is not required for testers.
    I think basic training as well as a life time of additional learning is a must for any tester.
    Some need the certification as incentive for learning.
    It may also backfire - when some don't learn testing but just for the sake of passing the exam.
    Basic (foundation) certification really has nothing to do as pre-requisite - it should be supplied to new employees by the company in case these don't have it yet.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testers: Be more like a Super-Villain!

Who doesn't love a Super Hero? Talk to my son, and he'll tell you how much he loves them, talk to many adults and they'll say the same! Deep down, we all love to be the Super Hero, we all want to save the day! However, I want to talk about the flip side of Super Heroes, the Super Villains... I often play Imaginext with my son, and I (unfortunately?) am nearly always the Super Villain! Be it Lex Luthor, Joker, Two Face, Mr Freeze or The Riddler! These are all great characters and great Super Villains, but why would I want to write about Super Villains? A while ago where I worked, we had a few Super Heroes, people who would be able to come in and "fix" things that had broken and help deliver projects on time. We then shifted, we decided to do away with the Super Hero culture and try and prevent from being in that position in the first place, whilst we didn't go as far as wanting to hire Super Villains, it's definitely a story that has stuck with me and t...
2 comments
Read more

Treating Test Code as Production Code

It's important when writing automated tests to remember that the code you write should be up to production standards, meaning any conventions that you have in place should be adhered to and that it should follow good design patterns. Too many people often say why does it have to be as good as production code, it's "Only" a test, so long as it passes then that's fine... To answer this we need to look at why we want our tests to be written in such a structured and efficient manner: - Maintainability - by making the test code structured and efficient, it becomes far easier to maintain and in doing so changes in the future can happen quickly as the test isn't linked to anything that it shouldn't be and it's easy to understand for a new set of eyes. - Durability - Again by making the tests structured they should be resistant to changes, if you change a variable name for instance then it shouldn't effect the unit test unless it absolutely has to....
1 comment
Read more

Tech Develops - A day dedicated to YOU!

Working in Tech, it can be difficult to find the time to further improve yourself, you're focused a lot on delivery, and it can be hard to drag yourself away from it and spend time on delivering an improved you. This is why some companies are starting to have time dedicated to your personal development, where people drop tools and do a personal project or watch some tutorials. Luckily working at ASOS we get the last Friday of every month to focus on this! Last Friday we held what we call a "Tech Develops" day, where as an employee of ASOS and working in Technology, In the week running up to it we decided it would be a good idea to have a platform where people could stand up and perform a 99 Second Talk about anything they please. We had 12 people sign up to it, and we had talks ranging from the technical (Git-Bisect) to a Conference review (UKStar). The first talk was an informative talk about Git Bisect and how it's used and why because of it, it's import...
3 comments
Read more