In Defense of the CSTE
Submitted by John McConda on Thu, 29/06/2006 - 16:51.
perspectives
First of all, I want to put a disclaimer out that I am in no way affiliated with any kind of revenue stream that is related to QAI, SQE, or the CSTE exam (other than holding a certificate). I am only sharing my experience to provide another context for the debate over testing certification, and the CSTE specifically.
One of the most controversial and discussed topics at the recent conference for the Association for Software Testing (CAST) focused on James Bach’s keynote address entitled “Against Certification”. Much debate followed the presentation and while I am by no means in the same league as James or some of the other testing professionals who debated him that day, I would like to present my own experience in acquiring and maintaining the CSTE certification, and why I think it is a valuable tool for testers to have.
I started my career in 2000, as an intern for a dot com in Los Angeles. The reason I am a tester today is because that company bought SilkTest and nobody else there had the time or inclination to learn it, so they gave it to the intern. Then they said, “By the way, come up with a Test Plan for our website and tell us how to execute it.”
That’s my brief history of how I got into testing (besides the part where I decided I actually liked doing it!). Fast forward to my first full time job in 2001 at a small software shop in Chicago where I’m given a similar situation. “We just bought Test Director and WinRunner. Develop a test process here because we don’t have one.” Naturally, like any student with no teacher, I went out and started browsing every piece of information I could find on QA, QC (I didn’t even know the difference then), and software testing. What I found was two organizations that gave me the training I needed to build a testing process from scratch without anyone else to guide me. These were SQE, representing the fee-based testing classes, and my local QAI chapter, the Chicago Quality Assurance Association (CQAA), representing the free forum where I was able to meet like-minded professionals and learn about the CSTE certification.
Many of those who debated James at CAST promoted certification as establishing a “baseline” of testing knowledge upon which new testers could build a broader knowledge of the testing field. Having been one of those new testers, I know that I was desperately seeking out that baseline, and organizations like SQE and QAI were able to provide me with that so I could speak coherently and have some basis of thought about what testing software entails.
I assert that the CSTE certification is worthwhile for at least three reasons.
First, it attempts to unite testers under the same body of knowledge so we can at least speak the same language. On this, I will concede James’ point that there is not a universal consensus on the body of knowledge, but I do believe that the CBOK contains practices that while not applicable in every context, have worked before in many real world scenarios, including my own. This basic understanding of the general ideas of testing enabled me to get everyone in my company to use the same terms and models, so we all could at least communicate intelligently with each other about what testing meant to our projects.
Secondly, unlike (I presume) some of the other testing certification tests argued against in James' presentation, only one third of the CSTE test is multiple choice. The other two thirds are what I would call “long answer” and “longer answer (essay)”. I believe this refutes the argument that a CSTE only proves that a student can regurgitate information. The "short answer" and essay sections force the tester to think about testing problems and allow him or her to demonstrate skills in attacking a testing problem. This, I think is closer to the type of certification that James proposes of peer reviews, but on a more practical level where more testers can participate.
Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, is the fact that the CSTE encourages growth in the field by requiring recertification. 120 documented hours are required to be submitted every three years to demonstrate that the tester has been attending conferences or classes, speaking or writing about testing, or otherwise participating in the field. I know that especially for someone like myself who was confined to testing one product one way for five years, this maintenance requirement was motivation for both me and for my superiors to allow me to get outside my cubicle walls and find out what other testers were learning, writing, and practicing on their projects, making me a continually better tester.
In conclusion, while the CSTE certification is not perfect, I believe it is not worthless either, nor harmful to the software testing industry in and of itself. I would not be the tester I am today without the foundation that its common body of knowledge has given me. I also feel that its emphasis on free-form questions allowed me to prove myself adept at solving given testing problems, and the maintenance it requires has given me and my employers further incentive to pay for classes, conferences, and tutorials that have furthered my knowledge and stature in the testing field.
One of the most controversial and discussed topics at the recent conference for the Association for Software Testing (CAST) focused on James Bach’s keynote address entitled “Against Certification”. Much debate followed the presentation and while I am by no means in the same league as James or some of the other testing professionals who debated him that day, I would like to present my own experience in acquiring and maintaining the CSTE certification, and why I think it is a valuable tool for testers to have.
I started my career in 2000, as an intern for a dot com in Los Angeles. The reason I am a tester today is because that company bought SilkTest and nobody else there had the time or inclination to learn it, so they gave it to the intern. Then they said, “By the way, come up with a Test Plan for our website and tell us how to execute it.”
That’s my brief history of how I got into testing (besides the part where I decided I actually liked doing it!). Fast forward to my first full time job in 2001 at a small software shop in Chicago where I’m given a similar situation. “We just bought Test Director and WinRunner. Develop a test process here because we don’t have one.” Naturally, like any student with no teacher, I went out and started browsing every piece of information I could find on QA, QC (I didn’t even know the difference then), and software testing. What I found was two organizations that gave me the training I needed to build a testing process from scratch without anyone else to guide me. These were SQE, representing the fee-based testing classes, and my local QAI chapter, the Chicago Quality Assurance Association (CQAA), representing the free forum where I was able to meet like-minded professionals and learn about the CSTE certification.
Many of those who debated James at CAST promoted certification as establishing a “baseline” of testing knowledge upon which new testers could build a broader knowledge of the testing field. Having been one of those new testers, I know that I was desperately seeking out that baseline, and organizations like SQE and QAI were able to provide me with that so I could speak coherently and have some basis of thought about what testing software entails.
I assert that the CSTE certification is worthwhile for at least three reasons.
First, it attempts to unite testers under the same body of knowledge so we can at least speak the same language. On this, I will concede James’ point that there is not a universal consensus on the body of knowledge, but I do believe that the CBOK contains practices that while not applicable in every context, have worked before in many real world scenarios, including my own. This basic understanding of the general ideas of testing enabled me to get everyone in my company to use the same terms and models, so we all could at least communicate intelligently with each other about what testing meant to our projects.
Secondly, unlike (I presume) some of the other testing certification tests argued against in James' presentation, only one third of the CSTE test is multiple choice. The other two thirds are what I would call “long answer” and “longer answer (essay)”. I believe this refutes the argument that a CSTE only proves that a student can regurgitate information. The "short answer" and essay sections force the tester to think about testing problems and allow him or her to demonstrate skills in attacking a testing problem. This, I think is closer to the type of certification that James proposes of peer reviews, but on a more practical level where more testers can participate.
Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, is the fact that the CSTE encourages growth in the field by requiring recertification. 120 documented hours are required to be submitted every three years to demonstrate that the tester has been attending conferences or classes, speaking or writing about testing, or otherwise participating in the field. I know that especially for someone like myself who was confined to testing one product one way for five years, this maintenance requirement was motivation for both me and for my superiors to allow me to get outside my cubicle walls and find out what other testers were learning, writing, and practicing on their projects, making me a continually better tester.
In conclusion, while the CSTE certification is not perfect, I believe it is not worthless either, nor harmful to the software testing industry in and of itself. I would not be the tester I am today without the foundation that its common body of knowledge has given me. I also feel that its emphasis on free-form questions allowed me to prove myself adept at solving given testing problems, and the maintenance it requires has given me and my employers further incentive to pay for classes, conferences, and tutorials that have furthered my knowledge and stature in the testing field.