Skip navigation.
Home » blogs » Ainars Galvans's blog

Tester titles/skills levels – what do they tell you?

Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Wed, 22/11/2006 - 16:24. general software testing | industry recognition | people issues
I want to discuss a topic seldom touched in this site. The recognition of a tester’s skills. There was quite a discussion on SQAForums about the best tester . The dilemma “who is best known not necessarily is the best at what they do“. I want however to recognize testers in our company who are the best at what they do and motivate others to become better at what they do. Also to hire those who are good or has a potential and willingness to be good at what they will do.
There is a formal activity designed to evaluate performance and productivity: performance reviews and there are tester titles/skill levels - also formality. I'm going to analyze them with this blog.

Experiences that caused me to talk about it
I’ve participated in describing the test levels (several times) and later improving them. I’m now a part of a special “working party“ (consisting of 2 persons) who is designed to approve each tester skill level change (increase). I’ve done a lot of performance reviews and was one of few persons in a company who found some value in that process other than following the corporate guidelines. And still I’m not happy about the processes I’m taking part in.

Details, examples, what’s wrong
For those who does not work in a large company with defined list of skill levels or positions – this is quite simple. They have list like functional tester, test engineer, QA analyst, etc. optionally complemented with advanced, specialist, expert. Each skill level has description typically including types of tasks and duties the person is capable of (optionally – typical tasks the person is supposed to perform).
I’ve never seen it include the evaluation of a “performance/speed”. I don’t mean diligence I mean ability to achieve the desired results with less effort. Testers are mostly problem solvers in my context. Skills not only determine which problems they could solve, but also – how fast. Suppose tester A is capable to solve 7 but tester B – 8 out of 10 problems, but it takes twice as much time for the tester B. If however tester A could solve the first 7 problems twice as fast as B he will have plenty of time to ask/search for solution for the last 3, while B will be left with 2
There are a lot of testing tasks that would take few times more effort for less skilled tester although each of them are capable to do it. Unfortunately there is also this vision of tester whose only task is to press buttons in certain sequence, so that the only skill you need to improve your performance is typing (typewriting) skill. It maybe the case in certain contexts like 100% scripted manual regression testing. It is fortunately not my context – I’m afraid I wouldn’t survive it.


The purpose of evaluating skill level?
I’m not against it. I know at least few good reasons having those skill levels evaluated:
- it evaluates testers usefulness for company and even help to decide the salary
- it makes a tester transition from one project to another (which happens quite frequently at least in my company) smooth – so the new boss knows what to expect from a tester and what tasks to give him
- it recognizes tester skills and show them path for further growth, especially taking into account that certifications are not among practitioners seen as skills recognition (which is also my attitude)

Skills in computer games (RPG)

I’ve used to play computer games a lot. RPG games was one of my favorite. The idea is to spend endless hours developing your character by killing monsters (well, there are also those quests, however). Killing brings experience which enables you to improve your skills. There are a lot of different skills in different disciplines like fighting: sword, dodging, parry, etc. Magic: fire, illusions, destruction, etc. etc. There are two basic needs for skills: 1) you are able to learn do certain actions (like specific spells) only once you skill is great enough 2) your efficiency (damage done on target, failure rate, how fast you got exhausted, etc.) at doing the actions increases as your skill increase.
Few games have only one of those two or are designed to make one of them more significant. I loved the most balanced ones. In those games one very experienced and correctly developed character is better that two less experienced or wrong developed, better than pack of little experienced and hundreds of novices.

What so specific about a tester
Tester credibility is issue number one. I’ve observed through 10 years of experience that once I earn credibility my performance improves as I don’t have to waste my time proving that I do the right things, especially when I follow context-driven methodology.
The issue number two is the wide variety of tasks functional tester is really supposed to do as tester is supposed to test any software written in any language following any architecture for any business.
For developer the main skill is the language, business analyst – business domain, designer – architecture type. For tester – generic skills in testing, analytical/critical thinking, communication documentation, etc.

I tend to think of a tester as a jack-of-all trades. And still there are a lot of place for specialization. In our company some areas of deeper specialization include performance testing, api-level, exploratory testing. Scripted black-box testing is never considered a specialization worth to mention – supposed as generic testing skill.
» Ainars Galvans's blog | login or register to post comments

Let me recall Darwin's theory of evolution

Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Tue, 28/11/2006 - 11:34.
It says the “beneficial mutations” are preserved because they aid survival - a process known as "natural selection." Animal instincts fight out the “beneficial mutations” omen. Humans have found ways to avoid a lot of survival issues (not all of them however), thanks god, the instincts are there within us however. It let us evolve yet. This instict is what I'm looking for in my team. But this is really far away from original topic.
Although I love and respect my parents and know how much they have done for me, I still remember they were against me selecting IT path. I like my decision, although I never know what would an alternative. This is what I learned from my parents – I’m the person whose appreciation I should value most. Otherwise I can’t become the beneficial mutation. But I must evaluate myself on a regular basis. But I want my company and my boss to recognize me as the beneficial mutation and value in terms of money and support me by assignments where the mutation is beneficial.
It is again a separate story about mutations VS standards/procedures (such as ISO, CMM, IEEE, etc.)
» login or register to post comments

education or born with the desire?

Submitted by Erkan Yilmaz on Fri, 24/11/2006 - 13:37.
Hello Ainars,

thank you for your updates.
I will be waiting for your final feedbacks then.


I like to think that he is actually appreciating my skills and optionally luck in doing the job. This motivate me to further develop my skills


Perhaps I am going now too much out of the posting-context:
But isn't this what we all do since our birth? Longing that we see this appreciation in the eyes of the beloved ones?

As child we are dependent on our parents: they feed us, protect us.
They educate us and of course we try to serve them best (at least until a certain period :-) )
While we grow up, we see their reactions on our different actions, which then directs us.
And I am sure their appreciation (or non-appreciation) of these actions lead us to where we are.
So, this is something what we learned/what we got used to.
So, it is normal, that we are searching for someone who "respects" us
And since work is a part of our lifes we try to apply our so far learned patterns also here (this is not only in context of relation empoyer and employee).

It's somehow like a dog:
it is eager to follow/company you. Read the commands/appreciations from your eyes - perhaps even knows these before you realize them yourself. And I am sure it would also die for you immediately, if you wish.


The question would be, are we born with this desire? Or this happens, because we get educated in this way?

CU, Erkan
» login or register to post comments

People VS Skills recognition

Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Thu, 23/11/2006 - 11:00.
Mike , just the same as you mostly are talking about personal recognition/appreciation. I’ve used to hear people talking about The Me since my victories on mathematical Olympiads for undergraduates. They looked at Me as a genius not a simple person with a certain skills. While in reality I’ve simply (during long hours through several years solving all the mathematical problems I was able to get) developed skills to solve those mathematical problems specifically created for Olympiads. I found later that this certain skill is useless in University. General thinking skill that was developed along was useful however.
So what I wanted to say? When my boss says to be “good job” what is he actually appreciating – my diligence and overtime, me as a person. He may dislike me as a person and think I’m lazy or whatever, but he know that I did the job on time, that’s what he appreciating. I like to think that he is actually appreciating my skills and optionally luck in doing the job. This motivate me to further develop my skills
» login or register to post comments

employee performance review and other clarifications

Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Thu, 23/11/2006 - 09:28.
I’m not expert on that so I suggest to simply Google "employee performance review". I do actually address this blog to those who have participated those reviews and there are a lot of them I believe.
It seems from rest of your question I have yet to learn to make myself clear enough. For example when you ask ” what do these testers think on this initiative? “ I could only answer “What initiative?” I’m talking about initiatives; I’m talking about my feelings with regards to my experiences. That’s what the whole story is about.
Also when I talk about tester as problem solver I actually refer to James Bach and means a wide “problem” (not a single software defect) – it’s more like a task (complex one, like “perform as good regression testing as you can within two days given that whole test suite takes weeks to execute”).
Note: those are only clarifications, actual answer to your comment is yet to be published. And thanks for such a detailed feedback
» login or register to post comments

how actually is this performance review done (no details yet)?

Submitted by Erkan Yilmaz on Wed, 22/11/2006 - 22:22.
Please see the following as a constructive way to help me understand. The told things are my opinion at this moment (with this certain info and my assumptions), I am willing to change my opinion.
Do you think I have enough said for safeguarding :-)


I want to discuss a topic seldom touched in this site. The recognition of a tester’s skills.

Actually recognition can be so simple – we just forget this too often: see here
http://www.testingreflections.com/node/view/4158

I think the recognition you mean is by the general public.
Who actually would want this? The tester itself or someone other than the tester.

I would think one reason a tester would want this is, when (s)he feels that this is needed.
But if I am happy, why would I care for this? These thoughts you can also read in the SQA-Forum post you mention.
An official recognition is probably desired, when someone wants the outside world to know his/her skills. If someone feels like the recognition is needed, probably the person itself is doing something wrong and/or probably did something wrong
OR the outside has a different (wrong?) viewpoint?
Then I guess communication is a good way, instead of recognizing skills companywide.



I want however to recognize testers in our company who are the best at what they do and motivate others to become better at what they do.

Actually what do these testers think on this initiative? By whom is this initiated? Testers itself, management, … And WHY is this initiated?


There is a formal activity designed to solve this issue: performance reviews and tester titles/skill levels.

Performance reviews? Sounds like measuring productivity  This is normally a not so good idea.
Do you have any example for this? Is this something like a “normal” review, where you review - instead of documents - the human?
How would this proceed? A person reviewing his performance solely first, thinking/accepting the reality and then discussing with others? What kind of standard will be used?



Experiences that caused me to talk about it
I’ve participated in describing the test levels (several times) and later improving them. I’m now a part of a special “working party“ (consisting of 2 persons) who is designed to approve each tester skill level change (increase).

Here I have a question: is also a decrease planned/wished?
I know a company, which has a very interesting corporate culture. Most of the people don’t have regular positions/titles/tasks. They do a certain role/thing/job for a period of time and then this changes, so that they do not stay in the same field too long. And this is welcomed by most of them. So, it can be that a project manager will be in a few months no more project manager and do completely other tasks.
The advantage of this is, that people get variety, they do not get deadlocked.


I’ve done a lot of performance reviews and was one of few persons in a company who found some value in that process other than following the corporate guidelines. And still I’m not happy about the processes I’m taking part in.

Can you tell more details about these performance reviews?


Details, examples, what’s wrong
For those who does not work in a large company with defined list of skill levels or positions – this is quite simple. They have list like functional tester, test engineer, QA analyst, etc. optionally complemented with advanced, specialist, expert. Each skill level has description typically including types of tasks and duties the person is capable of (optionally – typical tasks the person is supposed to perform).

Seems like everything is predestined 

I’ve never seen it include the evaluation of a “performance/speed”. I don’t mean diligence I mean ability to achieve the desired results with less effort.
So, you mean doing testing in an efficient way?
The thing about performance/speed evaluation is, that when doing this in general public, you need the right corporate culture, the right attitudes with the persons,…
Otherwise this will backfire very hard.


Testers are mostly problem solvers in my context.

At the moment I think, that testers are information collectors, but I guess everyone has his/her own ideas. We testers provide information on risks, if we also do problem solving: great. But we can’t do everything. We search for anomalies.
If you see it like: we solve following problems:
try to find the high-risky anomalies or to collect the best information,
then I also agree. :-)


Suppose tester A is capable to solve 7 but tester B – 8 out of 10 problems,
but it takes twice as much time for the tester B.
If however tester A could solve the first 7 problems twice as fast as B he will have plenty of time to ask/search for solution for the last 3, while B will be left with 2

Actually why do both testers think that there are only 10 problems? :-)





What so specific about a tester
Tester credibility is issue number one.
I’ve observed through 10 years of experience that once I earn credibility my performance improves as I don’t have to waste my time proving that I do the right things, especially when I follow context-driven methodology.

I would say the motivation and the attitude is the specific things about a tester and these influence her/his performance. Credibility is a result of these.
The credibility helps in a team, so that people do not argue about useless stuff, because the credible person is an authority and people trust him/her.
But I can say: my performance depends on my motivation and/or attitude.
If I am motivated and/or have the correct attitude, I will do my job good (whatever good now means  ). And then I earn my credibility automatically.



For tester – generic skills in testing, analytical/critical thinking, communication documentation, etc.
see also what others think of testing skills (also some videos available):
http://www.skilledtester.de/in-literature-2.html



I tend to think of a tester as a jack-of-all trades.

True. I even go further and say: that we all as babies/childs have this ability, but during the growing-up-period, we loose many of these abilities: http://www.testingreflections.com/node/view/4302


views appreciated,
Erkan YILMAZ
» login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.