Are you part of the faceless masses?

I was on my way home the other day when I happened to talk to a woman who works in HR in some consultancy company. We were talking about how to get oneself hired to a company and how to be one step ahead of the other applicants. With recent discussions with James Bach in my pocket I became challenging her claims about employing oneself and best practices thereof.

What she suggested was that by certifying one can have an advantage in the job market. If one is not certified there is no knowing what the person can or can’t do, right? Certification is the first gateway to rule out incompetent testers, right? I had some thoughts about this prior to talking to James but some of the arguments that I had been using were lacking momentum. James gave me some golden thoughts in how to be one step ahead of the cattle of unskilled certified testers (I believe that if skilled they will see that the certification will not get them employed).

Certified terminology

Certification by name certifies a certain characteristic of a person, object or organization. It is not comprehensive but directed to a specific area. It can be achieved by passing an audit, an examination, a course of some kind, to name a few. Certification is not to certify the skill of doing something but the knowledge of some fashion. It can be of terminology, syntax, operating system details, etc. None of these, however, point toward the skill of doing something.

The certification where you get certified by defining a set of terms is quite usual. You get the information from books and then you take the test, usually multiple-choice examination to ease the assessment process. You can basically get a certification by guessing the right row of answers, having a list of those answers achieved by cheating, or by memorizing a set of terms. Because the test doesn’t aim to assess the understanding of those terms the value of it is quite minimal.

As terminology changes from company to company, from context to context, we do not need to memorize a set of terms and apply them by force. We need to understand the meaning behind the terms we use and to explain them. Then, if conflicting with the other terms within that context, the use of terms must be adjusted. If you say “testing” and mean “systematic evaluation of the quality of the system using various techniques applicable to the context”, and the organization uses “uggabugga” for that same meaning and “testing” for coffee tasting, it might be good to adjust the use of terminology for that context. If you just keep using the term taught to you by some book somewhere, you will drive yourself unto a cul-de-sac of misunderstanding.

Proving skills and standing out

The testing certification provided by ISTQB is a good example on how certify a tester without any skills to actually test. It is a book examination, essentially. More so, there is a course aiming to pass the test. I’m not going to talk about the syllabus at all, but about the skills taught at the course, or the lack thereof. The certification doesn’t aim in proving skills of the tester. A tester with no experience in testing can go to the certification examination and pass before doing any testing at all.

A recruiter going through applications for a job look for something that might look for certifications as a proof of skill. When confronted by a certification that by nature does not measure skills but the knowledge of terminology (which obviously is the wrong way to go) the recruiter might confuse the person having skills. This is not to say that the applicant doesn’t have skills, they might very well have a huge set of skills, but they are not the characteristics that get you to the interview.

“If you don’t get to the interview then you cannot show your skills. That is why I use the certification to get to interviews!” I hear you. Read more.

Rising over the masses

The recruiters have a hard decision in determining who to call to interviews and who not. They look for something that stands out! You might think that a certification gets you the interview. Stop there for a moment. How many other applicants you think do the same thing? How many of the 500 applicants to a Test Engineer job have the exact thought of having a certification as a ticket to interview? 50? 100? 450? This obviously depends, but think this: The certification makes you part of a mass of people. By using a generic way to stand out, you’re “massifying” yourself – you become part of a gray mass that doesn’t stand out in any way.

Like I asked in the beginning, “Certification is the first gateway to rule out incompetent testers, right?” it actually is so. But it not a gateway only to rule out incompetent testers, it is there to rule out incompetent recruiters. A person without proper testing knowledge, skills and passion does not know how to recruit a good tester. He may know a little and thus relies on the magic of certification, at least a little. Even the most unqualified recruiter is looking for SOMETHING to make the call who to call to the interview. By having 90% of the applications look the same, they have a hard time deciding. The gateway works so that it rules out the certified testers and leaves those that have the spark, the passion and the skill. Do you want to be the one getting the interview or be ruled out because “you don’t have the spark”?

First thing recruiters see is the application. We are force-fed the template from recruitment agencies and we use that. We are afraid to be different and difference is what you should be aiming for! Instead of creating a dull list of what you can do and schools you’ve been to, do something else! Write a bug report where you describe your behavior and characteristics. Do an interview of yourself and post it like a newspaper column. Send them a video of you testing a product while explaining what you’re doing. I could go on and on! Be outrageous, but professional. The point is to make a statement. Send a filled template and you’re doomed.

Conclusions

When I had explained myself to the HR person on my way home, she said: “Well you’re obviously a guru, so you don’t need a certification.” That is not correct, although I briefly basked in admiration. I’m not a guru any more than the next guy. I have passion and I’m not afraid to show it! I have goals and I’m not afraid to tell them! I have a hard built reputation as a tester and I'm not afraid to promote it! (Maaret might say “He’s cute when he rambles.”)

Every single tester can be a professional, and they should. Every single tester can apply to a place where they want to work and get employed, and they should. Be ambitious, be excited, be passionate. And show it. Don’t fall into marketing trap and be part of the mass – be you!

And get refining that CV right now!

The magic medallion of testing - summary of a keynote by Rex Black

This is a summary about Rex Black’s keynote about Testing and Quality management at Nordic Testing Days 2012. This was the first keynote on the second day. People were still tired from the evening activities and some even skipped the keynote altogether. I was keen to see Rex’s track as I had some… opinions about ISTQB and the certification system as a whole. So, to be there and be able to challenge him was an opportunity I didn’t want to miss.

On Monday we had "argued" with Rex about metrics and coverage. Rex commented Sami Söderbloms statement about not measuring coverage by giving an example. The discussion went something like this: “With all things being equal, the first tester returns his test report with 90% coverage and another with 15% coverage. Which one would you trust more?” Rex commented. I raised my hand (the inner voice screaming "Me, me, me! Let me answer!". Sami then said that I could answer the question. I tried to question the true coverage by asking about what has been found. Rex replied by pleading to the all-things-being-equal statement. All things that were found were supposed to be equal (so as important bugs, issues, etc.) “But all things are never equal in software testing”, I said. Later I realized that if all things were equal, how can there be a difference in the coverage?

If we have all things equal, isn’t the coverage supposed to be equal too? If two clone testers are put to test a product in exactly the same way, don’t they both produce the same amount of coverage in any way you measure? Change anything and all things are not equal. So if in an all-things-being-equal-situation we have difference in coverage, our model to measure testing might be faulty, the person interpreting the results may be biased, etc. So how can one make an example from a situation that is faulty by default?

The keynote however began with Rex warning about using the c-word (coverage) and the m-word (metrics). I immediately knew this wasn’t going to be pretty. ;)

Rex gave a few cases where a manager was oblivious about the need for skilled testers. One manager had supposedly said something like this: “The requirements of a tester: heartbeat, respiration.” That struck home right then. I knew these managers and product owners exist! I had been in a project where the solution to testing was “ask people around if they have the time”. I then asked around and gathered as good a bunch of people I could find… and I tried to train them to be adequate testers. Some became good testers, some didn’t, but I had a team.

Feels like the requirements for a tester in fact are the aforementioned heartbeat and respiration. In some cases, though, also a certification might be squeezed. If we find a tester with a certification, one has to be a good tester! Right? Rex mentioned in the talk (which I already knew from previous experience with the ISTQB) that people who certify themselves with the foundation level certification do not need any skills from testing before the certification. It is “an entry-level certification”, Rex says. So how come people with no skills are certified as testing professionals? This leads to a situation where unskilled, untalented testers that look better to managers than people with REAL skills and attitude towards testing. I that what it is suppose to be doing?

The certification thing got me so winded up that I almost missed the rest of the keynote while trying to douse my building rage. (Just kidding! ;) ) Rex had some good thoughts about how to veer the Agile testing more towards intelligent testing – away from “Unit testing + Acceptance testing = Proper testing” an more towards testing throughout the life cycle. Automated testing is there only to support manual testing*. Usually Agile testing is a Waterfall within the Agile cycle where testing is done at the end of the cycle (if we have the time). Testing earlier, reviewing the deliverables in time and early enough, challenging designs, etc. – not just automating unit tests.

Rex also talked about the cost of bugs, but there was no ground breaking new information about that. I have read that from the ISTQB syllabus a while ago. And I still believe that counting bugs and measuring them against each other will lead into biased view that “all bugs are equal”. James Bach said it well once that “bugs should be thought as unicorns” How many unicorns fit into a cubicle? Two?) How many bugs are in a product? I know this is generalization from Rex’s part but I think it dangerous to make such claims as (like I mentioned earlier about the decision-making skills of a manager**) people WILL make the tools out of the metrics to compare PEOPLE against each other. "I found 4 bugs and he only found 3. I'm better, right?"

Rex also talked about the quality management. He mentioned that good testing doesn’t make good quality in its own. I agree. We need to be able to start making good quality from the top, starting with directors. We also need to be able to improve the processes, tools, skills and communication to make better quality. We can do it all the time while we work by challenging bad behavior and encouraging good behavior.

Anyway, I feel that the foundation level certification is not currently building the community towards good testing. It has become a magic medallion that is bought from the wandering gipsy saleswoman. And when the kings and queens see the medallion they say “This must be a skillful knight as he has the Badge of Knighthood”. And yes, the medallion is bought, not earned. The training courses for the foundation level solely aim to give answers to the exam questions. They do not encourage people to learn, but to memorize (the worst thing is that they might say that one doesn’t need this information in practice). Rex said that when his consultancy company holds these courses they focus on practical use of the things trained. I wish I could once attend one of his company’s courses to see how it is done.*** The whole certification issue might need a blogpost of it's own, but it will have to wait. Some people have already covered that for me.****

You might get a message that I didn’t like Rex or his keynote. I did in fact, and I encourage all of you to read Rex’s blog and the books he has written. I don’t say I agree with all he writes but they give you a lot to think about. Rex as a person is (to me) "a happy giant"*****. What I liked most about him is that he really listens to what you have to say. We had inspiring conversation with Rex after the keynote although I challenged him about the ISTQB. I hope to hear him talk again at some other event. And I was bummed that he couldn't join my workshop... :(


*) And to build confidence, some say. But, like Michael Bolton said in the Rapid Software Testing course: “Were not in the confidence building industry – we’re in the false confidence demolition industry!”
**) Says a guy who spent two years as a test manager and is currently a maintenance manager deputy.
***) Do you dare to invite me to a course, Rex? ;)
****) Jari Laakso's post http://jarilaakso.blogspot.fi/2012/02/test-is-dead-vs-istqb-kills-people.html
*****) He's like 7 feet tall.

Thoughts about ISTQB Advanced level certification course and exam

I got a permission to enter the ISTQB Advanced level Certificate - Test Manager course and to apply for the certificate. It is a course provided by Finnish company called FC Sovelto that is used to replace the former Intermediate and Practitioner level certificate by ISEB. It's been a year since my former certificate exam of foundation level. Since then I have had plenty of opportunities to assess the pros and cons of certification.
The course provides coaching for the certification exam. The exam can be taken without the course and I'm sure plenty of people who take the exam do not go to courses especially if they're paying the whole thing themselves.

So, what can this certificate give me? What are the gains in professional level? How does my company benefit from me getting a cert? How does my future get brighter if I get the cert? What benefits can I achieve by going to the prep course? There are many questions and the answers for an exploratory extrovert tester like me aren't always the ones I'm liking to hear.

How does a company benefit from someone to certificate themselves as a test manager? My first thought is "No how" 'cause it's only a certificate - a piece of paper with a watermark on it and a fancy signature. How could a company benefit from sending an employee to a course that might be paid by the company (and it cost a whopping lot!) and it may cause the company to check the salary of the certificated person? They're all expenses to the company! On the other hand is it worthy to encourage people to pay for their own certification? That way there is no direct expenses to the company.

So how does the certification show in companies that have them? In reality (or at least in my reality) the certification of an employee is a great benefit in a company as a whole. The certificate in itself is a great achievement. In competition situation the company can have a trump card and say "we have a fully certificated test team and test management" by which they can sell better quality (this means they must reach the set bar). This is also important to the image of the company because there is someone in the ranks who know the standards and principles of the industry (though artificial they may be). Some client can even have the certification as a requirement for the deal to be closed. I.e. Microsoft certificates are mandatory on some projects for some clients, so why can't a testing cert be (somewhere in future).

The other angle is pure craft. How can the skills and knowledge of an individual affect on a corporate level? When company acquires more knowledge and skill it increases the "skill capital" or the "skill pool". The know-how not present in company must be attained from other sources like contractors, or the job the skill was required for was carried through with present know-how with might have resulted in low quality or undesirable resuts. Certificate training support the acquisition of the skills and the certificate is a document to prove that the requirement for those skills are met. (Some may argue that the certificate is nothing but a proof of capabilities to learn litany of test vocabulary. They can have their opinion if they can make a good argument about it.) Does it provide skill it the course only aims to pass the exam? How can you be sure that the course provides the skill not a lithany? These kind of thing are worth to take into consideration when deciding whether to attain the course or not.

Third point of view is both corporate and personal. Like every testing event the course is a great opportunity to make contacts. The word about your company gets spread around and the person attaining the course gets to meet other test spirited people from other companies and domains. This can lead into cooperation and contracting that can prove valuable for both companies. But most of all the testers can exchange thoughts and view about testing and test related stuff.

In conclusion on the corporate side, there are three things in certification (and the course) that can benefit a company: the image, the craft and the connections.

There are bad things in certification as in all good things. The image of the company may begin to transform into a rigid and standard-obeying corporation in some professional scenes and may hinder the acquisition of these kind of clients. More over the cert may lead into a rigid process model that trim out all exploratory spirit and drive people to an inflexible frame where there are no room for innovation or personal thought. These may not be accurate in any way but they are assumptions what may happen is a land slide is triggered. The testing processes can be agile and light (I’m not going to explain what is "agile" or "light") even though they are based in standardized processes.

On a personal level certification is harder assess in pros and cons. The con might be the box-thinking and veering towards a specific mind set. Certification might cause the tester to take pre-chewed (standardized) procedures and techniques as his own and forget all other. On the other hand not being certificated might mean you have to reinvent the wheel. My opinion is that the ISTQB certification should be considered as in "learning" the certification rather than "owning" the certification. Can one maintain freshness in ones thoughts while obeying the standards? Can one be separated from the limitations and restrictions brought by the certificate (are there any?) and all the while know the testing terms and standards on a certification level? Is the "main stream" a bad thing? Is the "counter stream" a good thing?

So what benefits does a certification give you? What disadvantage may it bring? The forthright benefit on personal level is the increase in personal skill in case you take part on the course and you do not already have the skills. If you know "everything" before the course and the exam the raise in skill is not relevant basis to acquire the cert. Disadvantages may also include the expenses the course and cert may cause especially if one does not pass the exam the first time.

How does the certification benefit ones career? How does it strengthen/weaken the position in company? The certification brings certain stability to one's position in company. It indicates that a person knows certain things and he has a document to prove it. If it is the industry standard (in one point of view) certification then its value is much increased. I won't describe any alternative certifications in testing industry 'cause I know so little about them, but what I’ve heard there are some certifications that are not ISTQB-related. Nevertheless the certification strengthens the position in company. The weakening of ones position is relevant only in cases where the certified person does not meet the standards of the certification in every day work. This means that the bar is higher than for the uncertified person. Certification also benefits the career in long term as a personal marketing tool. It may be the ticket to places where uncertified tester can not go (although who would want to go there? *wink*). in job interview the certification is a certain way to prove you have the skills and knowledge necessary. I won't go in detail into the pros and cons of certification in job interview but lets just say that its a double-edged-razor - certified may get labelled as box-thinking tester while uncertified are thought to be more fresh thinking. And just like in corporate side the contacts are the bread and butter of testing events. This benefits both the current situation and the future in form of scouting new job opportunities etc.

So, how do I get the most out of the certificate course and from the certificate itself (given that I pass the exam)? I strive to create as many a connection as possible in the event and to bring up the name of my company in every possible turn. I try to challenge the testers and to get as much testing info as possible. I also try challenge my own thought patterns against the ISTQB model and the other way round so that I don't lose the freshness and the awareness achieved from my work in exploratory testing. The more i question the things I hear the better I learn new thing. I get new points of view to things and I can also learn new thing to support my knowledge in testing in general. Maybe I think some of these ISTQB thing are good for keeps and I take them with me and use them where best suited.