Comments(1) As a former college student — one who’s applied to some of the colleges on the list — I’m appalled by the RIAA’s legal tactics. It’s too much for me to sum up, and (apparently) it’s too little for our legal system to care about. See what you think.
(Yes, this was from a Slashdot article, but the RIAA’s lengthy track record makes this more likely news, and less likely FUD.)
Comments(11) Today marks to date of the Association for Software Testing’s debate on Certification. It was a glorious day, and I believe it deserves some remembering.
To provide full discloser — something I’d like to see more in the industry — I, as of now, am the sole developer on the OpenCertification project. I endorse the project as well as contribute to it. I have a bias.
To my dismay, only about nine audience members (plus or minus two) showed up to participate in the debate. The goal was to have a discussion comparing and contrasting current and future certifications in the software testing industry.
Representing each of the certifications were as follows, in no particular order:
The format was structured in a morning of presentations and an afternoon of debate.
My take on the morning’s presentations:
IIST and QAI seem to have great models for certification — at least, as good as you can get for knowledge based certifications. As far as I can tell, it seems that both IIST and QAI have put a lot of thought into how they certify. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, like ASTQB below, it seems their content is lacking (I’ll get to this in a second).
The ASTQB presentation was considerably troubling. I was not able to discern the value of this certification as described by the presenter. The only thing I took away from it — remember my bias and human fallibility when I say this — is that the ASTQB certification helps keep personal training in the minds of those being certified. That’s it. Although this may be a good thing for those involved, I think it misses the meaning of certification within the industry.
The OpenCertification presentation and the academic presentation said a lot of things that I believe and would (do) encourage. Since I’ve already made my bias clear, there’s no need for me to toot my own horn. (Note however, that there was some debate on a conflict of interest between the certification debate and AST’s sponsorship of the OpenCertification project. I have no details on this sponsorship, and I believe there is a discussion on its implications already in place.)
The real meat of the debate came when the audience was asked to participate. This was only allowed during the afternoon session, as only clarifying questions were allowed during presentations.
In order to stay objective and not blame or belittle those who made comments, the following is a self-recorded (by hand), non-official, and non-complete transcript of my experience of the afternoon debate, with all quoter names stripped from the record. All quotes are provided from the presenters representing IIST, QAI, and ASTQB (they were the only presenters who surprised me), and all questions are provided from one or more audience members.
Q: [Some of the presenters] previously mentioned that each certification was their own standard created to better the industry. In what way would you call these standards “competing standards,” and how do you think this competition may segment the industry? This is question is for all presenters.
Here’s the interesting quotes I received:
“We are each a standard, yes, but we have full agreement within our bodies of knowledge. We are each filling a niche that needs to be filled.”
“I would agree with [the previous presenter]. We are in full agreement within our bodies of knowledge.”
“We are not competing standards. We agree, and are of benefit to each other.”
[Some time passed.]
Q: I was not aware that there was an agreement between the bodies of knowledge within each certification — if there is, I think these agreeing bodies of knowledge will greatly benefit the industry. What way do you think is the best way to promote this agreement? I see it as a conflict of interest to say, “We agree with [that certification over there], but you should take our certification anyway.” What is your take on that? This question is for all who want to answer.
“I don’t think any of us want to answer that question.”
[There was some sifting for answers here.]
“We have agreement, and we show it on our website. Our certification allows courses from [other certifications], and it’s on our website because we want to promote the benefit to the industry.”
“No, I’d guess it’s on your website because it’s a great marketing campaign. I didn’t think of that [for our certification]. We may use that.”
[After pressure from the audience increased: ]
“We’re in it for the money.”
“Ya.”
“I agree.”
Q: How do your certifications assess those who take it?
[There was some discussion.]
“If you sit in front of me in the class room, why do I need to put a question in the [certification] test? I have taught you. I have taught you and you have learned it.”
Q: I’ve worked at [Company X] and [Company Y] for about six years, and both companies are well respected within the industry. It doesn’t seem like any of the well respected companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, Adobe, Amazon, etc. even pay attention to these certifications. In other words, it doesn’t seem like people with real experience care. Who is your target audience for these certifications?
“People who are currently looking for a job, and can’t find one. Also, people who are unsure if testing is the profession for them.”
“If you’re the type of person who learns from reading a book, I would recommend not being certified because it would be a waste of your time.”
Q: How does your certification program allow for inclusion of new techniques within its body of knowledge?
[The above question was hard for the audience member to ask, because the audience member was interrupted frequently. During the interruption, techniques such as exploratory testing and model based testing were mentioned. Tension increased.]
“Exploratory testing is an ad-hoc process, and is a simple technique.”
“Our courses teach every technique on earth about exploratory testing! It is so basic, it is in the basic course requirements!”
[Remember: There's full agreement between each certification's body of knowledge. Right...]
“I don’t see why you’d want any new techniques within a certification. What new techniques have we had in the last 30 years?”
“If I wanted to teach model based testing in a course within my certification training, I don’t have to get approval from the board because model based testing is not within the body of knowledge.]
“Putting model based testing in the body of knowledge would be a dumb thing to do.”
[This caused great tension.]
Q: So if we haven’t had any new ideas in 30 years, then who could possibly come up with a new idea???
“Glenford Myers.”
[This was not a joke. The presenter was serious when he said this!]
[End.]
I don’t know about you, but I’d really like you to take a good look at the current certifications in software testing, and in related software engineering fields. I believe that every certification (excluding OpenCertification) lost much credibility during this tutorial. My only wish is that more people were there to see it.
In my sole opinion, as a member of an industry that so badly wants to speak for itself: This was a great day for software testing. Whatever your take is on certification — either for it, or against it — there is no doubt that this debate was helpful to the industry.
A big thank you goes out to all who were involved.
Comments(2) Have you ever had one of those times where you say, “Wow, I actually feel like part of the gang?” Ya, I had mine a few days ago at WHET.
WHET stands for the Workshop on Heuristic and Exploratory Techniques, and was recently held at Quardev Laboratories in Seattle, Washington. The topic was Boundary Testing, a look at how exploring boundaries could lead to rich, interesting bugs.
WHET is a peer conference modeled in the popular LAWST style that seems to be overtaking the industry. The conference is made up of a selected group of 15 to 20 people, each tasked with sharing their experiences with the rest of the group. Although this was the sixth peer conference I’ve been to — which, in my opinion, is a good record for my ripe old age of 22 — I didn’t feel like I totally belonged.
My role, in all it’s glory, felt like a student’s role. I just graduated (so I wasn’t actually a student), but I didn’t have the rich cache of experience the others did. Because of this, I couldn’t confidently sit with the group of attendees and say “Ya, I’ve had those experiences too.”
Throughout the workshop, we talked extensively about boundaries, and argued all the different ways you can think of them, express them, find them, and value them. I was overwhelmed with the mass of information presented to me, and I didn’t know how to take it all in. Because I had little experience, I opted toward staying quiet.
Boy, was this the wrong idea.
While listening to every bit of discussion that I could wrap my mind around, I silently came up with these insights. Some of these are abstractions from the material presented, others are my own. All are up for debate.
I was planning on staying quiet until end of the workshop, but I was forced to talk on the very last day. Rob Sabourin, the co-content owner of the workshop, asked me to give the group my perspective in the very last lightning talk. He wanted to “end it with something cool.”
I wanted to tell Rob that my perspective wasn’t going to be great. I wasn’t nervous, but I didn’t think my experience would be that useful. Heck, I barely understood half of what was said throughout the workshop. What use could it be?
To my own surprise, I was given the “ooh” and “ah” version of a standing ovation. They loved it. This group of experienced people actually had use for what I had to say, and then thanked me for contributing my perspective!
This felt like a huge coming of age. I was a student when I came into the workshop, and was a useful contributor when I came out. A huge hurdle had been jumped over. I overcame a boundary.
This boundary was unknown to me. It was imaginary, and was hindering my ability to contribute to the group. The problem was, I decided not to test it — I decided to stay quiet, and simply fit into the role I thought I was bound by. My own self confidence stopped me from being what I wanted to be.
Thank you Rob, for helping me overcome that.
Update, 7/11/07: There’s someone else who’s actively trying to break the student barrier for me, and I believe he deserves credit here as well. Jon Bach, the other co-content owner of WHET, has intentionally tried to treat me as a member of the group (instead of a student) and has actively encouraged others to do so as well. If there’s any indication of what it’s like to attend a peer workshop, this would be it. Thank you Jon.
