Summary:
Jon
Hagar writes that testers need to thoroughly understand what
certification is all about. As a profession, we need to understand what
these pieces of paper mean, the promises they can keep, what they may
lead to, and some reasonable expectations for them.
When
I started developing and testing software in the late 1970s, there were
two kinds of technical staff: “hardware people” and “software people.”
Perhaps we had a few other labels like hardware engineer, programmer,
and software engineer, but in practice, there were only two kinds.
In my first job in computer programming and while I
was still in school, I was a junior business analyst, systems person,
programmer, data analyst, and tester. I did it all (under strict
supervision and mentoring). We did not have titles and divisions, such
as someone being referred to as a “tester.”
In my second “programming” job and after completing
a degree, not quite two years later, I think I might have been called
software engineer, but nobody was too sure what that was, and my main
task was performing structural testing of code. I learned testing (and
programming) from the first generation of software people. Most of us
had college degrees, but not everyone had formally gone to school, and
our degrees were in things like math and physics. We programmed. We
tested. We learned. We read the few books on the subject (e.g., Elements of Style, Programming in FORTAN, and the Art of Software Testing). We did not worry about titles or labels—much.
In the thirty-plus years since, the industry has
evolved. It is not clear to me if this evolution is entirely a good
thing, but it probably contains a mix of both pluses and minuses.
Overall, things have improved to some degree.
Enter TestingThe first
generation of testers has retired; some are still alive. Those of us who
became the second generation have aged and started thinking about how
we can improve the pluses of our industry. We have worked to place more
education into colleges and in our professions. Items like the IEEE
SwEBOK (software engineering book of knowledge) appeared with defined
terms for software testing. College programs in software engineering
were developed, and during the 1990s and 2000s, hundreds of college
classes on software testing became available.
Additionally, IEEE and ISO standards were created
in software, systems, and testing, although companies used such
standards with mixed results. The industry went from worrying about just
creating software to producing “good enough” software. The standards
that were developed recognize the value of testing.
Conferences in software testing appeared, some of
which live on today, and education in software testing became readily
available. We even have established associations, such as the
Association of Software Testing (AST).
At the same time as these across-the-board
improvements in information about testing, there has been a second
track: an explosion in certificates, certification, and even college
degrees with a focus on testing. I find that explosion surprising and,
perhaps, a bit puzzling.
I have to ask “Does knowledge from a skill list
(from a book or standard), degree, certificate, or certification mean
that you are a good tester?” “Does a well-practiced test skill mean
that you are a good employee?”
Unfortunately, the answer to both of these
questions are “no.” This has led to confusion and debate in the test
industry with people expecting great things just because a person has
one of these “pieces of paper.” A practiced skill should not be confused with a piece of paper. Pieces of paper come in a variety of forms, as defined here:
- Certification (including testing)
- Certificate (academic meaning you passed a specific class or test)
- Degree (academic meaning you passed a series of classes in a program of classes)
There is a debate, even a passionate argument, about these “pieces of paper” in software testing.
Does having any of these mean you have a skill?
Pretty much anyone in any industry would answer “no,” since most of
these are focused on knowledge. You must practice with knowledge to have skill. You must learn and grow. What these pieces of paper mean to me are that you have an interest and have shown some ability to learn.
This is true in almost every profession and activity. For example, you
can read books on snow skiing. You can pass tests of knowledge about
skiing. But until you try to practice skiing, by doing it, you have no skiing skill. In fact, for most people skiing practice takes years or a life time to get to be a good (aka, expert) skier.
As a profession, we need to understand what these
pieces of paper mean, the promises they can keep, what they may lead to,
and what are some reasonable expectations for them. Each of these
pieces of paper has a plus side and a minus side. For example, a degree
means that you can learn to someone else’s expectations of knowledge,
but on the minus side many people with degrees (some Ph.D. students that
I’ve known) think they have skill and know it all.
A
similar situation exists for people that get certifications or
certificates. Further, each piece of paper may have the benefit of
exposing the student to knowledge and learning. However, the bad side is
this: once people think they know something, they often become
close-minded, which is bad.
What to DoAs an industry, we
should define the knowledge base, skills, styles, etc., as a move
forward. These should be done by the different philosophies (aka,
schools) of testing. These will become the basis for people to learn,
practice, and develop. It is not good to call people “zombie” testers,
say that a standard is “toxic,” or critique degree programs unless you
have a solid alternative, can demonstrate with experimental information
and data when these statements are true, and engage in meaningful dialog
about improvement in the industry.
Next, just because a person has a certification, a
certificate or degree, does not mean that I expect much from that
person. For example, a person with a degree in massage therapy can help
some minor medical ailments, but I am not going to expect of this person
nor bash them because they cannot do brain surgery. I would not expect
my son the medical student (with many degrees behind him) to be a brain
surgeon either.
Each philosophy group in testing needs to work on a
knowledge and skill list, a path of progression, specific development
paths, as well as practice activities to get software testers to
progress. As a hiring manager, I have used the pieces of paper as a
quick filter on reading resumes. Once I found people I liked, I would
talk to them and see where they were in their practice of software
testing and where they wanted to go. If they had passion for the
practice of testing and some skill, I’d hire them. If they told me they
knew it all and what I was doing was somehow “wrong,” I usually did not
hire them—but might have in some rare cases. If they did not want to
practice and only wanted a job, I definitely did not hire them.
For many companies and hiring managers, degrees, certificates, and
certifications play a role in getting a job; so many testers may want to
get such pieces of paper to aid themselves in finding gainful
employment. However, I encourage you should not to read added value into
a simple piece of paper, especially since testing is a professional
practice to be worked on for many years.
My goal today was not to settle the discussion, but
to stoke it while setting some expectations for civil discourse.
Remember, our profession is maturing, but it is not mature. Let’s keep
talking.
http://www.stickyminds.com/article/certification-or-something-it
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario