ISEB Intermediate Certificate in software testing

This might be a bit too hot for some people to touch, but I wondered about the Intermediate Certificate in Software Testing that is now available from the BCS/SIGIST people.
I've done the foundation course and learned a few new things, however for me it was more about terminology and getting the piece of paper at the end. Without the foundation certificate I think it's unlikely to get a job in the UK in sofware testing although that is probably not true for every place.
I'm now wondering what the intermediate course gives me. Looking at the Syllabus most of the things there I already apply on a daily basis. There's always more to learn so I'm not saying I know it all. However I wonder if this certificate is something that is expected/will be expected from companies in the future or another course is just as valuable to employers. At the moment I have the feeling another course would be more beneficial to me.
I should add that I'm leading a QA team of 5 at the moment and that I'm doing more and more management instead of heads down testing.

Any comments appreciated!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rosie Sherry on January 21, 2008 at 7:37pm: From my perspective (and bear in mind I'm in a different situation), my preference tends to go towards learning *stuff* that is not strictly testing related. I've been testing for several years and do it as a day job - spending more time learning about testing is not on my agenda.

What I do like to do is go to talks or conferences that are technology related (usually on web stuff cause the web rocks) and are not in my specialist niche. I find I learn alot more from these scenarios and believe the help me test better.

I don't go after certifications anymore, (never have done, to be honest), and prefer to go for the *learning experience*. I don't personally feel that a certification will help me, but a big reason for that is that I work for myself. My clients don't care about them, they just care about getting a fab job done.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Atkinson on January 26, 2008 at 8:01pm: I have to confess that I haven't even got the ISEB foundation and I've been testing for 11 years, and I've never found that its absence has tainted my CV. I've also interviewed testers for many years and having an ISEB foundation does not necessarily make for a knowledgable or talented tester. In fact I haven't seen any correlation at all.

However... I have a number of testers who are completely new to the profession and I recognise that the ISEB is the best we have for the time being, and I'd like to encourage all those who work for my department to push themselves, so I'm thinking of sending them on a course, or better still, getting a trainer to Cambridge and run the course in-house. Does anyone know of any good courses or trainers?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jared Quinert on February 8, 2008 at 3:27am: David, when say that ISEB is the best we have, what are you comparing it to?

- Training testers yourself, so that they have the skills necessary to work in *your* environment to solve *your* problems?
- Having your testers be responsible for their own learning? (eg. reading books, talking about testing)
- Other certifications or training? (eg. Rapid Software Testing, Just in Time Testing, Black-box-software testing online, CSTP, which might only be available here in Australia)

Just wondering...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Baik on September 4, 2008 at 5:41pm: Can't recommend any courses as I've only ever been on one testing course (which to be fair was good - but too specific for your needs. It was one of Compuware's TestPartner courses).

But what about sending them to the quarterly SIGIST conferences? I'm going to the one on the 18th September, and I'll be attending the two workshops. It's the first one I've been to, so previous threads are probably a better indication of what they're like, but to me it seems that if you want to encourage your team to push themselves then going off to talks and being exposed to lots of new ideas and methods is a good thing.

p.s. Got an email yesterday. Apparently there are still workshop places for the Sept SIGIST. (£110 for the day, £100 if you're a BCS member. ); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Baik on September 8, 2008 at 8:46pm: Actually, I just realised that one of the best "testing" courses (that wasn't a testing course) I've done was part of my degree. I took a course in "Software Risk Assessment" from Martin Neil.

I'm still learning from it.

So I'd say - don't be afraid to sponsor your testers to learn things that don't necessarily have "test" in the name. One of the reasons I like testing is because I can apply so many other things...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by halperinko on January 28, 2008 at 8:42am: Is ISEB still the leading program in the UK?, or is it being switched into ISTQB as most of the world does?

There is a great advantage, in having a single program, with common terms, making some sense in the testing babillon.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jared Quinert on February 8, 2008 at 3:36am: Halperinko, how critical a problem is not having common terms? What percentage of your project time do you waste as a result?

In contrast, how much time do you waste because people can't map the term you use to a general software-testing concept?

I find lack of understanding of the critical aspects of testing is more of a problem than non-standard vocabulary. I encourage my testers to apply themselves to understanding and describing what they do before trying to learn a dictionary definition. I believe this, and developing and identifying testing skill, to be of more value.

That is, I can teach a thoughtful, competent, self-aware tester new terms for familiar concepts in an extremely short space of time. I can't teach them to test that quickly.

I'm also quite happy to have testers with different opinions, experiences and views. I don't believe at this point, with the body of knowledge covered by the main tester certifications, that it will adequately prepare testers for what I need them to do, or substantially enrich my test team. As David points out, there is little correlation between tester skill and ISEB/ISTQB certification.

Would you like to talk some more about the problems you feel ISEB/ISTQB solve for your organisation?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by halperinko on February 8, 2008 at 8:10am: Hi Jared,

I think that the foundation certification (as any other testing foundation course), should be used for basic introduction of new testers to the testing arena, giving them knowledge of basic terms, some introduction to main practices, and types of available tools.
This does not come instead of tutoring & practice, which will lead them into proper usage of these basics and more.
In that, I would prefer a certification course, as it was reviewed by a larger forum, and uses a common language - or at least what will eventually become a common language.

But sure - this is merely the 1st step, allowing newcomers to start investigating on their own, or with the help of their managers & colleagues as tutors.
They need to read articles, go to conferences to learn more views, and if possible go to more advanced courses - may it be as part of higher certification, or any other.

I have joined companies where no tester had gone to any test related course, and yes, I think they lacked basic knowledge, even the team leaders.
Tutoring is as good as the tutor abilities, and since it is not an organized form of training, things slip.
I also used BBST as an intermediate training method, till I can get a course to all my employees, though it does not pretend to tackle the whole scope of testing - and yes, maybe if there were video tutorials describing the missing parts out of ISTQB content, that would have been great.
One problem though, is that it is hard to verify that the group has actually learned the course in their "free" time - so after seeing that encourage is not enough, I had common viewing meetings, where we elaborated by discussing the topics shown in BBST.

I think common terms are crucial, especially when testing becomes a global task - many companies turn to off-shore & outsourcing these days, so proper communication is a must.

I see certifications, as a stage towards a more formal levels of education in testing & QA.
One that we as test managers should encourage.

Anyhow, this is far from my original question above.

Kobi; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill Matthews on January 29, 2008 at 1:57pm: Thomas,

The intermediate and practioner exams are designed to test learning at a higher level than the Foundation exam. Whereas the Foundation exam focused heavily on terminology and basic techniques, the higher level exams are designed to extend the basic techniques but "should" also encourage you to think critically about testing issues and evaluate approaches / techniques etc. So to my mind they are better ex ams / qualifications (I've done both the Foundation and the "old-style" Practioner level). I'd say that they are more aimed at the senior tester/team leader/manager level of staff and can be used as a part of a tester's career progression.

To be honest I don't really rate the Foundation level exam; I think you can pass the exam without really understanding how to test.

In terms of the job market, having the qualifications wont hurt your chances. I occasionally see roles advertised that prefer candidates with the Practioner level rather than the Foundation level although these tend to be for team leaders/managers/consultant type roles. If your company is willing to put you all through the courses then I'd go for it.

Also if you picked up some new knowledge in the Foundation course then you'll probably pick up some more in the Intermediate/Practioner courses. That is not to say that you can't pick up the knowledge in other ways or that obtaining the qualification will make you a better tester.

Regards
Bill Matthews; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dannyboy7 on February 11, 2008 at 10:05pm: Intermediate is supposed to be the stepping stone to Practitioner (whichever one you choose "Analysis" or "Mgt").

There appears to be only 1 sample paper.

New "Publication" is available from Sept 2008

The course doesn't seem to be available at some of the acreditted Training Providers in the midlands.

One said there was so little demand in the midlands!

The course cost varies from £900 to £1200 plus VAT; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Andrew Smith on September 4, 2008 at 9:20am: The new publication is now due 1st quarter 2009.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark Crowther on September 4, 2008 at 8:04pm: I and my team of consultants all have the ISEB Foundation in SWT and a couple of the other Foundation certificates (e.g. ITIL). The testing one is (was) weak when I did it but it was totally worthwhile.

It's become a great fashion to knock the ISEB/ISTQB certificates but they are useful. I think what we're forgetting is they're basic schooling and they don't make you an all-singing-dancing-juggling tester. For that you need experience.

Experience is gained in coming to places like this and discussing/debating, reading white papers and books, attending SIGIST, etc. and, you guessed it, working in testing.

Having the ISEBs as a foundation (geddit? ;) of formal schooling on which you layer experience makes absolute sense. I wouldn't become an accountant, architect, solicitor, driving instructor.... without formal schooling being part of my professional knowledge/experience base.

The 'get out' is the tester who is active in self directed study/community participation and who has gained valuable experience. Educational and experiential paths can lead to the same point so long as the tester has internalised the learning.

As it happens, NMQA where I work have a 'testing boot camp' that covers the basic concepts, design techniques, test types, artefacts, etc. Perhaps the new ISEBs will see folks up to our standards as it were but out in the market place it’s ISEBs, self directed study and experience that's needed. Just like other professions.

Mark Crowther; ▶ Reply to This