Question

Are certifications, such as ISTQB or CISSP, helpful or harmful in your career?

I haven't yet met anyone who admitted to being ISTQB certified, but I have worked with CISSP's (Certified Information Systems Security Professionals).

The anti-CISSP sentiment was expressed recently with the "Not a CISSP" badge at the RSA and DEFCON conferences. From the people I've worked with and interviewed, those with a CISSP certification often seem weaker in their skills than those not certified. I've met other hiring managers with similar opinions. I've heard criticism that the certifications are broad but not deep.

Answers to the related post seem to discourage certification.

Is certification actually harmful to your career?

Answer 1

Ah, certification. You ask if is it helpful or harmful? I'd answer -- none from these.

In 2008 I attended a South European Testing Conference in Sofia, Bulgaria. It was a good one to me having some great speakers in (well, couldn't say that for all unfortunately) including Mr. Rollison (Bj, your session was great indeed!).

So I thought I could use the chance to get certified (ISTQB) taking the exam at the end of the conference, however I first googled and read a lot of feedback. After that, I've never thought again on certifying. ;)

You can find a lot of posts where people share experience on certification. Here are two saying enough:

1. James Whittaker has a really good post here.

2. James Bach shares hmm .. an interesting conversation with the ISTQB executive director in the States.

Well, I'm still regularly updating myself on the subject. How? Anytime I see a certificate pointed in the tester's CV, I always ask the candidate on the interview about that. And I always get similar answers.

Yesterday for example, I asked a really good candidate about his Foundation level in ISTQB:

• What did that certificate give you?
• Ammm .. let me think. - he answered. - I think I found two new testing techniques I was not aware about before.
• Really? Do you remember which ones?
• Ammm, I'm afraid no, I don't remember.
• Okay, anything else?
• No, nothing else.

Well, hope this helps. ;)

-Konstantin

Answer 2

It seems analogous to getting any kind of degree. It changes the expectations of the degree of knowledge that a person should have. If a person is certified as a Foundation-level ISTQB tester, then the applicable syllabus is fair game in an interview. I've interviewed dozens of testers, and there are many salient topics that I don't ask them about because they haven't heard of them. With a certified tester, at least I can probe to determine his mastery of the subject. This is no different then asking someone who passed a physics course how well he understands the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If he never took a physics course, the question is not asked. The pitfalls noted by Michael Bolton may apply, but similarly, a person who takes a course in Fundamental Physics should not be foolish enough to think that the course will make him an expert in physics or that there is nothing more to be learned; if he does, the job seeker has done an interviewer a favor by broadcasting his ignorance. Exposing gaps in knowledge is valuable. Studying for the ISTQB test helped me narrow my gaps and made me a better tester.

Answer 3

Hi,

A few days ago, after just reading a bunch of blogs (and comments) on the perceived issues with the quality/content of the currently available certifications, I became aware of a posting in the LinkedIn group Software Testing and Quality Assurance. It was from a recruiter who had a ready-made shortlist of 50+ ISEB and ISTQ certified testers. The list was the result of a job he had done for a major Indian BPO looking to hire people to work in the UK.

In the light of my recent reading and as he obviously had screened the applicants for a certification I asked why he chose to do just that. I gave him a multiple choice question:

a) because you feel ISEB and ISTQ certification is truly reflecting the testing skills of your testers (i.e. they are certifiable so they must be good)?

b) because in your experience testers not holding a certificate probably are no good (i.e. they didn't even bother to get certified, or they failed)?

c) because filtering/focusing on people holding a ceritficate make the recruitment business easier (i.e. they are certifiable so they must be good)?

d) other...

He answered:

Hi Geir, I may be laying myself up for a beating but in my experience it's very rare to come across a competent tester who doesn't hold either the ISEB or ISTQB certificate (or the occasional CSQA).

To answer your specific question it's probably a mix of all three with a heavy emphasis on the first;

a) ISEB / ISTQB certification guarantees a certain level of competency in software testing. I simply don't have the wherewithal to conduct a full technical test on 50+ candidates but I can ask to see a certificate. I'll always favour candidates with a certificate that guarantees their basic ability to do the job in question.

b) Lack of certification is pretty rare in a professional tester. Certainly if someone claims to have 2-3+ years of relevant testing experience but no professional qualifications I would be instantly wary.

c) Like all recruiters I tend to follow the "path of least resistance" when it comes to recruiting. By screening by qualification I'll probably discard several excellent candidates but (and it's a big but) at the same time I'm also discarding practically all of the unsuitable candidates in one go while still keeping a core group of candidates that I'm 100% certain can do the job.

Now; I might not be a great tester (yet) but from what I have read lately I am far from convinced that getting certified would be the way to go. However, if this is a representative example I can see the value for one coming straight out of school/university just for the value of getting considered at all.

The discussion went back and forth a couple of times with a couple of others donating their "2 cents" before the recruiter finished off by stating:

The difficulty I've been trying to get across is that I'm simply not equipped to debate the relative worth of any technical certification (not being a technical specialist but rather a specialist in recruitment), only their use in the search phase of a recruitment process.

Am I throwing some babies out with the bathwater? Probably... but my clients do expect to see these qualifications, especially in those with less than 4-5 years experience and they expect to see shortlists in a reasonable timescale.

So, before this gets too long-winded; there are obviously companies asking for shortlists of certified testers and in those cases it would at least get you through the first screening. As the recruiter in my example admits he is not much qualified at evaluating the real value of the certification but why would he care? He is not hired to get good testers, he is hired to get a shortlist of certified ones.

It is unclear to me though if the recruiter picked the six people for the available positions or if that was done by the client.

Answer 4

I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario where someone would let it be harmful.

I can see useless, but harmful?

Answer 5

If you look at the syllabi for the topics covered at the different levels they can be considered to be an introduction to those topics - to gain an understanding of them.

If you read the syllabi or even take an exam and then think you can apply all of those different techniques then you could consider it "dangerous".

It might be harmful to yourself if you think you could do everything (or claim to do everything) in the syllabus just because you have a certificate.

Whether you have a certification or not it's more important to know what types of techniques you have covered (or not) in your career and be able to describe them.

These certifications used to be used as a base (or some minimum) criteria for job applications by some recruiters (I don't know if this is still true).

This was true of a position I took some years ago (I had no certification) but I was able to talk about my experience and describe how I had applied different techniques in different circumstances - that was ultimately more valuable to the recruiters (to their credit!)

Answer 6

In terms of the hiring process, I wouldn't throw a resume out for having this sort of certification, but in the interview I do make a point of asking what the candidate feels they gained from it.

I've only had one person evangelise about the necessity of certification. I more or less ended the interview then and there. Everyone else has said things such as that it helped with definition of terminology, or that they gained a new perspective on some kinds of testing. None of them agreed that having the certification made them an expert tester.

For me personally it's less about the certification and more about what it means to you as a tester. That said, I do not see any benefit whatsoever in becoming certified.

Answer 7

I can see useless, but harmful?

Any tool can be used in a helpful or harmful way. Apply the Rule of Three (roughly, if you can't come up with at least three alternatives, you probably haven't thought enough about it).

I can see harmful, if it encourages you to avoid skills development. "Hey, I'm certified, so I don't have to practice testing."

I can see harmful, if you hold the contents of the ISTQB syllabus as all you need to know about testing.

I can see harmful, if you are applying for work at an employer who de-certifies you based on the certification. A few years ago, some did. We don't have to agree with that practice to see the harm both to the tester and to the employer, and for a while at least, it was allegedly happening in at least one organization that I'm aware of.

---Michael B.

Answer 8

Alan,

I don't think it would be harmful. There is limited benefit for some; if someone were starting out knowing next to nothing, they would learn some useful techniques and approaches in the certification process. I would hope it would be obvious, though, that (a) continued education beyond the certification process is essential and (b) that being certified is no guarantee of even basic competence at software testing.

Here's a good presentation by Michael Bolton on some of the significant problems he sees with the current certification process that he, of course, has strong objections to (and some interesting thoughts about what improvements he'd like to see in a radically different certification approach).

http://www.developsense.com/presentations/notyetcertified.pdf

• Justin