CERTIFIABLE

Wherein One Examines One’s Wine-tasting Certification and Realizes it’s Probably the Most Valuable Certification They Possess…


Certification, education, and training continue to be hot topics in the QA/QC community. The problem is that there is nothing, at this time, that really gives a prospective employer with no experience in the field an edge for finding a qualified and talented resource. Understandably, they reason that someone with a given certification or degree must be more qualified for a job than the person without those qualifications. When you don’t know what makes a talented resource in our field or what questions to ask, you tend to lean on the “opinions” of some amorphous governing body and hope you don’t make a mistake.

There’s another problem with the fact that our field is inundated with different degrees, certifications, and training classes. Which ones are good? Which ones are bad?

Most experienced staff realize there is no piece of paper offered at this time that certifies someone is competent in their field. It’s irritating to most that someone who couldn’t test so much as a basic drop-down box on their best day could potentially be hired before someone who tested a major application by themselves, in two months, with no major errors in production because the lesser-qualified candidate has a piece of paper.

Also understandably, possessors of these various documents argue vehemently about respective worth.

I don’t normally spend much time talking about certifications, etc., because I think they’re not even worth the time to discuss, but as the number and types of certification, degrees, and training continues to proliferate, each one touting themselves as the Hottest Thing Since Sliced Bread, I find myself increasingly impatient with all of the nonsense and moved (at long last) to comment.

Let’s start with formal education. That is, college degrees. Several of the best known people in our field do not have one. Do you want to call James Bach “unqualified”? What about Edward Kit? Even if you do have a college degree, how many of you have a degree applicable to our field? If you majored in Computer Science, how many testing courses were required? Were you lucky enough to get even ONE? In what way does a college degree qualify you to work in QA/QC?

The answer is “it doesn’t”. A college degree does not qualify someone to become a tester and certainly is no indicator of talent. If the individual went to an institution that really EDUCATES, the best you can hope for is someone interested in learning and who knows how to think.

So let’s move on to certifications. Certifications certify you have an understanding of (X). (X) is determined by the certifying body, and it varies. For practioners of various kinds, many certifications require that you are already a professional in the field, that you have X years of experience in the field, and that you have demonstrated understanding of what they feel embodies a professional in the field. Note that the key is “what they feel”. What they feel embodies a “professional” and what you feel embodies a “professional” might be quite different. Furthermore, understanding something and practicing it are two different animals. This is why there is usually a “number of years in the field” associated with a certification. The hope is that knowledge/understanding of basic precepts coupled with actual experience in the field guarantees (some) degree of competency.

But does it? My answer is “no”. Because the certifying parties are often quite large, checking of credentials can be through sampling, or not done at all. Working in the field for (say) two years might mean you’ve hopped from job to job for said two years, and have been let go at every one of them. The certifying body may or may not verify their candidates understand the precepts that the bulk of professionals in the field feel are important. The purpose of many certifications is to make money for the certifying body.

So overall, certification is not an indicator of either competency or talent. In addition, the QA/QC field does not have “one” single, governing certification that is recognized as THE certification, which means everyone is not even on the same page in regards to basic precepts.

So what about TRAINING? This is the one area where I feel there is room to really “make a difference”. The definition of training (courtesy of Webster’s) is “to teach so as to make fit, qualified, or proficient”.

Well.

Now if THAT were true, every manager in the world would be snapping up graduates of said training program.

In my opinion, such a training program would need the following:

1. Only talented candidates could be accepted for the program. In other words, a robust pre-screening process would have to be in place. One thing I’ve observed, regardless of field, is that talented teachers want to teach those that truly have an interest or love for the field, and an ability to excel in it. In addition, exclusivity and a reputation for being the Best of the Best is marketable - to prospective students, prospective teachers, and prospective employers.
2. The program would have to contain classes that cover the gamut of potential working environments and methodologies. There’s a difference between working on an iterative government project involving social work and an XP GUI screen for internal ordering of office supplies, for example. Graduates of the program would have to have the ability to excel in any type of situation.
3. Teachers and the courseware offered would have to engender the respect of professionals currently in the field. That means locating and attracting big names and popular/knowledgeable people willing to teach. It also means qualification for teachers has to be somewhat different than much of the academic world. The best teachers in our field may or may not have a PhD. In fact, they may not have any diploma or certification whatsoever. If the courses were good enough, and the advantages of having such training were obvious to both students and employers, EXISTING professionals in the field would sign up for the training. Hell, I would sign up for the training.
4. Major funding. Attracting and retaining the best teachers, choosing a location (or making an on-line program available), admin costs, making a profit, etc. all need to be considered.

I believe there are many difficulties and challenges involved with putting together a meaningful training program that truly attempts to guarantee graduates would be “fit, qualified, and proficient”, but I’m also convinced it’s a worthy goal. As a hiring manager, employee, and practioner for over twenty years, I’d find it refreshing to be able at long last put the meaningless certification/diploma/training debates behind and throw my support behind something that I could really believe in. And I certainly do believe in training. I’ve been lucky enough to have some very fine teachers.

There’s been some interesting discussion on this topic lately and I’m taking note of the efforts of the AST group in this direction; there’s nothing I think is a definitive answer yet, but I find the efforts to produce talented, trained professionals heartening. All of the efforts I’ve seen thus far are starting small and will perhaps expand someday; it would be fun and exciting to see a plan that thought big and moved forward in phases. Iterations, if you will. Oops – separate blog…

Until that time, however, I remain uninterested and distinctly blasé about current degrees and certifications. The resources that possess them might be great and they might be pitiful; I don’t consider them when hiring and I don’t discuss my own when I’m interviewing. My own? Oh yes. I have enough diplomas and certifications to wallpaper my office. But those are not what gave me success in the field. Experience and the good luck to have associated with some gifted teachers gave me success in the field. My own interest and love for testing gave me success in the field. Not certifications. Those haven’t made much impact on my life.

Except, of course, for my wine-tasting certification. I learned the fine art of wine-tasting from Roger Gentile, a snob of epic proportions in this part of the country, and I can now tell a good Piesporter from a wretched Chardonnay… So if things ever get tough in this part of the US, I feel sure that piece of paper will qualify me for a sommelier position in the best Longhorn Steakhouse in town…