Certification Wars
I started diving in the late 70's, and in1985 I became a PADI certified open water scuba instructor. In those days, scuba instruction involved a lot of classroom time discussing various concepts that impacted human physiology such as Boyle's Law, Dalton's Law, Haldane's Principle, and also immediate responder first aid for scuba diving related maladies (most doctors are not trained in hyperbaric medicine and divers were generally more aware of potential symptoms of DCS as compared to most doctors). The training at the time emphasized in-depth knowledge of the theory of diving as well as repetitive practicing of fundamental and critical skills in controlled environments (usually a swimming pool) and 'real-world' environments (the open water). Certification entailed successfully completing multiple written examinations as well as demonstrated competence in the water.
I remember those early days when PADI and NAUI instructors would compete for students, and many instructors would ridicule other certification agencies while claiming the agency they supported to be superior as compared to the others. Some instructors would completely denounce other certifications as inadequate or claim that those certifications were not accepted worldwide, or make some other malicious attacks based on ignorance and their own personal motives.
Of course, we know that some people are incapable of thinking on their own, or they are easily persuaded with scare tactics, and some simply blindly follow the bloviated jabberwocky of charismatic people. But, most intelligent people who are capable of processing cognitive rational thoughts are able to see through the prevarication and realize the hypocrisy of people who lambaste some certifications while selflessly pander their own certification.
My personal views on certifications in software testing haven't changed. I can see both the perceived benefits of certifications by employers as well as the limitations of certifications. For example, certifications in software testing or other professional disciplines are generally based on knowledge of the discipline rather than on the ability of a person to perform a particular task.
But this is really no different than other professional organizations. For example, it is possible to get a certification (Juris Doctor) to practice law in California without ever having gone to law school or presenting a case before a judge under the tutelage of a mentor. And a person only has to drive Interstate 5 through Seattle to know that the Washington state certified engineers who completed their requirements for certification succeeded in concocting a major transportation boondoggle. Perhaps the hundreds of successful major corporations in Europe and elsewhere around the world see the value of a well-established testing certifications such as the ISTQB and ASQ for their ability to help professional testers effectively communicate using a common discipline jargon rather then constantly coming up with confusing neologisms. (Of course, all these successful organizations could be wrong...but I tend to think they are successful because the influential decision makers in those companies make the right decisions most of the time regardless of what some external person with a limited perspective or an idealistic neophyte thinks. Perhaps that's why they are successful!)
Of course, it would be ideal for certifications in our industry to also include practical skill-building exercises that taught testers how to test a product using various techniques and approaches, and certification required both practical demonstration and in-depth knowledge of the discipline. This doesn't simply mean that we teach people to find bugs by banging on the GUI, or asking 'probing' questions such as should a button control enlarge when a user mouse's over it. (Please...finding bugs is really not that hard, and if I wanted to know if a button control should enlarge or can enlarge I would look at the button properties for that control rather than sit there and ponder the question for 5 minutes.)
While I would like to see certifications include skill based learning along with teaching in-depth knowledge, we should also realize there are potential limitations with practical skill-building exercises. For example, in our own training we can assess if an individual learns to correctly apply a systematic procedure to design effective tests after in-depth analysis and logically decomposing a feature area or data set for a simulation used in our training. The concepts and application of some approaches and techniques such as combinatorial analysis are applicable across multiple software projects within appropriate contexts. So, we instruct our SDETs to identify the well-defined contexts in which certain approaches or techniques are appropriate and when they are not, and we also explain how they are sometimes misused so they don't also fall into the same traps that untrained people fall into. However, current certification schemas can not yet accurately assess how well a person will perform on a real project until that person is put into that situation. This is true of software testing just as much as it is true of scuba diving.
Fortunately in scuba diving the certification wars are mostly in the past. But, it seems the testing certification wars are heating up. Today, certifications are valued in some business sectors for various reasons. I suspect some new certifications will come along and claim some great benefit beyond the others. And perhaps they will, or perhaps they will be isolated communities of zealots who want to simply be different. I just find it rather Pecksniffish for any person to claim all certifications are bogus; of course except for the one in which he or she has some personal vested interest.
