Software quality assurance is a complex and nuanced field. It may seem straightforward on the surface, but it can quickly spiral into a nightmare if not approached with the right understanding and tools. I think ISTQB does us a favor by offering affordable certifications and bringing everyone together to discuss ideas and share understanding. But let’s look at this in detail.

Testers need a fundamental basis

Contrary to software engineering, software testers don’t have universal laws and principles respected by everyone. The lack of a fundamental basis for testing drives many testers to extreme approaches and perspectives. This uncertainty allows fake gurus and evangelists to sell their perspectives as the truth. Such people cause more harm than good because, most of the time, they are more concerned with discrediting ISTQB certification than showing how refined their viewpoint is.

Having worked at several companies, I understand the importance of a shared understanding of software testing theory. Every tester, regardless of experience or industry, has their own definition of a sanity vs. smoke test or a negative test case. It’s frustrating to have the same arguments about simple concepts because we belong to different camps. This situation can and should be improved.

Who’s profiteering from the mess?

We need to build bridges, not walls. Sadly, the majority of gurus are not interested in creating shared understanding. How would they sell their courses and seminars, then?

On the contrary, ISQTB offers all of their syllabi for free. Sure, you can take a course from an authorized provider or buy a book, but that’s up to you. I have four ISTQB certifications and purchased books just for two of them; for the remaining two, the syllabi were enough.

ISTQB is a non-profit. The price of certifications is very affordable. For foundation and advanced levels, it will be around $250. Now, go to the websites of the QA gurus and check out how much they charge for one class. You’ll be shocked!

ISTQB could have required you to jump through hoops to keep the certifications valid, as PMI does. But they don’t. The ISTQB certification is yours forever, except for expert-level ones, which most testers don’t need.

Overall, ISTQB wants to make getting a certification as affordable as possible. Also, the syllabi are completely free, so you can learn and pay absolutely nothing.

So, who’s profiting from the mess? The gurus and sensationalists who sell you the idea that they’ll tell you the truth if you come and pay for their class. So, better prepare your credit card quickly.

Show me your sources

When I talk about gurus’ opinions, I really mean OPINIONS. They aren’t based on science, data, or research. It’s their own experience projected on the whole community.

On the contrary, the ISTQB syllabi are literally a compilation of ISO standards and industry practices. Yes, sometimes the standards are outdated. This doesn’t mean we should disregard them completely. It just means we need to adapt them to the current challenges in software development.

Also, no one holds you at gunpoint to copy and paste whatever you see in the syllabi. That would be wrong because no one knows your project as well as you do. For example, you can develop your own templates for bug reports, test plans, etc., but now you have references to what is (or was) considered the blueprint for those documents so that you have a head start.

Dozens of seasoned professionals compile and proofread the data. Some are software testers in the commercial sector, some work at universities, and some are consultants. Their variety of experiences is hard to imagine, yet they all approve of the syllabi and work to come to an agreement, not to divide and monetize.

There’s no silver bullet

Note that when I say the ISTQB syllabi are compilations of industry practices, I don’t say best practices. They don’t say waterfall is better than scrum or that experience-based testing is better than requirements-based. They just say different approaches exist, so prepare for whatever you choose.

I like this a lot. For some companies and projects, the best approach is experience-based testing; for others, it is whatever best fits their project. There’s no silver bullet, and there never will be. ISTQB doesn’t imply there is, and I respect the honesty.

The competition is non-existent

The IT world is incredibly competitive. If you don’t do your best job, someone else will. I can’t see any competition for ISTQB at the moment. Had their work been out of touch, they would have ceased to exist long ago. But their certifications are as relevant as they were ten years ago.

Yes, there are other certifications available for software testers. Still, they are far behind in terms of reputation, and I’ve seen no QA jobs requiring testing certifications other than ISTQB. I’m not going to make a big deal out of it because that’s just my experience, but we’re talking about thousands and thousands of job listings.

This fact alone gives me the impression that the good old foundation-level ISTQB certification is the best investment for your QA career if you want to get certified. If you know of an organization remotely close to it in any regard, I’d be very interested in learning more.

Not perfect doesn’t mean not worthy

Having certifications of all levels, I know like no one else that they aren’t perfect. Some parts are too theoretical, detached from reality, or outdated. But it’s not doom and gloom. The syllabi are updated occasionally. This is the part where the non-profit part of ISTQB shows. Open-source software projects are a hassle, and I can only imagine how hard it is to maintain the open-source software testing syllabi with millions of QA eyes pointed at you.

Like with software projects on Github, users are quick to report bugs and feature requests, but when a maintainer offers you to fix it yourself and submit a pull request, the desire to get the perfect product rarely matches with the desire to contribute your time and skills. It’s the same here, with the only difference being that the ratio of the former vs the latter is even worse.

Overall, a valid critique is healthy. I have lots of bad things to say about the syllabi’s contents, but the number of good things is much higher. So, simply ranting to dismantle something useful and important because it’s not perfect (which it is) without offering anything is a shortsighted idea.