ISTQB Expert Level ITP- Shout 'nd Pout

Yesterday night I went to the introduction of the brand new ISTQB Expert Level ITP (Improving the Test Process), which is the next level seen from the ISTQB Advanced Test Manager module and a 'tip of the veil' of the ISTQB Expert Level TestManager (also a next step from Advanced Test Manager). It was hosted by TestNet and presented by BNTQB. The setup was pleasant as usual and the topic interesting to say at least...

I was very exited, because rumor had it that this level would be much more about expertise and less about theory. I expected this level to be of such high level that it would challenge me, that I - still relatively short in software testing (from half 2004) - would have to wait until I could apply for such a certificate until I got enough 'years of practice'. I expected it to be some kind of 'Guild'like certificate, where you have a Master-Apprentice style evaluation (with an external/ objective evaluation added of course). I expected it to be of thát calibre that getting certified would really make me feel "WOW, I made it!" and that being certified would really MEAN something. Well... my expectancy management was a bit flawed here...

The first question that popped up in my mind was: "Why a certification on improvement of a test process and not certification on 'test process' itself?". I have been thinking this a lot lately; not only in testing, but in other areas of expertise as well, there is a lot about 'improving', but the set up of a decent/good/etc. process (or product) itself seems to be forgotten. Or maybe current set ups are thát bad that we can only think about 'improvement'.
I set aside that very persistent thought and looked at the slides and listened to the story.

The content itself is something that seemed well thought off. The presentation was high-level here and showed the differences with the content in the Advanced level. Nothing very controversial here (for me at least).

Then it came to the examination criteria. On the slide it stated: a three hour exam, consisting of 1 hour multiple choice and 2 hours of essay. Uh... WHAT? Thát's the exam? I couldn't believe what I was reading.
The next slide got into more interesting part, but that made me very uncomfortable. It was about the validity of the certification. The expert level only lasts for 5 years (that part I find Ok); BUT..in that five years you have to collect 'credits'. There are many areas on which you can earn credits. But some of them worried me, for example: One stated that you could earn credits by giving a presentation on a conference. My first concern here is that currently people are presenting on conferences because they have something to share out of passion, to educate or to really contribute to the community (or when it's a vendor to sell/ demo their product). When you reward people with 'certification credits' for giving a presentation, how many will only submit a topic just to earn those credits? There will certainly will be people who can write an abstract that is good enough to pass all the reviewing in advance and get 'on the program', but then... well I think you can figure it out.

So when the presentation was over, I was left very disappointed. I couldn't believe that my expectancy was THAT far apart from what I just heard. I couldn't believe that all those people who worked on this syllabus would really think of this for an expert certification. I did the ISEB Practitioner (old skool) exam, the one where you had to essay for three hours, not the one with the multiple choice stuff, and what I saw now wasn't that much different and this is the Expert (!!) level.

Hmmm. Okay. So here I am. Discontent about what I heard. Writing all this in a blog, still very disappointed. Is it justified? Why am I so far off in my expectancy and what I heard? Maybe it's because of what is told or what is NOT told?
The syllabus is download-able (http://istqb.org/display/ISTQB/Expert) . So let's take a look at that...

One of the paragraphs states:
"In addition to passing the exam, proof needs to be provided of practical working experience in the testing field in general and specifically in the field represented by the Expert Level Module before the Expert Level certificate is awarded. In addition to passing the exam the following requirements apply:
- at least five years of practical testing experience (CV needs to be submitted including two references)
- at least two years of experience in the Expert Level module (CV needs to be submitted including two references)
- at least one paper written and published, OR a presentation is given at a testing conference covering an Expert Level module topic. "

This wasn't mentioned in the presentation. The emphasis was on the content and the 'credits' to be earned in the five years after passing the exam. The most people I spoke where very much interested however on the examination criteria themselves (and HOW it was examined) and they were covered but it didn't state (or at least I didn't picked it up) these additional preconditions to be able pass the exam.
This makes it at least more valuable, for me.

If you have a threshold set of a minimum level of expertise before even be able to do the exam, that would certainly make it more Expert Level to me. The thing is however still how to evaluate the entry-criteria set. So I think there must be objective points to evaluate these criteria.
Example: If I have 5 years of experience in testing and 2 years in the Expert Level module topic that still doesn't say anything about whether I'm any good. I could have been sitting on my ass all the time. The references are making it more solid, but they could be friends that humor me. The paper/presentation can be done too; but maybe people ran out the room because it was too terrible or too rubbish to listen to. So I still meet the criteria (pur sec) but I'm not much of expert material.
So I plea for a sturdy and strict policy to evaluate these entry criteria and have minimum requirements to have an Expert Level candidate to be able to participate in the exam. It takes more work I agree, but at least it makes the Expert Level a real solid certification!

Well at this time only the syllabus is published. The ISTQB is still figuring out on the course itself and the examination. Until it's there we can shout and pout. But we can also help the ISTQB in making the examination a real valid one that means something, I think this will only be appreciated by the people who have worked very hard on this material, and I think this certification should be one that makes the certified Expert an Expert indeed.
(and I'm not saying that NOT having a certification means your NOT an expert :-) )

For now, I'll 'dive into' the syllabus and see what's really in there and maybe find what I didn't hear yesterday, have more understanding of what's it all about, before I 'shout&pout' :-)