I think you are right that testers are being hired because of a checklist and not because of the testing abilities they have. Many of the very best testers I've worked with would slot perfectly in to an agile team but wouldn't get most agile jobs because they don't have the experience of working in an 'agile' team already.

I personally think that agile testing does not suit everyone and know of many people who struggle to get their heads around it, so I can kind of see why employers would want to stick to people with experience. But as you say, most of these companies aren't actually running agile at all. From what I hear most of them appear to be doing short sprints of waterfall. i.e. drop to test on Friday and go home.

There is a lot of lying going on, both by testers who have worked in agile and companies who claim to be agile. But I don't blame them at all. It's the cool buzz word, it's the next big process, it will solve all of their problems and here's where I get frustrated because most implementation take the same old tired team and run agile with them. And it fails. Agile isn't really about the methodology as such. It's more about common sense, pro-active response to issues, involving the customer - basic stuff that I've seen done very well on waterfall. Sure TDD and definitions of done etc all add something extra but it comes down to people in the end.

I've interviewed testers who have come from companies running agile and it's frightening how removed the agile process they often are. They simply weren't involved. They sat there on Monday, got given some scripts to run, ran them and then reported back to the test lead. The Test Lead was the one getting the real experience. So they aren't lying, but they aren't suitable either....

Organisations are completely missing out on the right people for the job because they checklist applicants. First is ISEB, then agile, then tools, then automation skills. Most jobs I see are asking for a manual tester who is competent at coding QTP. These sorts of people are few and far between. I once sat opposite a supposedly QTP expert who hadn't a clue about testing. Not one clue at all. They could code. But they couldn't test. So they never questioned anything. They never thought the way a tester thinks. They just coded and we ended up in a pickle to say the least.

Tony - Good luck in your search...

Rant Over.

Rob..

posted September 16, 2009

Hi Tony,

The best advice I can give you is to treat job hunting and the (hopefully) inevitable interviews as the world's worst dating exercise. Usually when you start dating some one, there is a an expectation of a reasonable amount of time for each party to get to know each other better before a commitment is made. When job hunting or recruiting, you usually only get a few meetings before you're asked if you want to move in (grace period) and get married (long term career).

With that in mind, treat all these examples as you would when dating. A lot of people fall into these categories you mention. Some people are so specific with their desires that no one will ever measure up. Some people don't really know what they want and so waste time looking for a partner that won't make them happy. Still other people know what they want, but aren't willing to change their patterns in any manner to accommodate some one else. Finally there are the people so busy with other things they don't actually have time for a real relationship.

My best advice is to wait it out if that is an option for you. Pick up contracting or freelance work in order to keep your skills fresh. You might also look at taking coursework or training in a technical skill such as coding or network administration. The fashion for a particular tool or production suite comes and goes with rather predictable regularity (does anyone else remember Visual Test?) but the ability to bring skilled technical expertise to the table will always be of benefit.

posted September 16, 2009

Tony,

I understand your frustration at the UK testing market and I agree with some of what you said - they were some of the reasons I moved over to the continent.

To take it point by point
A) The reason is complete saturation - I know this line gets spouted a lot but . . . . There are genuinely 300+ responses to any testing advert on the job boards (my record was over 500!!). This is why the adverts are so specific; clients think that with that many people on the market they are bound to get someone who has absolutely every skill on their wish list. Also if you are recruiter with 6 months experience, don’t understand the technology, have a limit of 3 CVs to send to your client and you are faced with 300 CVs – how are you going to decide which ones to call?? You have to make the ad specific so you can attempt to filter through the masses of completely irrelevant applicants who send their CV to any advert with the word “test” in it.

B) Again same problem as above – if one CV has “agile” on it in the last 4 contracts and another one says “I have been working in a collaborative team, working to tight schedules, getting the job done,” then the 2nd one will never get a call as the recruiter (or hiring client) don’t have the time or inclination to find out what they mean by that.

C) That may or may not be true, but when you are pitching for business as a contractor its not really the time or place to debate the relative merits of someone’s take on the agile philosophy.

D) You are bang on, there are so many good testers out there right now all with 5 years+ experience at blue chip companies, ISEB certified etc . . . . that clients & recruiters take the testing experience as a given. The actual ‘testing bit’ of the job spec is now about 10% of it - they use things like SC Clearance and industry experience to filter out the hundreds of applicants they know are coming in. Of course you don’t really need to have worked at a council before to be able to test an intranet upgrade at a local authority, but if the local authority can get someone with that experience then why wouldn’t they ?? It is such a buyers market that we have to accept they are pulling the strings and can demand what they like.

E) Organizations might be missing out on the best people for the job, but that is often not the main priority when hiring a testing contractor. Many clients who have a large scale test team (10-15+) don’t always want to spend the time and effort sourcing for the “star” candidate – they just want someone who is good enough, in at the right price and has all the right words on their CV so that if the contractor turns out to be a dud the hiring managers boss can’t have a go at him! This is different for the more specialist testing roles where priorities do lean more towards hunting for that dream candidate, but even then, there are so many links in the chain now from recruiter – HR – hiring manager – hiring manager’s manager that every one is often looking for a safe bet to cover their own backs. By being specific, everyone in the chain has a safety net, as they can say “well they had all the right things on their CV – how was I to know?”.

The overall point is – the testing market used to be relatively easy to work in for contractors and recruiters alike, now its probably the most competitive market around. You need to play to your audience and understand what the motivations of the person you are trying to get business from are (be that recruiter, HR or hiring manager). You have to be aggressive in trying to win the business as you are competing against so many other contractors, make the recruiter take notice of your CV, call him up, email him – send him a crate of lager or some hair gel. Even if you have the best CV in the world, if you just send it in to an advert and don’t do everything you can to get noticed the harsh fact is it probably won’t even get opened.

posted September 16, 2009

Hi Tony

As a recruiter I would say that current market pressures have caused some of this and I largely agree with you.

The recession has hit us and as contracts dried up and more and more people found themselves looking for work, clients seem to have adopted the "I want my cake and eat it" approach. They feel as so many people are looking for work they have the spoils. So they don't just want a good tester, they want someone, who knows this tool, that technology, has worked in the client's industry for 20 years+, etc, etc. And so they should. Let's face it everybody plays the market. When times are good contract rates go up and contractors are selective over what work they accept. It stands to reasons when things are tough, clients will cherry pick.

Similarly I feel the quality of service provided by agencies is por as a result. Again because of fierce competition, recruitment programmes escalate into nothing more than a CV bun fight. CVs are just pinged across at an alarming rate. To be honest I have to question how this benefits the client. The whole point of a recruitment firm is to save time and money. To increase productivity and provide peace of mind. If all many of these firms are doing is piling 100's of CVs on a clients desk without much checking, just because they want to be the first one to send it, how do they think they are achieving any of this? The client now has a shed-load of dubious quality CVs to work their way through. They might just as well have advertised themselves. They'll get 3-400 CVs. (None of them will match the skills they're looking for though).

In a specialist industry such as testing there is a very large distance between either end of the competence scale. And time needs to be taken to erradicate poor performers and those who falsify their details in an attempt to gain work. (Interestingly a recent poll by one of the leading independent Personnel/ HR sites showed that 43% of people are prepared to lie to get a job. And regularly do on their CV).

If you want something tested thoroughly. Youi could argue that you need someone with no knowledge of the business environment. These people will test more thoroughly, because they are not anticipating the results. They don't know what's going to come out of the other end, so they are far more thorough in their approach. Now that's a thought!!

The only thing I would say to clients is be prepared. As when the market does come back, skills will get harder to find and then rates will go up.

Links:

• http://www.solid-group.co.uk
• http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/04/20/40227/four-in-10-uk-emplo...

posted September 17, 2009

Hi Tony

It's that age-old conundrum again: do you hire the person or do you hire the CV?

Firstly, I'd echo Phil Kirkham's response to this on the STC...you use the word "still", which implies that there was a "Golden Age" when that used to happen but not now.
I'd question that because, even in the days back when testing was even more of a peripheral afterthought to any PM than it often is today, decisions on selecting testers were driven probably even more by technical and subject-matter expertise rather than a good generic "ability" to test.
And probably rightly so, given that back then the perception of testing was so much less appreciative and there was simply no time for non-testers to get their head around doing it effectively.

In recent years, we've benefitted from the value of testing being proven now beyond doubt and projects have come to embrace it so much more readily and to appreciate good practitioners of the art. That's the good news. As just such a person, I hope you continue to keep the faith.

Re your case in point regarding agile, one could suggest that this is just the latest in a line of buzzwords that have non-testers overly-excited. Is a project ACTUALLY agile or does it just have pretensions of such? How can an agent or HR person tell the difference? (It's been suggested that many test managers can't either!)
Or else perhaps we are seeing a subtle return to the old days of developers becoming testers, which may sadly make your own quest still more challenging.

On the wider matter of how valued is "testing ability", well the problem of good 'natural testers' being overlooked amongst a wave of applicants is not a modern issue either. We've experienced similar myopia amongst the hiring fraternity in periods of old; the demand shrank, the supply increased and it was, as Rob correctly says, a "buyer's market". Contractors and job-hunters will just have to brace themselves for that reality, and do whatever they can to keep their personal profiles high and skills relevant. Look around you at the UK economy...its not just testing!

We all know that a CV can only ever present a two-dimensional picture of a candidate, and even an interview doesn't show how well someone can operate in the call of duty. But agents must be forgiven for acting swiftly in the face of their competition and failing to unearth the gems in their inbox; it's inevitable and you must not take it personally.

However, in this current period of restructuring and consolidation (euphemisms for 'getting rid of staff'!), it's possibly more appropriate to question the strategy of the end-clients. If they see good times in the future, now is the right time to find good 'natural testers' with a keen eye for how to test effectively and hoover-up the best talent in the marketplace. I'm sure most agents would be delighted at that prospect!
As technical skills tend to only be essential for the immediate task in hand (and nobody really knows what engagement the tester will be doing in six months time), so better to be assured of a good bedrock of testing ability that can be transferred across technologies and methodologies than an intake of buzzworders who lack that intuitive detective gene?

See Pete Nairn's blog. I think he articulates the pain that test managers go through when deprived of the chance to hire who they like how they like. I empathise very much with his frustration! And you should similarly recognise that the status quo tends to do nobody much good.

Good luck. I'll look out to see how you get on...

Links:

• http://www.softwaretestingclub.com/forum/topics/are-testers-still-being-hir...
• http://www.sqablogs.com/petenairn/2445/

posted September 17, 2009

Glad you liked my answer, Andy - I had a struggle trying to break into the testers market which would explain my somewhat cynical reply on the STC

But with the STC going from strength to strength maybe recruiters will have a quick search on there to help sort out the wheat from the chaff ;)

Good luck Tony

posted September 17, 2009

Tony

Thanks for requesting I respond, it is a very interesting topic that you raise and everyone’s subsequent points are likewise, there are many I’d like to respond to and will do my best.

John mentions a few of the typical difficulties facing recruiters at the moment, some I agree with some I don’t. There are an incredible number of candidates looking for work at the moment and responses to job adverts are the largest I’ve ever seen, including the 9/11 and the whole dotcom bubble etc etc. The only difference being that at that time I was recruiting purely for contract testers and now I look (almost) exclusively at the permanent market. Either side of the dark side the story really isn’t much different so I’ll take a couple of your points

A) there are a lot of people looking for work so competition is high and clients can find specific experience they are looking for if they are patient, if you top this with budget reductions for training it is more important that people can get up to speed as quickly as possible. This will change and we are already seeing people have more applications and more interviews on the go than before the summer silly season which is positive news.
B) I’ve recently recruited for a number of different client who use Agile and when speaking to them there is a clear distinction between though purebred agile environments who reject someone if they feel they were actually in a mini waterfall environment and those clients who don’t again I think it comes down to skills availability and training. Recruiters often get ‘abused’ for only recruiting by key words on paper and there is a lot of that but I disagree with John here, a good recruiter should be able to understand that someone who has working in a “collaborative team, working to tight schedules, getting the job done” might have been in an agile environment and question around this. The difficulty comes when we then know that we will pass the CV application to an internal recruiter who will throw it out because it isn’t branded with all the Key Words. So it is both Internal and External recruiters who are guilty of this. Again it does depend on the client and the person we are working with at the client end. If the processes is to go through an internal recruiter who doesn’t understand testing then there are 2 options to a external recruiter, find the CV that is ‘Branded Agile’ for the quick solution or ask the candidate to re-write the CV to suit (though this is frowned upon). As everyone hates writing CVs and it takes a lot of time often the quicker solution is to find the CV that hits all the job specs/internal recruiters/clients triggers.



David Burns and Rob Lambert make some interesting points about the types of testers. There is a massive difference between Functional/ Non-Functional - Technical / Business – Manual / Automated – Agile – V-Model environment / job role and tester. As a recruiter it is essential to understand each of these from the individual clients perspective and make a match. Some people just don’t like working in an Agile environment. Ultimately it takes time to understand every candidates match to these if they aren’t ‘branded’ on a CV and a waste of time if the recruiters thinks out the box and looks for the hidden meaning of the text if the client won’t do likewise. It is therefore the safer option to stick to the keyword ‘branded’ search and I think most inexperienced recruiters therefore stick to it. It doesn’t therefore make it right.
Of course I could well be wrong and the above might actually make no sense at all. I haven’t tested it…..

posted September 18, 2009

I am also a tester looking for work and share your frustration. It seems job specs are badged agile but the requirements can vary quite a lot. Some companies employ a pure bred agile environment (e.g. Scrum) and want some automation experience in Agile tools which I don't have but others want someone (to quote John) “has been working in a collaborative team, working to tight schedules, getting the job done,” which I have. So I would apply to the latter not the former but differentiating between the two is difficult if it just says Agile.

The automation side is difficult for me as well I have automation experience but not in the tools that are fashionable e.g. QTP, Selenium etc.

I can't offer too much advice (otherwise I wouldn't still be looking for work) but I notice that mentioning the key skills you have in the covering letter and (if not obvious/recent on CV) where they were achieved can at least achieve a call back from the agent. Which at least gives you another opportunity to sell yourself into the role.

Best of luck in your search.

posted September 21, 2009

In my opinion testing is difficult to be freelance.

posted September 23, 2009

What most obviously has the world of developers (cowboys) and their managers (managing UP with the use of buzzwords) is the misconception of "Agile" when it comes to testing.

First and foremost, the development aspect was actually referenced as "Paired Programming". A term which itself should be self explanatory but in essence it is the ability for two DEVELOPERS to play role reversal during the unit level of code development.

It is NOT a substitute to make ALL testers developers and vice-a-versa.

If anything, given the growing complexity of software, SOA, SaaS, and various and numerous integrations, standards and governance... there is more of the need of the TEST PROFESSIONAL than there ever was. This doesn't mean management can SEE that, but...

Frank V. Castellucci
http://www.axiom1inc.com

posted September 29, 2009

I notice you have re-opened this question.

I am pretty sure that the majority of people asking for testers with experience of 'agile' do not really understand agile software development - but bear in mind that it may be the HR people in the company who don't understand, or it may be the recruitment agencies that don't understand. In other cases perhaps the organization has a genuine appetite for going genuinely agile, and wants somebody who can work in an agile fashion but also work in a traditional fashion while they are slowly working through the changes that need to be made. While there will be exceptions, I think it would be right to say that any organization that is genuinely agile in the way they develop software would not be trying to recruit a tester. What they MAY want to recruit is a developer with strong testing experience, or a "tester" with strong development experience.

Let's go back to the fundamentals. When the "traditional" ways of software development were evolving, the drive was to "get it right up front" and the requirements specification became a contract between the customer (or a proxy) and the development organization. This was a very poor idea for many reasons, but we won't go into that here. One of the reasons it was a poor idea is that there occured the possibility of different interpretatios of the requirements specification, and in an attempt to cut out 'common mode error' in these misinterpretations, development and test teams were made as independent as possible, with a strong encouragement that they don't talk to each other (!!!).

Now agile development comes along, and one of the keystones of these approaches is that the customer (or proxy) is available all the time, and ready to explain and clarify the requirements whenever needed - ideally proactively so when developers make wrong interpretations because they didn't realize the possibility of an alternative, the person who DOES understand the real requirment can see this happening and step in, if not immediately then within a short timescale (this is one of many examples of feedback that 'agile' employs). Suddenly there is no need for independence between development and test; indeed things go better if the same people do both. There may remain a need for just a few specialist testers, but the herds of 'test only' people will become a thing of the past within a few years.

That might seem to be a rather indirect reply, but I hope it answers not only the question you did ask, but a few others that you hadn't yet got round to asking.

posted November 1, 2009

Many wise words (and some not so wise) have been posted before so I will keep it simple - the answer to your question is NO.
Keep the faith Tony - we are in a cycle where testing is more unpopular than usual. It has happened before (post Millenium anyone?) and it will change when the latest enthusiasms are found to be lacking.

posted November 24, 2009

What a great thread! I, too, am a job-seeker, but I'm specifically looking for a QA Management job. I'm having a very difficult time for similar reasons, Tony...actually compounded by the fact that I've never actually been an "official" tester. (I went from developer to Dev. Mgr to QA Mgr. at Sun.) There's a lot of really helpful advice here.

My big thing is networking (as in people.) Tony, I've seen you around cyberspace, and can see that you are good at networking ... you're always learning, participating, engaging, contributing. I see you signed up for Weekend Testers... that shows your enthusiasm and genuine interest and love of the art of software test. (Have you put together a portfolio showing the plans, reports, tools, etc. you use on your own? I haven't done that yet, but it's on my todo list... It could then be used to do freelance work.)

Now use those network skills to find hiring managers. Show them that you do have the experience and knowledge to help them bring high quality to their companies. Make sure your resume reflects your enthusiasm and knowledge of the latest techniques and methodologies, including agile. Talk to people at the companies you're interested in, even if they don't have job openings and let them know of your skills and how you can help them.

Of course, I haven't gotten a job myself yet with this strategy, but I have gotten some interviews, and gotten very close to job offers... If you can get an interview, you can show the hiring manager your passion and enthusiasm and your people skills will add into the equation. The manager will see you're someone that works well with others and embraces the team.

But if all else fails, how about you and I go into business for ourselves? I'll be the manager and you do all the testing. Now we just need to find someone to pay us. ;-)

posted December 1, 2009

Yes Tony - I agree,

The market for available testing jobs [along with every other job] has gotten extremely specific for the type of experience required. Just being "really good at testing", doesn't seem to fit the market anymore. And I've gone "back to school" just for that reason, to upgrade my own skills.

I believe this experience is happening to everyone looking for work, in every job market. I recently hired for our company, and I had a terrible time "picking" the right candidate, because I had FOUR with a perfect match for the skills I needed. Personality, grooming, even proximity to the office for how far they'd need to commute to get to work came in to play during the hiring decision [did we believe 1 would be more likely to get to work on time than the others - it was ridiculus].

So in closing, dot every "i" and cross every "t" on your resume, and at your interview should you be lucky enough to get one...the competition is extreme for every available job.

Best of luck, Theresa

posted December 1, 2009

It is important to tailor your experience when you apply for a job to be relevant to the requirements. I'm not advocating misrepresenting your skillset simply ensuring that if a job needs someone with strong VM setup experience and you have it then make sure your resume reflects it for that job and remember this for the interview.

There are some great books in my reading list about interviewing and job hunting. Feel free to look them up and the author's blogs (Penelope Trunk's earlier blog pieces deal more with job hunting than today but she is worth reading.)

Stay positive, we QA folk have a tendency to feel an us vs them mentality when organisations are like this about Agile et al but we share a common goal that if you can become a "quality evangelist" you will lead them to.

As my Grandpa used to say "You can draw more flies with honey than with vinegar". Good luck and if you need anything else feel free to contact.

Links:

• http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/

posted December 1, 2009

I agree. Testing is the least priority given in any development cycle in any organization. Generally, organization or development team thinks that testing tasks are simple and anybody can do it. I have also noticed that testing interviews were taken by development team but vice-versa doesn't occurs. GOD Save Testers !!!

posted December 6, 2009

I don't think it's just you! It's a weird 'climate' and organizations are behaving strangely. You'd think they'd want the best and brightest, but they are making strange hiring decisions. Wait it out, and you'll find the right situation for your skills, location, and lifestyle. In between you'll see some strange decisions, go on interviews that are more about personality than the actual job, and leave wondering if the interviewer knows he or she is in no way qualified to evaluate a person's psychological status, much less mess with it!


Meanwhile, these companies will have to deal with the hiring decisions and mistakes they've made.

posted December 6, 2009

"Testing is the least priority given in any development cycle in any organization."
Testing is VERY important thing! But why? - For us because we get money for new features, not for bugs fixing. Besides, we like our customers and do not want to provide bad code. And THIS is the MAIN goal.
And, to get the MAIN goal, we do next - we do better coding, better architecture, better reviews, better user requirements. Improving tools for developers helps as well. And, with Agile, do testing with small chunks. In general, we do ALL to remove mass testing stage, which is as per LEAN is not needed at all :-)
With that, team of testers is tranformed to a team of requirements/architecture/code reviewers (and they do verification for new functionality produced in each Iteration for sure).

So, testers has to adopt to the current needs. They have to develop very special tools (yes, we do lot of small tools for projects - emulators etc.). The have to know how SW is developed. Testers should be more quality process followers.

posted July 14, 2010

I would think testers would be hired more based on their experience in testing...

posted July 15, 2010

Honest Tony, I don’t think things have changed at all. It’s still a lot of ‘buzz’ words/ acronyms being used as the check-list, which is a real shame. There are so many tools out there and an influx of ‘testers’, so companies are missing good testers because they seem to want someone who’s ‘the complete package’.

Seems when there’s a new toy (tool) out there, companies want someone who’s already got XX amount of experience. They seem to forget/ over look the fact that a lot of Testers can use said tool or at least find one end from another, based on their background/ experience and testing ability.

posted July 16, 2010