Software Testing Blog

Readers of the uTest blog are no doubt aware of the ongoing (some would say never-ending) debate on tester certifications. We occasionally write about this topic ourselves and frequently ask our Testing the Limits guests for their thoughts on the matter as well. Some have opposed them unequivocally, arguing that a certificate can never validate the passion, curiosity and other intangibles so important to the craft. Others consider them useful given the right circumstances. uTest has taken a “neither promote nor prohibit” stance on the issue. How’s that for a political answer?

Well, no matter which camp you fall into, the debate over certifications in the testing space could get A LOT more interesting. But instead of testers being certified by an independent body (like ISTQB), we’re now talking about testing companies being certified by the federal government. But certified for what exactly?

We recently learned from DOTmed.com that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has named two private testing companies as the first “certified bodies” for testing the use of electronic health records (EHR). Writes Brendon Nafziger:

Doctors and hospitals angling for incentive payments, offered under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, must show they’re “meaningful users” of EHR. And these EHRs must themselves be certified by an ONC-approved body that they can meet the criteria to support meaningful use…

As mentioned, only two entities meet the criteria of “ONC approved” so far. No word yet on whether there will be more. By the way, ONC stands for Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. I had to look it up, too.

Without getting into any more specifics, I wanted to briefly touch upon the theme of certifications in general, and what it could mean for the software testing industry.

Let’s start off with a hypothetical. Assume a law gets passed that requires all software testers to obtain a “testing license” before they could legally practice the craft. What would that do to the number of available testers in the industry? How would it impact the development cycle in small and medium sized firms? What about the cost of obtaining this license – both for the testers and for the employers? And most importantly, what effect would it have on the quality of testing in general?

Needless to say, the introduction of licensing into the software industry – especially that which is backed by law – would greatly increase the cost and complexity of testing.

Lucky for us, the greater testing community, such certifications are not (yet) required by law. Testers are free to choose which certifications, if any, they wish to obtain and companies are free to contract with whomever they want – certification or not.

Contrast this to EHR situation. Imagine how expensive and time-consuming this process is going to be with only two certified bodies! The transition to electronic health records is a massive undertaking and companies in this space are going to need all the help they can get. But if this certification trend gains traction, there will be a fewer and fewer available testers. There could even be a shortage of software testers in this particular instance.

Anyway, I’m interested to hear what you think about this development. Will certifications work for testing companies better or worse than they work for individuals? Is this a positive trend for the industry?