Some Good ISTQB Definitions Rikard Edgren
While sifting and sorting the ISTQB Glossary 2.1 I finally found a couple of terms which definitions were both correct and useful:
1. deliverable – Any (work) product that must be delivered to someone other than the (work) product’s author.
Good, because it puts focus on the fact that you are creating the deliverable so it can be useful for someone else.
2. user-based quality – A view of quality, wherein quality is the capacity to satisfy needs, wants and desires of the user(s). A product or service that does not fulfill user needs is unlikely to find any users. This is a context dependent, contingent approach to quality since different business characteristics require different qualities of a product.
This is one of five ISTQB definitions of quality that are worth knowing about. This one is also correctly described.
3. walkthrough – A step-by-step presentation by the author of a document in order to gather information and to establish a common understanding of its content.
A sometimes useful practice, and a definition including the magic “common understanding”.
So if someone says that all ISTQB definitions are wrong, I can confidently say I disagree.
Well, inasmuch as they are presented as THE definitions for these terms, they are certainly wrong.
It’s okay if you want to use these definitions, but that doesn’t make them the right ones for all people.
I would like to point to George E Box quote about models:
“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
And a Definition is a model; so
“All definitions are wrong, but some are useful.”
Thanks James and Henrik for correcting me.
I agree other definitions might be better for some people and situations.
Using the word “correct” was inappropriate.
But if you read all the other definitions, you would understand why I used it.
I started formulating a comment, but it turned into a post, here.
The point I was picking up on was that these definitions were in version2.1 and I wanted to see if those definitions were consistent within the published history of this glossary – more of an exercise for myself than to try to find fault with them or your assertion. The referenced document only gives a history back to v1.3 – even assuming the document history is correct, it’s not possible to see if those definitions have been consistent within the “istqb world”.
But the point of my post (above) was to highlight a problem that exists with documented claims (definitions) and their history, consistency and transparency.
Nice to see your unanticipated spin-off Simon.
deliverable and walkthrough has been defined in the same way since 1.0.
The third one is new, and a rough mental calculation indicates that the quality of ISTQB Glossary is consistent:
About 1% of the content is useful (according to me)