Pass the ISTQB ISTQB Test Manager ATM Questions and answers with CertsForce

Cost of Quality Analysis:

The given table lists costs for defect prevention, appraisal, internal failure, and external failure.

Defect prevention cost is $50,000, while costs for appraisal, internal failures, and external failures are $250,000, $200,000, and $200,000, respectively.

The combined cost of internal and external failures is significantly high compared to defect prevention costs.

Defect Detection and Prevention (DDP):

DDP measures the effectiveness of defect prevention activities and early detection mechanisms.

In this case, 1,000 defects were caught before release (appraisal) and 100 defects escaped to production.

DDP = (Defects found before release / Total defects) = 1000 / (1000 + 100) = 90.91%.

While this DDP is relatively high, the costs of appraisal and failures indicate that prevention strategies need more investment.

Key Cost Drivers:

High internal and external failure costs indicate inefficiencies in earlier stages of quality assurance.

Shifting investments from appraisal and failure costs towards defect prevention would reduce the overall cost of quality.

Evaluating Options:

Option A ("More testing needed because DDP < 90%") is invalid since DDP is above 90%.

Option C ("The cost of testing is justified") does not address the imbalance between high failure costs and low prevention spending.

Option D ("More effort on appraisal") contradicts the cost-benefit focus of investing in prevention.

Option B is correct because enhancing defect prevention strategies will reduce downstream costs.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

This conclusion aligns with the ISTQB Advanced Test Management syllabus section on "Cost of Quality" and strategies to optimize testing investments. Specifically, prevention is emphasized as more cost-effective than appraisal and failure management​​​.

Context Analysis:

Monitoring code coverage is inherently tied to knowledge of the internal structure of the software, a characteristic of white-box testing.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Black-box:

Incorrect. Black-box testing focuses on functionality without knowledge of internal structures.

B. White-box:

Correct. White-box testing uses internal code knowledge to determine areas that need more coverage.

C. Functional:

Incorrect. Functional testing assesses functionality without inspecting internal code.

D. Non-functional:

Incorrect. Non-functional testing focuses on performance, usability, etc., not code coverage.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB associates code coverage monitoring with white-box testing techniques (TM-1.2.6).

References:

ISTQB Advanced Level Test Management Syllabus (TM-1.2.6)​

Common Risk Identification Techniques:

A test manager often relies on experience with similar projects to foresee risks related to technical complexity, domain challenges, or previous defects.

Other options listed are less effective for comprehensive risk identification.

Evaluation of Options:

A(Lines of code) andB(Function points) are quantitative measures, not directly tied to risk identification.

Cis correct as past experience is crucial for identifying risks early.

D(Record/playback tools) is irrelevant to risk analysis.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Risk identification techniques are discussed under "Risk Management" (TM-1.3.1)​​.

Purpose of Retrospectives:

Retrospectives are team meetings aimed at reflecting on the work process to identify what went well (strengths) and areas that can be improved (opportunities).

This aligns with continuous process improvement practices.

Evaluation of Options:

A(Everyone shakes hands) is trivial and not a core activity.

B(Reviewing data collection methods) may be part of broader discussions but is not the primary focus.

Cis correct because it directly reflects retrospective goals.

D(Brainstorming solutions) typically occurs in follow-up sessions, not during the retrospective itself.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Retrospective practices are emphasized in "Improving the Test Process" (TM-1.5.4) in the syllabus​​.

Understanding the Agile Context:

Retrospectives aim to identify and implement process improvements collaboratively.

Focusing on solutions, not blame, aligns with Agile principles.

Evaluation of Options:

A. You should attend the retrospective instead of the individual testers:

Incorrect. Retrospectives are team-wide events; excluding testers undermines collaboration.

B. You should do root cause analysis to prove the developers are responsible:

Incorrect. Assigning blame contradicts Agile’s collaborative ethos.

C. You should gather metrics to present to the team regarding all the hours spent testing:

Incorrect. Metrics may provide insights but are insufficient to address process improvement.

D. You should help the team brainstorm ideas on how to improve the testing to eliminate the escapes:

Correct. Encouraging collaborative problem-solving directly addresses the root causes of defects escaping to users.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB highlights retrospectives as opportunities for continuous improvement in Agile projects (TM-1.2.4).

References:

ISTQB Advanced Level Test Management Syllabus (TM-1.2.4)​