From Certifications to International Standards in Software Testing: Mapping from ISQTB to ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-2

  • Mary-Luz Sánchez-Gordón
  • Ricardo Colomo-PalaciosEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 896)


In today’s software development industry, software testing allows one to ensure the quality but it cannot be done exhaustively and it requires selective and careful planning. That means a test process which is not only time-consuming but also useful and crucial because today, more than ever software is becoming part of our personal and professional life. Software testing is gradually gaining relevance among software practitioners and researchers. Due to that, several organizations, which offer personal certifications, have emerged and international standards have been developed. However, there is still a need to support software practitioners in gaining awareness and understanding about them. The aim of this study is to perform a mapping from all major activities of ISTQB Foundation Level Certification (CTFL), to corresponding processes of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-2. Thus an analysis has performed to identify the differences and overlap between the two approaches, which allows a better understanding of them. The findings show that the test process of ISTQB CTFL is largely covered by the ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-2. In addition, a tailored conformance was also outlined to ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-2.


Software testing ISTQB CTFL ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119 Mapping 


  1. 1.
    van Genuchten, M., Hatton, L.: Compound annual growth rate for software. IEEE Softw. 29, 19–21 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Connor, R.V., Colomo-Palacios, R.: Security awareness in the software arena. In: Engemann, K. (ed.) Routledge Companion to Risk, Crisis and Security in Business. Routledge, Abingdon (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colomo-Palacios, R., Casado-Lumbreras, C., Soto-Acosta, P., Misra, S., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: Analyzing human resource management practices within the GSD context. J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 15, 30–54 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spinellis, D.: State-of-the-art software testing. IEEE Softw. 34, 4–6 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garousi, V., Felderer, M., Kuhrmann, M., Herkiloğlu, K.: What industry wants from academia in software testing?: hearing practitioners’ opinions. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 65–69. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garousi, V., Mäntylä, M.V.: A systematic literature review of literature reviews in software testing. Inf. Softw. Technol. 80, 195–216 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orso, A., Rothermel, G.: Software testing: a research travelogue (2000–2014). In: Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering, pp. 117–132. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelperin, D., Hetzel, B.: The growth of software testing. Commun. ACM 31, 687–695 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO: Software and systems engineering – Software testing – Part 2: Test processes, Geneva (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 33063 Information technology — Process assessment — Process assessment model for software testing, Geneva (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcia, C., Dávila, A., Pessoa, M.: Test process models: systematic literature review. In: Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2014. CCIS, vol. 477, pp. 84–93. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garousi, V., Felderer, M., Hacaloğlu, T.: Software test maturity assessment and test process improvement: a multivocal literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 85, 16–42 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    van Veenendaal, E.: TMMi and ISO/IEC 29119: Friends or Foes? TMMi Foundation (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, T., Friedenberg, D.: Foundation level syllabus. In: ISTQB (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bath, G., Smith, M., Black, R., McKay, J.: Advanced level syllabus. In: ISTQB (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bath, G., Evans, I., van Veenendaal, E.: Expert level syllabus. In: ISTQB (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasurinen, J., Taipale, O., Smolander, K.: How test organizations adopt new testing practices and methods? In: IEEE Fourth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops, pp. 553–558 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baldassarre, M.T., Caivano, D., Pino, F.J., Piattini, M., Visaggio, G.: Harmonization of ISO/IEC 9001:2000 and CMMI-DEV: from a theoretical comparison to a real case application. Softw. Qual. J. 20, 309–335 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haufe, K., Colomo-Palacios, R., Dzombeta, S., Brandis, K., Stantchev, V.: Security management standards: a mapping. Procedia Comput. Sci. 100, 755–761 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larrucea, X., Santamaría, I., Colomo-Palacios, R.: Assessing ISO/IEC29110 by means of ITMark: results from an experience factory. J. Softw. Evol. Proc. 28, 969–980 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanchez-Gordón, M.-L., Colomo-Palacios, R., Herranz, E.: Gamification and human factors in quality management systems: mapping from octalysis framework to ISO 10018. In: Kreiner, C., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2016. CCIS, vol. 633, pp. 234–241. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pries-Heje, J., Johansen, J.: SPI Manifesto.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Østfold University CollegeHaldenNorway

Personalised recommendations