ISTQB CTAL-TM Practice Test - Questions Answers

When faced with the inability to complete all items on the high-risk mitigation list within the remaining time, the most effective action is to communicate the current progress and challenges to the stakeholders. This allows for a collaborative decision-making process to re-prioritize the remaining high-risk items and potentially secure additional resources or time to address them.

Reference: The ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager syllabus emphasizes the importance of continuous monitoring and control of test activities to achieve project objectives, which includes assessing and reporting relevant and timely test status to project stakeholders123.It also highlights the need for test managers to organize and lead risk identification and analysis sessions, and use the results for test planning, monitoring, and control2.

The most clear way to convey the current status to project stakeholders is to use a pie chart showing residual risk. This is because a risk-based approach focuses on identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing the risks that may affect the quality of the system, and allocating testing resources accordingly. A pie chart can visually represent the proportion of each risk category (such as high, medium, or low) in the overall risk profile, and show how much risk has been reduced or remains after testing. This can help the stakeholders to understand the current level of confidence in the system, and the potential impact of any remaining risks.Reference:Certified Tester Advanced Level Test Manager (CTAL-TM) - ISTQB not-for-profit association,ISTQB Test Manager Certification - ISTQB Exams Worldwide - ISTQB Official Registration,Managing the Test Team - ISTQB not-for-profit association

The graph indicates that a significant portion of risks, 29%, have not been mitigated, which suggests that these are either failed tests or other discovered failures. This level of unmitigated risk puts the project at risk, as it implies that there are still substantial issues that need to be addressed.

Reference: The ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager documents outline the importance of risk-based testing and the interpretation of residual risk graphs.These graphs are used to communicate the current status of risk mitigation efforts in the project, and a high percentage of unmitigated risks is a clear indicator of potential problems1.

A management review, particularly in the context of software testing and quality assurance, often involves an external group or higher-level management team that reviews the processes and procedures to ensure compliance with specified standards or objectives. This can include assessing the effectiveness of current practices, identifying areas for improvement, and ensuring that the project aligns with organizational or industry standards. This type of review is distinct from other forms of reviews like technical reviews or walkthroughs, which might focus more on the technical aspects or consistency of system requirements.

If reviewers do not have an adequate level of technical knowledge, they may not be able to identify and describe anomalies in the product or project under review1.They may also not be able to provide constructive feedback or suggestions for improvement2.This can result in a less efficient review, as the review objectives may not be met, the review process may take longer, or the review outcome may be of lower quality3. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.Option A is incorrect because having sufficient business knowledge is not enough to perform a technical review, as business knowledge does not cover the technical aspects of the product or project4.Option B is incorrect because having sufficient process knowledge is not enough to perform a technical review, as process knowledge does not cover the technical aspects of the product or project4.Option D is incorrect because skipping any technical aspect can compromise the quality and completeness of the review, and may lead to defects or risks in the product or project5.Reference:1: ISTQB Glossary, Reviewer2: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.2.23: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.2.34: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.3.15: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.3.2

The effectiveness of a review process can be measured by how well it detects and removes defects from the work products being reviewed1.One of the metrics that can indicate the defect detection capability of a review process is the number of defects found in production for each module that was reviewed2. This metric can show how many defects escaped the review process and were not detected until the software was deployed. A lower number of defects found in production means a higher review effectiveness. Therefore, option A is the correct answer. Option B is incorrect because the development language used to create each module that was reviewed is not relevant to the review process effectiveness. Option C is incorrect because the elapsed time between each module's review and its corresponding deployment into production is not a measure of defect detection or removal, but rather a measure of development speed or efficiency.Option D is incorrect because the business criticality of each module that was reviewed is not a measure of defect detection or removal, but rather a measure of risk or priority.Reference:1: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.3.22:Software Testing Metrics: What is, Types & Example

Efficiency metrics for a formal review are used to measure the cost-effectiveness of the review process, such as the time spent on the review, the number of defects found, and the return on investment1. These metrics can help to evaluate if the review was a good use of resources, such as human effort, money, and tools. Therefore, option B is the correct answer. Option A is incorrect because efficiency metrics do not track who participated in the review, but rather how they performed. Option C is incorrect because efficiency metrics do not measure the quality of the reviewed object, but rather the quality of the review process.Option D is incorrect because efficiency metrics do not measure the speed with which defects were fixed, but rather the speed with which defects were detected.Reference:1:How to manage formal reviews & management audits? Skills, metrics ...

The cost of the training and the reviews can be justified by showing the return on investment (ROI) that they generate.ROI is a measure of the profitability of an investment, calculated by dividing the net benefit by the cost1. The net benefit of the training and the reviews is the difference between the cost of the reviews and the cost of dealing with defect escapes. Defect escapes are defects that are not detected during the review process and are found later in the development or testing phases, or even in production.The cost of dealing with defect escapes includes the cost of rework, testing, debugging, deployment, customer support, and potential loss of reputation or revenue2.The cost of the reviews includes the cost of the training, the time spent by the reviewers and moderators, the tools and resources used, and the overheads3. By calculating the ROI, you can demonstrate how much money the training and the reviews have saved or earned for the company, compared to the alternative of not conducting them. Therefore, option D is the correct answer. Option A is incorrect because comparing the production defects from the previous project to the production defects from this project does not account for the cost of the reviews or the cost of dealing with defect escapes in other phases. Option B is incorrect because showing the defects that were found in the review sessions and the cost of quality regarding the perfect phase containment for those caught defects does not account for the cost of the training or the cost of dealing with defect escapes in production.Option C is incorrect because explaining that the reviews are a way of expanding the knowledge of your people and motivating them to work harder and faster is not a quantifiable or verifiable way of justifying the cost of the training and the reviews.Reference:1: ISTQB Glossary, Return on Investment2: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.3.23:How to manage formal reviews & management audits? Skills, metrics ...