iSQI CTAL-TM_Syll2012 Dumps

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. References: 1: ISTQB Glossary, Reviewer 2: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.2.2 3: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.2.3 4: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.3.1 5: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.3.2

A depth-first risk-based testing technique is a method of prioritizing and executing test cases based on the risk level of the features or functions to be tested. In this technique, the test cases with the highest risk are executed first, followed by the test cases with lower risks. This ensures that the most critical and likely areas of failure are tested thoroughly and early in the testing process. Risk Based Testing: Approach, Matrix, Process & Examples - Guru99 References: Certified Tester Advanced Level Test Manager (CTAL-TM) - ISTQB not-for-profit association, ISTQB Test Manager Certification - ISTQB Exams Worldwide - ISTQB Official Registration, [Analytical Test Strategy: A Comprehensive Guide - LambdaTest]

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. References: 1: ISTQB Glossary, Return on Investment 2: ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Syllabus, Section 2.3.2 3: How to manage formal reviews & management audits? Skills, metrics …