nerdexam
BCS-ISEB

ISEB-SWTINT1 · Question #51

Scenario 2 Your organisation is a large media services corporation (MSC). MSC uses Agile development, within a Scrum framework. Here, the iterations are referred to as Sprints. For each Sprint, a…

The correct answer is A. Ask the testers to talk to each other and reach a consensus. Option A is correct because expert judgment via consensus is the most appropriate estimation method when the team is experienced (with each other and MSC's products) but has no prior history with the specific domain - in this case, accessibility. The team recently attended a…

Test Management

Question

Scenario 2 Your organisation is a large media services corporation (MSC). MSC uses Agile development, within a Scrum framework. Here, the iterations are referred to as Sprints. For each Sprint, a set of user-stories is defined, built, and tested. The user-stories are typically 1-2 lines long, indicating what the customer wants the system to do. MSC is in the process of updating its website to meet the recently introduced accessibility rules for websites. Accessibility means the availability of a system suitable to members of the public with, for example, visual or hearing difficulties. It has been decided to start with two requirements, as its first 2 Sprints: 1) Presentation of content with clear headings, short sentences, text versions always available. 2) Consistent navigation through the website. You are the test manager and there are four developers and two testers. You have all worked together previously, and are very experienced in MSCs products. Although the accessibility rules are new to you and the team, you have all attended a workshop where they were explained. Which of the following methods of test estimation would be most appropriate for each Sprint?

Options

  • AAsk the testers to talk to each other and reach a consensus.
  • BTake 30% of the total development time required for the Sprint.
  • CConduct a test point analysis on the content and navigation requirements.
  • DUse metrics from the last accessibility project at MSC.

How the community answered

(35 responses)
  • A
    77% (27)
  • B
    6% (2)
  • C
    3% (1)
  • D
    14% (5)

Explanation

Option A is correct because expert judgment via consensus is the most appropriate estimation method when the team is experienced (with each other and MSC's products) but has no prior history with the specific domain - in this case, accessibility. The team recently attended a workshop on the new accessibility rules, giving them just enough shared knowledge to reason together and produce a reliable estimate through discussion.

Why the distractors fail:

  • B (30% of dev time) is a generic heuristic with no grounding in this project's context; it ignores the novelty and qualitative nature of accessibility work entirely.
  • C (Test Point Analysis) requires well-defined, measurable functional specifications and experience with the TPA technique itself; accessibility criteria like "clear headings" or "consistent navigation" are too qualitative and subjective for TPA to be reliable here.
  • D (metrics from the last accessibility project) is directly ruled out by the scenario - accessibility rules are explicitly stated to be new to both the team and MSC, meaning no relevant historical data exists.

Memory tip: Look for two signals together - experienced team + no prior data in the new domain. When both are true, the answer is almost always consensus/expert judgment (option A-style). If historical data existed, D would compete; if requirements were highly structured and measurable, C would compete - but neither condition holds here.

Topics

#test estimation#Agile testing#expert consensus#planning poker

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Sign up to join the discussion
Full ISEB-SWTINT1 Practice