ISTQB CTAL-TM Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

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:

Developers want to close defects unilaterally, while testers are concerned about unresolved or misunderstood issues being overlooked.

Defect closure requires validation that the fix is implemented and verified to prevent recurrence of the issue.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Only testers should be allowed to close defect reports:

Incorrect. This creates a bottleneck and removes shared accountability for quality.

B. Only management should be allowed to close defect reports:

Incorrect. Management involvement adds unnecessary delays and complexity.

C. No one should close a defect report until the release is completed and the product is successfully deployed to production:

Incorrect. Defects should be closed as they are fixed and tested to ensure progress is tracked.

D. Closure should only occur when a defect is fixed and tested:

Correct. Ensures collaboration between developers and testers to verify the resolution.

Syllabus Alignment:

The ISTQB syllabus emphasizes clear defect management processes, including closure after verification (TM-2.3.4).

The correct answer is D. Create the traceability between the test cases and the requirements. This is because traceability is the ability to follow the life of a requirement, in both a forward and backward direction, through its documentation, development, and testing. Traceability can help to ensure that the test cases are derived from the requirements, and that they cover all the relevant aspects of the system. By creating the traceability between the test cases and the requirements concurrently with creating the test cases, the test team can improve the quality and completeness of the test design, and facilitate the test analysis and reporting. Traceability Matrix - ISTQB not-for-profit association References: Certified Tester Advanced Level Test Manager (CTAL-TM) - ISTQB not-for-profit association, ISTQB Test Manager Certification - ISTQB Exams Worldwide - ISTQB Official Registration, Traceability Matrix - ISTQB not-for-profit association