Call us on  08000 199337 From overseas call +44 20 7264 2185
4 out of 5

Course was delivered virtually, therefore interaction between Trainer and Students was affected. Content of slides were absolutely fine, but the Material provided ahead of Course was not used. The one or two documents that were referred to and would have been used were in PDF format and therefore couldn't be amended. Some students resulted in making their own word/excel documents to carry out the exercises. As for the exercises, I would have preferred using the same scenario (car purchase, limo business or Amazon purchases) as the same example for all exercises, with each exercise building up to the creation of a UATP. We could have then used all the material over the two days to end with a UATP on a product/service we'd been working with all week. Jumping between different scenarios didn't help in my opinion. The final exercise was also a little rushed. 30 minutes to generate as much of a Test Plan as we could, most of which was made-up on the spot. I didn't get anything out of the exercise at all. As mentioned, using the same scenario throughout the course and building up each exercise as an opportunity to build each section within the Test Plan would have been better. Course may have to extended over three days (maybe two and a half) to build the Test Plan up. Lastly, I found some of the earlier exercises working individually good, then we moved into Teams which depending on the exercise was also good. Early exercises working individually meant we could create our own examples and bounce ideas off each other with the Trainer whereas some of the group exercises allowed some individuals to take a back seat. For the later exercises, having a group exercises meant we could confirm what was being asked of us and compile a document together, much like we would do in work.

Marc Paul Dowd | Chf Tech (RAF) Governance Manager | Defence Digital - SCIS - EAM (Air) -
5 out of 5

Rosie was excellent throughout. She made things very clear, kept us relatively well engaged and used well placed checkpoints to facilitate our learning really well. Her approach was well structured yet casual. Rosie was also pretty attentive to our opinions and feedback, and you could sense she was interested in learning about us and our professional roles so had a keen attitude throughout. When challenged, Rosie was very helpful and informative, with her focus then shifting to ensuring the person who was confused/didn't agree with her viewpoint/syllabus getting some sort of closure - All in the interest of being as supportive as possible. Maybe include some fun ice breakers to get energy levels up if possible in between long periods of talking through the material. I often did feel like I was lost in the midst of slides but this is a minor point. It would be good to have an upgrade to the presentation of the slides. They do look a bit outdated! πŸ™‚ More visually attractive, use of more eye catching pictures/models. Things to spruce up the reading material which, being fair was very good, so just another minor point. There's lots of resources out there which highlight the effectiveness and psychology behind this. It's a shame that the exam will not reflect the academic approach Rosie had towards the syllabus! It's become very apparent that the exam will be out to catch us out and be quite unforgiving. Ignore the mini rant!

Syed Naqvi | Quality Engineer | LBG
5 out of 5

Get course Trainer was great

ashish chaudhary | Software Engineer | capgemini
4 out of 5

I rated Rosie 4 stars because she was friendly, helpful and informative, also because I felt she was making the most of a difficult situation in regard to the training materials and the set-up of the learning environment she had to work with. Overall I was disappointed with the course materials and the way in which we were required to learn. I requested to attend this course at the cost of my employer because I had a genuine interest in learning more about Selenium and because I wanted to take that knowledge back to the business. From the course description, I was given the impression that I would be attending a class that allowed me to put the training into practice i.e. we would be provided an environment/Virtual Machine/Website to execute the code we compiled to see if we got it right. Instead, the course consisted of 8 delegates virtually sitting around one computer and taking it in turns to give what we thought was the correct answer. We were given a very brief list of applications used in the course, but due to the time constraints and lack of information on configuration it wasn't possible to replicate an environment on my own computer in time. The delegate slides were dated as 2018, and from the multiple errors found in the slides, it soon became apparent that the slides may not have been maintained since they were created, this was confusing and distracting to my learning process, and at times made me lose confidence in what was correct or incorrect. Aside from only having one Mock exam paper to practice with, meaning I couldn't run through an entire mock exam at the end of the course before taking the actual exam, the one we were provided contained an error. Again this knocked my confidence in the information I obtained form the course. Overall, in it's current state with errors and without an actual environment to get hands on training from, I would not recommend this training provider or course in future.

Nathan Clayton-Barker | IT Test Professional (Corporate) | NFU Mutual
4 out of 5

Excellent, personalised, collaborative

Naomi Endersby | Test Consultant | kyndryl
5 out of 5

It was beneficial and clear explanation

Ayse Saribasak | Data Test Engineer | OS
5 out of 5

great course to get the fundamentals.

lee westwell | quality and test authority | Vodafone
5 out of 5

Good and dense.

Dario Guzzetta | Senior Software QA | Lloyd Register
5 out of 5

Very beneficial and helpful

Patryk Zmijewski | It Systems Support Adminstrator | Decora
5 out of 5

very helpful.great experience

krishna kriti | senior test analyst | PWC
4 out of 5

Very good course

Callum Nightingale | Software Engineer | Capgemini
4 out of 5

Great Course!

Vithuran Mahendran | Graduate Verification and Validation Engineer | Northrop Grumman
5 out of 5

Very informative and helpful

Ashwini Todkar | Senior Associate 2 | PwC Kolkata
5 out of 5

Great, past papers are tricky

Shozab Ahmad | Tech consulting | KPMG
5 out of 5

Very useful, informative and clarifying.

Yusuf Malik | Test Analyst | Sea/ Maritech
5 out of 5

Good foundation to help prevent fraud in this area. A certain amount of hubris in thinking we will get to a fifth industrial revolution that is anything other than Sustainable Technology to Avoid Extinction. It would have been interesting to know how many uk software providers have signed up to any of the organisations delivering ethical guidelines. I found the whole course profoundly depressing, particularly when you look at the UN 17 sustainable goals, I don't believe we are moving forward (globally) on any of the 17 goals. Just looking at the UK I can think of recent examples for each of the first 6 where we are going backwards. I don't think AI is a silver bullet to either UK or global problems (To be fair the course does say this) I think that AI may prove to be a serious misdirection where human resource and the earth's resources are funnelled into research areas that have little utility and may draw resource away from other critical areas that need timely action. I thought the SWOT matrices could have been improved by putting a letter in each box. I don't personally find them useful, particularly with the External/Internal Origin Attribute labels, as each could have a threat or opportunity. I would not have used the word Gestalt (Gestalt is a German word. The closest translation is β€˜whole’, β€˜pattern’ or β€˜form’.) unless it is commonly used in AI For the VR slide I would have added, how safe they are is unknown. I don't like quotations on slides (personal preference) - here is something someone said, probably out of context that is being used to reinforce or validate some words that are not enough on their own. I would have a whole slide related to 85% of AI projects won't deliver...eg "96% of organizations face data-related problems including silos and inconsistent datasets when it comes to AI implementation. Some 90% of companies are working on AI projects, but they are only successful one-third of the time. Databricks, 2018"

Alex Spence
5 out of 5

Really useful and interesting

Simon Evans | QA Software Test engineer | DAC Beachcroft
5 out of 5

Very well presented

Doug Monk | System Test Engineer | N/A
4 out of 5

good course

saleem alrashdi|expert|CITC
5 out of 5

Well paced and very informative.

Jermaine Amani|Test Consultant|Sogeti
5 out of 5

Great Tutor, Well paced. Many thanks

Paul Incles|Service Operations Analyst|Rail Delivery Group
5 out of 5

good but would have preferde on site training

Eivind Berntsen|Test lead|Nordic Semiconductor ASA
4 out of 5

Nice and informative

Tom Rutter|Test Analyst|Key Group
5 out of 5

Had a good understating of Agile aspects

Ellen Mandevhana|Software Test Analyst|Iris software Group
5 out of 5

Great course and learnt a lot from Angelina

Edward Jukes-Jones|Software Developer|Capgemini
5 out of 5

The course is quite intensive for just 3 days.

Rita Bicho | Test Manager | Siemens AG (Portugal)
3 out of 5

Good and relevant content

Marc Williams | QA COP Manager | Principality
5 out of 5

Excellent training

Ernest Obuobi | Manager Datacentre & Testing | Standard bank/Stanbic Bank
5 out of 5

The course was very thorough and the instructor very knowledgeable.

Nader Althubaity | QA Engineer | Saudi Information Tech Company
5 out of 5

Slow and interactive sessions. Thanks!

Bennitt Abraham | Software Test Engineer | Ensek
5 out of 5

Course was great!

Kristina Savciuk | QA Analyst | Jagex
5 out of 5

Course content & delivery I found the pacing and delivery of the trainer across the two day course was excellent. As someone with no UAT background I found the course content was appropriately tailored and suitable for the intended audience. Personally, I found the example of ordering products on Amazon difficult to relate to because I do not use Amazon. Whilst I appreciate that I am in a minority of the population as a non-user of Amazon, it might be something to bear in mind for future courses. I was unable to complete the UAT Test Plan exercise on Day 2 of the course. I believe Mr Weymouth did explain that this exercise would ordinarily take about an hour to complete and unfortunately we had less than an hour allocated to the task. I am fortunate in having access to two monitors but even so I found moving between my Word document notes, the slides and the delegates resource pack document quite tricky in the time provided. It was however the first time I have undertaken a professional interactive training course in the virtual environment where there is an expectation to move between resources and grapple with a new subject under time constraints so I imagine my skills in this would improve with more practice. The virtual classroom environment/ technical aspects It was the first time I have used the GoToMeeting environment. I am familiar with MS Teams and I did miss the ability to raise a hand which is available when using Teams. Perhaps there was an option to do this and I was just unfamiliar with the functionality in GoToMeeting. Having said this I do feel that the trainer put delegates at their ease to speak and/or type comments in the chat to participate. I found that I unmuted on a couple of occasions and spoke but appeared not to have been heard as another delegate started speaking and took up the discussion. I was on the point of commenting in the chat field that I did not think my microphone was actually working but was successful at my next attempt to speak. I understand that the trainer had not delivered this course in the virtual environment before and I thought he managed extremely well overall. There were a couple of instances where I thought it would have been helpful to have a recap slide in place when the delegates were tasked to go off and complete a set exercise however the trainer was resourceful and did make good use of the chat field throughout the days to summarise exercises, break timings etc. Summary I believe I have taken a sound overview of the basic principles and key points about UAT from this course. I started reading The Chartered Institute for IT’s step by step guide to user acceptance testing publication by Brian Hambling and Pauline van Goethem prior to attending the course and now feel that I would like to reread the chapters I have covered so

Rachael Shepherd | Administrator | Scottish Government
5 out of 5

Enjoyable and interesting information

Kelly Robinson-McBride | QA Engineer |Iris Software Group
5 out of 5

John gave a good summary of Test Automation

Zahra Jaffer | Junior Test Analyst |IRIS Software Group
5 out of 5

This course was very informative.

Amanda Jupp | Product Analyst |Trace Solutions
5 out of 5

Good explanation, lot of exercises

Renjini Gopalakrishnan Unnithan | Dev Engineer- Competent |ING, Belgium
5 out of 5

very knowledgeable and helpful , happy to help -always

Daniela-Ana Luca | Senior Test Analyst |CaseWare Uk
5 out of 5

Excellent

Judy Yu|Quality engineer|Lloyds
5 out of 5

informative, patient

Jason Leung | Quality Engineer |Lloyds Banking Group
5 out of 5

Good use of technology. Knowledgeable instructor.

Josh Docherty | Senior QA Automation Engineer |WPA
5 out of 5

Excellent

Saleh Alamer|Testing Engineer|Advanced Electronics Company
5 out of 5

great content and helpful towards the exam. recommended

lee westwell| test and quality assurance specialist|Vodafone
5 out of 5

Great content, and very interesting

Daniel Taylor Jr|V&V Test Engineer|Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine
5 out of 5

Great content, and very interesting

Daniel Taylor Jr |V&V Test Engineer | Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine
5 out of 5

The course was well presented

Nicholas Hammond|Test Analyst|A2Dominion
4 out of 5

Very Intensive but just about hung on!

Rebecca MacPherson|Correspondence Analyst|Quilter
5 out of 5

Intense and informative.

Hugo Rocha|QA Director|Instituto de InformΓ‘tica, I.P.
5 out of 5

Very informative, John was super helpful

Sophie Pearson | PTP Business Analyst | Old Mutual Wealth
5 out of 5

Very interesting and informative

Robert Reid | Test Analyst | Utility Warehouse
5 out of 5

The training course was excellent

Nicholas Hammond | Test Analyst | A2Dominion
5 out of 5

The training was excellent

Karl Gwilliam | IT QA Lead | Deloitte
5 out of 5

Intense and informative.

Idris Khan | Senior QA | Camelot UK
5 out of 5

Course was very good.

Garifalia Koinari | Software Developer | European Dynamics
5 out of 5

Concise, a little overwhelming but great overall

Kelly Robinson-McBride| QA Engineer|Iris Software Group