In favor of certification.

[James]

The IT industry is flailing in credibility. Most projects fail. The ones
that are successful are approximately 180% over budget and time (where is
my copy of Code Complete?!) Why? One of the top ten risks for project failure
is the developers are not familiar with the technology. What does certification
do? It makes people familiar with the technology. I see certification
as being the answer to improving the success rate of the IT industry and
regaining some credibility. I'll attempt to show this.

First lets take a step back and purpose the following: Certification should
be (legally) mandatory prior to working with a particular technology. It
should also be an industry-regulated exam, offered at cost or for free (!)
to developers.

I've experienced an industry where no one really understands what he or she
is doing. I worked on a project where the architect(s) didn't know what
N-tier was (although it was the best solution). Another project had VB programmers
with no concept of COM. Yet another was a 2-tier client-server project where
the "experienced" people didn't know what a stored procedures was. How has
this affected these projects and the industry? The projects (and customers)
dramatically suffered in terms of cost, schedule, maintainability, etc.
The "success" that was released from these projects was garbage. The projects
were at the end of their life cycle as soon as they went out the door.

If the developers in the above senarios were certified prior to working on
these projects, would they have known about COM, N-tier, stored procedures,
etc? Yes. Would they have used these technologies if they known about them?
Yes. Certification, as purposed, acts as a method of forcing IT workers
to train and learn the knowledge necessary to "successfully" work in the
industry. While it is not a “guarantee” of success if definitely reduces
the risk of failure. Certification is simply a means of ensuring that developers
have the minimum necessary knowledge to “start” working in a technical area.
(Notice I’m careful not to confuse certification with experience.)

Another problem in the industry is hiring qualified people. The industry
is different than most because the typical manager doesn't have the knowledge
necessary to evaluate the abilities of the "technical" people they hire.
Also, the industry "hides" what it does. The difference between a poor
implementation and good one is not always readily apparent without intimate
knowledge of the details. So what does this equate to? Resume experience
is not a good indication of technical ability. A person can successfully
learn 50% of a language and kludge together five years of resume experience.
Making this worse is managers have few viable means to expose this scenario.
What most employers end up doing is dreaming up some hokey-pokey in-house
"test" prior to hiring. They are basically performing a inadequate version
of certification. While certification is not the perfect answer to hiring
quality people, it is perhaps the only useful "qualitative" means available.
I for one would rather higher someone with a 1/2-year of VB certification
and 2-1/2 years experience rather than someone with only 3 year of on-the-job
VB learning. What would you prefer?

On one hand, I have a person with 2 1/2 years of experience choosing and
applying, from the realm of VB possibilities, the best solution to their
problem. On the other hand I have someone who, under the stress of deadlines,
learned a few necessary kludges to become productive during their first year
of programming and spent 2 more years trying to make every problem they encounter
look like the kludges they know. Tough choice.

For all those "experienced" people that "don't need certification to be good
at what they do", they can simply write the tests and be done with it. Since
they have the experience and knowledge already, it shouldn't be a problem
to pass.

Let me turn on a flame for a moment. I am surprised by the number of arguments
against certification that are not relevant. Most anti-certification arguments
I've read are based on the "existing" certification system or whether "I"
need certification. Let me address these quickly by saying "yes the existing
system is lacking" but lets not turn down a good idea simply because of a
poor implementation. Also, lets not discredit the benefits certification
can offer simply because "you don't need it". The industry needs it. If
everyone in the industry were in the 5% category that take the time and effort
to thoroughly train themselves, of course there would be no need for certification.
The fact that managers rarely train people, it is hard to learn a depth
of knowledge on the job and a lot of people make a minimal effort to learn,
makes certification necessary.

[Mark Hurd]

"James " <dontgiveout@myemail.com> wrote in message
news:3bfec398$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> <Snip some strongly stated views I essentially agree with>
>
> I for one would rather higher someone with a 1/2-year of VB certification
> and 2-1/2 years experience rather than someone with only 3 year of
on-the-job
> VB learning. What would you prefer?
>
> On one hand, I have a person with 2 1/2 years of experience choosing and
> applying, from the realm of VB possibilities, the best solution to their
> problem. On the other hand I have someone who, under the stress of
deadlines,
> learned a few necessary kludges to become productive during their first year
> of programming and spent 2 more years trying to make every problem they
encounter
> look like the kludges they know. Tough choice.

OK, but what if your faced with a choice between a three year degree and a 6
month certification, with the same experience?

The correct answer *should* be to get the degree qualified candidate because
they can be trained for whatever is needed now and in the future.

Often, however, the normal scenario is that the certification is seen as
better because it looks more relevant to the current requirements, and less
training required.

Over simplifying it, it still comes down to choosing between the right way and
the way that works.

Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)

PS And, yes, I am biased, but I have seen it happen, where I have been the
losing candidate and where I've just watched from afar.

[Joe Monroe]

"James " <dontgiveout@myemail.com> wrote in message
news:3bfec398$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> The IT industry is flailing in credibility. Most projects fail. The ones
> that are successful are approximately 180% over budget and time (where is
> my copy of Code Complete?!) Why? One of the top ten risks for project
failure
> is the developers are not familiar with the technology. What does
certification
> do? It makes people familiar with the technology. I see certification
> as being the answer to improving the success rate of the IT industry and
> regaining some credibility. I'll attempt to show this.

My experience has been that projects fail because of poor management and not
sticking to a proper development methodology. This is sometimes because the
PM doesn't know any better but usually because of pressure from higher-ups
to "get it done now" insetead of "get it done right." And no certification
system is going to help fix this.

[Bob]

In article <3bfec398$1@147.208.176.211>, dontgiveout@myemail.com says...
>
> The IT industry is flailing in credibility. Most projects fail. The ones
> that are successful are approximately 180% over budget and time (where is
> my copy of Code Complete?!) Why? One of the top ten risks for project failure
> is the developers are not familiar with the technology. What does certification
> do? It makes people familiar with the technology. I see certification
> as being the answer to improving the success rate of the IT industry and
> regaining some credibility. I'll attempt to show this.
>

James,

In the past 25 years I can only remember one project where a lack of
understanding of technology was the primary or major cause of failure. The
rest of the time it's usually one or more of; requirements defined in jello,
impossible schedules, attempts to do the impossible given the resources, or
poor project planning/documentation.

Bob

[James]

>OK, but what if your faced with a choice between a three year degree and
>a 6 month certification, with the same experience?

I think that that employers are finally figuring out what you are saying.
I've heard from numerous sources that they were very disappointed when hiring
certificate people with no experience or degrees. They end up hiring people
that can barely function in a working environment. Imagine going from having
little concept of what a PC is to having a MSCSE in a year (or however long
the course is). No wonder.

>The correct answer *should* be to get the degree qualified candidate because
>they can be trained for whatever is needed now and in the future.
>
>Often, however, the normal scenario is that the certification is seen as
>better because it looks more relevant to the current requirements, and >less
training required.

*heh* Less training until version X+1 comes out and the certified person
has little theoretical or conceptual background to compensate. I totally
agree with you. In my mind, certification is a perfect complement to a degree
and experience.

>PS And, yes, I am biased, but I have seen it happen, where I have been the
>losing candidate and where I've just watched from afar.

And I bet the employer was kicking themselves 4 months later.

Right now a lot of experienced IT workers seem threatened by certification
for experiences such as you've had. The tendency to hire certified people
will straighten itself out once employer learn the "flavor of the month certificate"
(with no experience) doesn't provide what it promises. Once employers figure
out that a certificate is a "starting point" into the IT industry, they will
start putting a higher weight on people's experience and degree.

James

[James]

>My experience has been that projects fail because of poor management and
not
>sticking to a proper development methodology. This is sometimes because
the
>PM doesn't know any better but usually because of pressure from higher-ups
>to "get it done now" insetead of "get it done right." And no certification
>system is going to help fix this.

Project managers can learn to educate higher-ups. In this scenario a good
project manager would go to the higher ups and say "If we adhere to your
schedule, we will fail. The only way we can feasibly make the deadline is
to cut functionality." This response is a "skill" and as such, it is something
that can be taught. There are "necessary" and "essential" skills to succeed
in any area, be it VB or PM. While PM have a set of skills used across all
industries there are definitely some PM concepts that are specific or more
relevant to the IT industry. These skills and concepts can be identified
and taught.

See my response in the post below for more details on this...

[Aaron Sevivas]

I guess you would classify the most productive employee as having the following
characteristics in order of importance:

1) Experience = fought IN a war before against the same enemy.
(degreeOfSeparation)
(degreeOfSeparation)
(degreeOfSeparation)
2) University = studied about fighting in a war for years against many types
of enemies, maybe even the enemy your currently fighting.
(degreeOfSeparation)
3) Certification = "crash course" on fighting a war against this enemy.


thats what I think

~aaron
"James" <dontgiveout@myemail.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, but what if your faced with a choice between a three year degree and
>>a 6 month certification, with the same experience?
>
>I think that that employers are finally figuring out what you are saying.
> I've heard from numerous sources that they were very disappointed when
hiring
>certificate people with no experience or degrees. They end up hiring people
>that can barely function in a working environment. Imagine going from having
>little concept of what a PC is to having a MSCSE in a year (or however long
>the course is). No wonder.
>
>>The correct answer *should* be to get the degree qualified candidate because
>>they can be trained for whatever is needed now and in the future.
>>
>>Often, however, the normal scenario is that the certification is seen as
>>better because it looks more relevant to the current requirements, and
>less
>training required.
>
>*heh* Less training until version X+1 comes out and the certified person
>has little theoretical or conceptual background to compensate. I totally
>agree with you. In my mind, certification is a perfect complement to a
degree
>and experience.
>
>>PS And, yes, I am biased, but I have seen it happen, where I have been
the
>>losing candidate and where I've just watched from afar.
>
>And I bet the employer was kicking themselves 4 months later.
>
>Right now a lot of experienced IT workers seem threatened by certification
>for experiences such as you've had. The tendency to hire certified people
>will straighten itself out once employer learn the "flavor of the month
certificate"
>(with no experience) doesn't provide what it promises. Once employers figure
>out that a certificate is a "starting point" into the IT industry, they
will
>start putting a higher weight on people's experience and degree.
>
>James

[Aaron Sevivas]

BTW: Its all about combining the 3 to develop a powerful programmer/architect.
Having just ONE will only work if its raw experience. Fresh newbies out
of college can be just as worthless as some guy off the street thats certified.
Knowledge/experience transfer is usually just easier with university kids
(the potential can be realized quicker).

IOU $.02 (im broke, I've been tossing my opinion out there alot today)

~aaron

"Aaron Sevivas" <a@a.com> wrote:
>
>I guess you would classify the most productive employee as having the following
>characteristics in order of importance:
>
>1) Experience = fought IN a war before against the same enemy.
> (degreeOfSeparation)
> (degreeOfSeparation)
> (degreeOfSeparation)
>2) University = studied about fighting in a war for years against many
types
>of enemies, maybe even the enemy your currently fighting.
> (degreeOfSeparation)
>3) Certification = "crash course" on fighting a war against this enemy.
>
>
>thats what I think
>
>~aaron
>"James" <dontgiveout@myemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>OK, but what if your faced with a choice between a three year degree and
>>>a 6 month certification, with the same experience?
>>
>>I think that that employers are finally figuring out what you are saying.
>> I've heard from numerous sources that they were very disappointed when
>hiring
>>certificate people with no experience or degrees. They end up hiring people
>>that can barely function in a working environment. Imagine going from
having
>>little concept of what a PC is to having a MSCSE in a year (or however
long
>>the course is). No wonder.
>>
>>>The correct answer *should* be to get the degree qualified candidate because
>>>they can be trained for whatever is needed now and in the future.
>>>
>>>Often, however, the normal scenario is that the certification is seen
as
>>>better because it looks more relevant to the current requirements, and
>>less
>>training required.
>>
>>*heh* Less training until version X+1 comes out and the certified person
>>has little theoretical or conceptual background to compensate. I totally
>>agree with you. In my mind, certification is a perfect complement to a
>degree
>>and experience.
>>
>>>PS And, yes, I am biased, but I have seen it happen, where I have been
>the
>>>losing candidate and where I've just watched from afar.
>>
>>And I bet the employer was kicking themselves 4 months later.
>>
>>Right now a lot of experienced IT workers seem threatened by certification
>>for experiences such as you've had. The tendency to hire certified people
>>will straighten itself out once employer learn the "flavor of the month
>certificate"
>>(with no experience) doesn't provide what it promises. Once employers
figure
>>out that a certificate is a "starting point" into the IT industry, they
>will
>>start putting a higher weight on people's experience and degree.
>>
>>James
>

[pnsm]

I believe this entire discussion is based on the wrong arguments.
People are different, some will be better than others, independently of
their experience, degrres or certifications. You can´t escape it, some people
will be better then others. It´s the company's responsability who they hire,
and it will all fall on luck in the end. They can only hire the ones that
show up for the interviews.

"Aaron Sevivas" <a@a.com> wrote:
>
>BTW: Its all about combining the 3 to develop a powerful programmer/architect.
> Having just ONE will only work if its raw experience. Fresh newbies out
>of college can be just as worthless as some guy off the street thats certified.
> Knowledge/experience transfer is usually just easier with university kids
>(the potential can be realized quicker).
>
>IOU $.02 (im broke, I've been tossing my opinion out there alot today)
>
>~aaron
>
>"Aaron Sevivas" <a@a.com> wrote:
>>
>>I guess you would classify the most productive employee as having the following
>>characteristics in order of importance:
>>
>>1) Experience = fought IN a war before against the same enemy.
>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>>2) University = studied about fighting in a war for years against many
>types
>>of enemies, maybe even the enemy your currently fighting.
>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>>3) Certification = "crash course" on fighting a war against this enemy.
>>
>>
>>thats what I think
>>
>>~aaron
>>"James" <dontgiveout@myemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>OK, but what if your faced with a choice between a three year degree
and
>>>>a 6 month certification, with the same experience?
>>>
>>>I think that that employers are finally figuring out what you are saying.
>>> I've heard from numerous sources that they were very disappointed when
>>hiring
>>>certificate people with no experience or degrees. They end up hiring
people
>>>that can barely function in a working environment. Imagine going from
>having
>>>little concept of what a PC is to having a MSCSE in a year (or however
>long
>>>the course is). No wonder.
>>>
>>>>The correct answer *should* be to get the degree qualified candidate
because
>>>>they can be trained for whatever is needed now and in the future.
>>>>
>>>>Often, however, the normal scenario is that the certification is seen
>as
>>>>better because it looks more relevant to the current requirements, and
>>>less
>>>training required.
>>>
>>>*heh* Less training until version X+1 comes out and the certified person
>>>has little theoretical or conceptual background to compensate. I totally
>>>agree with you. In my mind, certification is a perfect complement to
a
>>degree
>>>and experience.
>>>
>>>>PS And, yes, I am biased, but I have seen it happen, where I have been
>>the
>>>>losing candidate and where I've just watched from afar.
>>>
>>>And I bet the employer was kicking themselves 4 months later.
>>>
>>>Right now a lot of experienced IT workers seem threatened by certification
>>>for experiences such as you've had. The tendency to hire certified people
>>>will straighten itself out once employer learn the "flavor of the month
>>certificate"
>>>(with no experience) doesn't provide what it promises. Once employers
>figure
>>>out that a certificate is a "starting point" into the IT industry, they
>>will
>>>start putting a higher weight on people's experience and degree.
>>>
>>>James
>>
>

[Daniel]

There is merit to all of the points people have made on this forum and want
to add to what the previous person said...

Yes, people have strengths which differ. Some will appear better at their
job than others. However, if a company is willing to manage their people
and target their skills, those people with their individual strengths can
be focused in the right areas. Sure, someone may write better, bug-free code,
but the other person may track down defects like a blood-hound or be a better
architect.

Granted, some people are hopeless unsuited for certain roles and one would
hope they don't attain the job! However, there is also room for targeted
use of people's abilities. A skillful manager will do this and do it well.


So perhaps that is what is lacking?? Skilled, experience managers who understand
the technical issues and the processes involved but also know how to manage
people! No amount of technical certification will provide that...

"pnsm" <pedro_ns_monteiro@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I believe this entire discussion is based on the wrong arguments.
> People are different, some will be better than others, independently of
>their experience, degrres or certifications. You can´t escape it, some people
>will be better then others. It´s the company's responsability who they hire,
>and it will all fall on luck in the end. They can only hire the ones that
>show up for the interviews.
>
>"Aaron Sevivas" <a@a.com> wrote:
>>
>>BTW: Its all about combining the 3 to develop a powerful programmer/architect.
>> Having just ONE will only work if its raw experience. Fresh newbies out
>>of college can be just as worthless as some guy off the street thats certified.
>> Knowledge/experience transfer is usually just easier with university kids
>>(the potential can be realized quicker).
>>
>>IOU $.02 (im broke, I've been tossing my opinion out there alot today)
>>
>>~aaron
>>
>>"Aaron Sevivas" <a@a.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I guess you would classify the most productive employee as having the
following
>>>characteristics in order of importance:
>>>
>>>1) Experience = fought IN a war before against the same enemy.
>>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>>>2) University = studied about fighting in a war for years against many
>>types
>>>of enemies, maybe even the enemy your currently fighting.
>>> (degreeOfSeparation)
>>>3) Certification = "crash course" on fighting a war against this enemy.
>>>
>>>
>>>thats what I think
>>>
>>>~aaron
>>>"James" <dontgiveout@myemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>OK, but what if your faced with a choice between a three year degree
>and
>>>>>a 6 month certification, with the same experience?
>>>>
>>>>I think that that employers are finally figuring out what you are saying.
>>>> I've heard from numerous sources that they were very disappointed when
>>>hiring
>>>>certificate people with no experience or degrees. They end up hiring
>people
>>>>that can barely function in a working environment. Imagine going from
>>having
>>>>little concept of what a PC is to having a MSCSE in a year (or however
>>long
>>>>the course is). No wonder.
>>>>
>>>>>The correct answer *should* be to get the degree qualified candidate
>because
>>>>>they can be trained for whatever is needed now and in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>Often, however, the normal scenario is that the certification is seen
>>as
>>>>>better because it looks more relevant to the current requirements, and
>>>>less
>>>>training required.
>>>>
>>>>*heh* Less training until version X+1 comes out and the certified person
>>>>has little theoretical or conceptual background to compensate. I totally
>>>>agree with you. In my mind, certification is a perfect complement to
>a
>>>degree
>>>>and experience.
>>>>
>>>>>PS And, yes, I am biased, but I have seen it happen, where I have been
>>>the
>>>>>losing candidate and where I've just watched from afar.
>>>>
>>>>And I bet the employer was kicking themselves 4 months later.
>>>>
>>>>Right now a lot of experienced IT workers seem threatened by certification
>>>>for experiences such as you've had. The tendency to hire certified people
>>>>will straighten itself out once employer learn the "flavor of the month
>>>certificate"
>>>>(with no experience) doesn't provide what it promises. Once employers
>>figure
>>>>out that a certificate is a "starting point" into the IT industry, they
>>>will
>>>>start putting a higher weight on people's experience and degree.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>
>>
>