Survey, Should the IT Industry Require Certification?

Comments entered for each question

• Similar to the PMBOK in the PM world and various certifications and bodys of knowledge that exist for very specific technical competencies, there could be a value to have a baseline lexicon and clear understanding of baseline skills and standards for IT architects.
• There is a huge responsibility to being a good architect. I think that sometimes it would be necessary to expect certain certifications for those entrusted with such a high degree of responsibility.
• Yes. BUT only if it is done right! Currently all most certifications mean is that on that day you could pass a mutliple choice test.
• It should not be required by law. It should be left to the employing organization to require certification. However, certifications should be driven by the IT professional and an independent training/certification/accredidation firm (akin to the the Amer. Bar Assoc). Certification must include continuing education and re-certification. Over time, smart companies will require certified IT professionals and/or those actively in a "residency" (i.e. apprentice)program. Those that don't will suffer.
• Certification fails because the certifying body becomes more interested in making money or using certification to promote their brand rather than their certifications providing value. The only certification that could work would be from an industry body that wants to enforce the integrity of the profession, like the AMA or a legal BAR.
• My view is certification (done 'right') says that a person has been exposed to a base of information. It does not mean the person is 'good' at what they do or know how to apply the knowledge to solve business and technical challenges. Like any other profession, people/buyers value certification, largely in my view because those without background in the profession have nothing else to anchor on to measure the knowledge and experience level of a worker.
• I'm putting rarely cause I don't know what you meant by "right".
• If it is not required, it will take years to reach critical mss
• Certification for technical standards, and for knowledge of how to get an architecture to be compliant, is advisable - e.g. Microsoft, Novell, Oracle etc.
• Certification of awareness to ISO/IEEE/IEC standards would also be useful.
• there should be a NEVER option

• The term 'IT architect' has many different means within the IT industry, individual organizations, etc. If the IT architect can be established and substantiated as a term with a common definition with very specific roles, responsibilities, skills, etc. then I think it could be done right.
• IBM and the OpenGroup are fine examples.
• I think the tech community has most of the brightest "future thinkers" within it; and that it is possible to form an organization that encompasses the brightest of those to create a certification program that would evolve with technology and provide the proper regulation and governance over the tech community in terms of certifications. Maybe something similar to what FINRA does for the financial industry.
• Yes. If it is a certification that requires you understand the problem and the solution set(s) for that problem. Not that you have read a book and can repeat someone else's ideas.
• You asked "can" vs. "will". So yes, it "can". However, if not implemented independently with the proper controls and oversight, you have a good opportunity for a "credit-rating" agency scenario where the big boys (like IBM) get their resources certified on a fast-track by paying $$$ to the certification companies. This is why there can be no direct link between those that certify and those that hire certified individuals. See additional comments...
• It is unlikely to be "done right" until there is an industry accepted governing body made up of practitioners.
• Would have to be defined and administered by a 'non-profit' independent type body. It would be very difficult to gain agreement and get alignment on the definition of a 'standard certification', not sure this can be overcome in the IT industry.
• I'm not sure what is meant by "done right"
• Detail-level architecture, probably; high-level architecture, probably not. I've been very underwhelmed at the effective value (or lack of it) of TOGAF certification, for example.
• its been tried

• Yes. See PMI PMP certifications, security certs as you indicated above, as examples.
• Professional Engineer (PE) certification at a minimum
• IBM certifies IT Specialists
• I believe there should be varying levels of certifications.
• Developer, Software Engineer, DBA
• I like the general and specialist approach,similar to the medical profession.First, you are a medical doctor,then you specialize. Note: the main topics all IT resources should be certified in are: requirements extraction, process design, information presentation, and communication - all things the typical IT resource is extremely weak at. Which is why solutions get bungled in the first place. The problem isn't the technical solution, it is that often it is the wrong solution for the need.
• It can be used as an enter level credential as long as it provides a minimum level of value. Too many certification just don't provide basic value to the individual or companies using them as a way to sort candidates.
• Certifications that exist now in the IT world are not terribly useful from an IT practitioners perspective but...they still hold value to IT buyers despite the weaknesses in today's IT certifications. IT should learn from this an leverage as a means to build more confidence in IT.
• It already is e.g. SAP certification, Project Manager (PMP)certification.
• Our issue is with building and testing, where do these responsibilities lie?
• Any role that requires a common language or required common standards.
• its in place now

• If I could choose a 2nd, it would be data / information architect. Doesn't security architects already have a cert?
• Data, Software Enterprise, and Hardware as well. commets below should be added to the comments in section 5. As you know, SANS GIAC certifications are not "evergreen", that is they require re-testing at ~4 year intervals. Consequently, SANS GIAC is actually a stronger family of Certs than the ISC(2) CISSP/ISSEP, etc. I would be in favor of a architect certification "regime" that follows the SANS GIAC model as opposed to the ISC(2) model.
• All should be required
• I would like to pick more than one, but the survey will not allow me to.
• Security and hardware architects should both be cerified. Data, Software and Enterprise could be certified at different levels under different technologies (i.e., Relational DBs, Java, .NET, SOA, CEP, BMP, Model-Driven, etc.)
• Cliff - you should have used a pick list, not radio button so that multiple choices could be made. Maybe you need to be certified :-) Again - general architect certification, then specialization in the specifc sub-category.
• I think certification is difficult for a number of reasons deep in U.S. culture and the emergence of the IT profession. Unlike many other engineering disciplines, IT does not show itself in tactile artifacts, making it less of a target for certification as a public good.
• Actually, I think that anyone who reaches the architect level should hold a certfiication in there specific architecture domain. Given this, if an EA is assumed to be at the highest level of architecture domains, then he/she should certainly hold an appropriate and related certification.
• Either we develop a respected industry body that can give meaningful certifications that provide value to the individual and the companies employing those individuals or we will continue to have the state of affairs we have now.
• All of them.
• Certification of architecture itself is probably not all that useful.
• Certification of compliance or at least awareness (e.g. ITIL 'Foundation' level) of the standards that the architecture needs to link with is somewhere between useful and essential, dependent on the business context.
• see first comment above

• "A possible way to avoid this is to require that certification be renewed on a regular basis. This would require people to stay current. If certification expires, then one has to renew it anyway, and one might as well embrace new technologies and approaches. Continued in section 4 comments above. Check out IBM's certification program some time.
• Not only does the survey itself seem biased in favor of certification (where was the None option in #4), but it attempts to sell certification prior to taking the survey. Furthermore, it was sent to a group of architects to begin with. I would be very skeptical of any results obtained.
• In order for this to be done "right", certification companies must be not-for-profit associations funded by a pool of commercial, state, and federal dollars. This is separate from traning companies, which can be commercial and for profit. You cannot have IBM, HP, and CSC become certification companies-that would be the fox guarding the hen house.
• I think if you look at the kinds of certifications that already exist, who pursues them and who requires them, you might better understand what the expect in the future.
• Thank you for doing this enlightening research! This is a subject of interest for me as I hold several certs and my management is just now starting to promote and support such technology certifications. I'm certain that market pressures relative to talent attraction and retention caused the ultimate change of tune, if you will.
• Creating a respected industry body that can monitor, fight for and lobby for the best interests of the members of that body is a good idea for IT and IT Architects. Our current state of affairs is one of confusion and haphazard certification value at best.
• There needs to be some respected organization pushing for this
• Architecture itself is context-dependent, and in itself is not appropriate for certification. Work-history and responsibility-history is the best 'certification' for architecture.
• Certification of awareness of implementation-layer standards relevant to the architecture context would be useful.

My Own Analysis