October 22, 2001, 12:00 AM — I got a note from a reader recently who took exception to the presence
of third-party commercial organizations who provide technology
certifications. His argument that the IT community, like the medical
and legal communities, must establish its own credentialization process
has been voiced by some of the best minds in the business have voiced
from time-to-time.
You must go through an approved education program, internship, and pass
a rigorous test administered by a central authority to become an M.D.,
or a doctor of medicine. Similarly, to become a lawyer (doctor of
jurisprudence), you must go to an accredited law school, take a
similarly difficult test, and obtain a license to practice in your
state. Licenses to practice law and medicine are granted by quasi-
government agencies that, for practical reasons, have a monopoly on
granting such licensure. Allowing someone who has studied medicine to
enter a free marketplace and obtain a license to practice medicine from
one of a dozen competing licensing organizations would be folly.
However, no central authority exists that bestows the title of "IT
Professional" (doctor of information technology?). There isn't even a
requirement that a certification or degree be held at all; although, in
reality, obtaining a position without one would be almost impossible.
What would the state of medicine be like if medical licenses were
granted by pharmaceutical companies instead of a neutral organization?
A disaster, no doubt. But "licenses" to run a computer network are
granted by the manufacturers of network operating systems, which one
could argue is the same thing. Although operating a Microsoft network
without an MCSE is not against the law, the MCSE is, in reality, a de
facto license granted by Microsoft. However, Microsoft isn't the only
game in town.
IT certification takes a free market approach. You can get any one of
several other network management certs from dozens of different
organizations, most operating either for-profit or as a front for a
vendor. Instead of getting certs from Microsoft, Novell, Cisco, or a
non-vendor organization like Brainbench, should there be, as in the
medical and legal profession, a single, central authority from which
all IT professionals must obtain certification before being allowed to
practice? Personally, I don't like the idea of a central credentialing
authority for IT professionals, but I'm a died-in-the-wool free market
capitalist. Microsoft, however much you love to hate them, is in the
best position to create and administer a test for people who want to
run networks based on Microsoft technology. Not to mention that plenty
of "old-timers" remain in the IT workforce who went to college before
the advent of a computer science degree, yet they are highly competent.
Obviously, the value of certifications is great in today's marketplace.
Regardless of who bestows them, they prove that you have a base-level
understanding of a specific topic within the field of information
technology. But should we elevate it to the same level as doctors and
lawyers? The people who write programs or put together networks have
every bit as difficult a job as a lawyer who writes briefs, or a doctor
who puts people back-together. But should you really have to become a
licensed practitioner to work in IT?
Is it just elitist snobbery, or a recognition that the industry has
evolved? Perhaps, in a way, the quest for IT certification
centralization is a desire to go back to the earlier days of IT, when
the folks who ran the computers and wrote the programs were members of
an unofficial "priesthood." In those days, fewer people understood
computers and looked upon the IT department with awe. Nobody questioned
their decisions because nobody understood what they did. A manager
would submit a request for a report and, a week later, it would
magically appear. Nobody questioned how long it took to create or where
it came originated. And, be honest now, we kind of liked it that way.
Today, more emphasis is placed on broad-based knowledge and universal
access. Managers can run their own reports and are encouraged to do so.
Workers no longer have to ask "the guys in IT" for information; they
can use simple query tools to access the database themselves. People
are less dependent on the folks in the back room. Almost everybody in
the office has at least some basic knowledge of technology now and
strong opinions about what "those guys in IT" should be doing with
their time.
Should you have to have a license to practice technology? Yes or no? If
you have an opinion, write me at dblacharski@home.com, and I'll report
the results in a later newsletter.
