The Council of European Professional Informatics Societies, CEPIS, recently completed an extensive review of professional ICT certifications (Survey of Certification Schemes for IT Professionals across Europe towards Harmonisation). They identified 62 providers of certification, 617 types of certification, with millions of issued certifications. The vast majority of these certification schemes focus on vendor-specific information, knowledge, and experience.

Professional Informatics Societies do offer vendor-neutral professional certifications, but the market acceptance has been very weak. Millions of vendor-specific professional certifications have been awarded, but only thousands of vendor-neutral professional certifications have been issued. This has certainly been the experience in Canada. The Canadian Information Processing Society, CIPS, does offer vendor-neutral professional certification, but has only a few thousand certified members, ... that in a market estimated to contain more than 250,000 full-time informatics professionals.

There is a very significant gap between market acceptance of vendor-specific certification and vendor-neutral certification. There are a number of ways to explain this gap. Vendors see commercial advantage in having professionals certified in their products - they spend money promoting and supporting their certification schemes. The non-profit professional societies behind vendor-neutral certification schemes do not have the same kind of financial resources, nor do they enjoy the same kind of financial rewards.

Above and beyond this resource disparity, there is an important difference between what the two kinds of certification say about those who are certified. The vendor-specific certification schemes attest to the current product knowledge of those who are certified. There is a reason for clients or employers to search for those certified in XXX. If a client or employer has a strong interest in product XXX, those certified in XXX will be seen as more attractive consultants or employees. This provides a strong incentive for professionals to seek such certification. The market numbers support this analysis.

Vendor-neutral certification schemes need to provide important information to clients and employers about those who are certified. In this context, it's important to draw a distinction between licensed and certified professionals. With a licensing regime in place, clients and employers have no option, they are required, by law, to use licensed professionals. In this case, there is a clear incentive for professionals to be licensed, but only if they want to do work that requires a license. Radically different approaches can be followed by organizations that are offering licensing and certification schemes.

What might certification from an organization like CIPS usefully say about those who are certified? The EUCIP (European Certification of Informatics Professionals) proposals are both interesting and promising. They are developing a vendor-neutral foundation certification which can be extend by adding one or more specialization certification schemes, many of which can take advantage of vendor-specific certification schemes. This runs parallel to a Versatilist certification scheme that I have proposed for CIPS.

The Canadian IT Versatilist, or CITV, should have breadth across IT, depth in at least one IT specialization, depth in at least one IT application, and an understanding of Canadian IT law & practice. EUCIP offered a Plan, Build, & Operate definition for IT breadth. The IT Versatilist should demonstrate some understand of what is required to: Plan; Build; and Operate systems. Versatilist certification should verify that the candidate has experience in the classroom or in the working environment that covers all three - Plan, Build, & Operate. This might be covered by the EUCIP 400 study hour proposal, or by existing college or university courses, or by directly relevant working experience.

To this breadth demonstration should be added demonstrated depth in at least one technical area and depth in at least one application area. In both cases, acceptable evidence could take several forms. It could be in the form of vendor-specific certification that was deemed to be at an appropriate professional level (perhaps using criteria similar to that used in the Harmonise effort of CEPIS). It could be in the form of a pattern of a number of upper level college or university courses in the area. It could be in the form of a significant work experience in the area. It could be in the form of a significant professional contribution in the area, e.g. papers, research, or patents.

The only other important ingredient in a Canadian IT Versatilist certification should be a demonstrated understanding of relevant Canadian IT law & practice. We could draw on the work that the Canadian Engineering Societies have done with their examinations covering Canadian engineering law, ethics, and practice. Those examinations are three hours in length, with several textbooks and courses available to help candidates prepare for the examination. The CITV capstone examination might not run completely parallel to the engineering examinations. I don't see any good reason to make this a closed-book exam, and I'm not convinced that it should only have essay questions.

Such a CITV certification would say a number of important things about the IT Professional. It would say that he or she did have at least a basic understanding of relevant Canadian IT law & practice. That could be valuable, especially for those new to Canada. It would say that the person had a balanced appreciation for the full plan/build/operate cycle for systems, and had demonstrated that he or she could understand both technology and its application. It's interesting to stand back from this proposed certification scheme and ask who might qualify, and who would have difficulty meeting the criteria.

Many recent college or university graduates would not qualify, even if a need for professional working experience was not a CITV requirement. Too many courses of study do not require courses all three areas - planning, building, and operating. The building part is normally covered quite well, with some coverage of planning, but with relatively little coverage of operations. Moreover, many college or university programs focus on the theory and/or general practice, but spend little time in a concentrated examination of the application of technology in any particular areas. Some of this is changing, especially in joint-major programs. But the CITV could be an important encouragement for more institutions of higher learning to take a balanced approach to information technology.

CIPS could also consider refining its existing ISP certification using a scheme similar to that being followed by EUCIP. Accept the CITV as the entry credential, and then recognize a combination of existing vendor-specific and vendor-neutral certification schemes to qualify CITV holder for a specialist recognition. This might lead to things like “ISP, Service Management”, or “ISP, Software Engineering”, or “ISP Network Architecture”, or ... There are almost endless possibilities, and we could take advantage of the EUCIP work in recognizing real professional vendor-specific certification schemes.

The capstone credential should be a Senior ISP, or SISP, designation. This could parallel the way in which the IEEE recognizes its senior members. The IEEE requires that a member demonstrate significant accomplishment in his or her professional field in order to be accepted as a Senior Member. Two professional colleagues are required to review each candidate senior member's accomplishments and verify that the candidate has made a significant contribution. Evidence from papers, patents, projects, or positions could be provided to demonstrate significant contribution.

With entry level (CITV) and specialized levels (ISP, specialization), and senior level (SISP) recognized, CIPS would be offering relevant credentials for IT Professionals at all stages in their career. There would be a reasons why our members would want this recognition:

• CITV - The person could be trusted with a broad range of Canadian IT related assignments. He or she would have the breadth and depth to understand the challenges faced by a wide range of Canadian IT assignments.
• ISP, Specialization - CIPS, using its own work and work done by EIUCIP, would provide assurance that the vendor-specific certification was really at a professional level. The public would not have to wonder about the real level of certification.
• SISP - This would be a senior, earned recognition for significant accomplishment in the field. It would be explicit peer recognition of contribution. It would be the kind of recognition that would be coveted by senior, established IT professionals.

With this or a similar arsenal or professional certification offerings, CIPS would be in a position to contribute to appropriate recognition of Canadian IT Professionals at all stages of their career. As it stands today, the CIPS vendor-neutral certification offerings have not been accepted by the Canadian market, and there is no indication that they will be accepted. This, or a similar, basket of certification products would give CIPS a chance of being relevant to the working lives of Canadian IT Professionals. It should be considered.