First a few words about terminology. Certification is normally viewed as voluntary. Individuals obtain certification because they value what this says about them. While certification is not required by the state, the demands of the workplace may make it a near requirement. Accreditation, on the other hand, happens to educational institutions, not individuals. A program of study is accredited. There is often a connection, however, when certification requires completion of an accredited program of study (or equivalent).

Licensing is a whole different matter. The state establishes a restricted area of practice and requires that everyone who undertakes work in that area be licensed. In computing, there are hundreds of different kinds of certification, but no real licensing. Some engineers in Canada (and elsewhere) have made the claim that only licensed engineers should be able to engage in “software engineering”. Notwithstanding such claims, there is only the most limited public support for the notion of licensing work in computing.

Different certification programs in computing have achieved radically different degrees of market success. Vendor certification has obvious value, at least for those who want to work with the vendor’s products. This is particularly true for those working at the technologist level, but less so for those at the professional level. My primary concern, here, is with certification programs for at professionals. Virtually all professional certification efforts are vendor independent, typically being run by a non-profit organization.

Professional certification, to have value, must credibly assert something about certificants that could not otherwise be easily determined. The new Computer Society’s Certified Software Development Professional (CSDP)designation attests to the fact that the individual has broad and deep knowledge and experience in software engineering. The CSDP is clearly not for everyone, but does say something important about certificants. Attaining it isn’t easy and relative values have yet to be determined, but it’s a promising effort.

Almost at the other end of the spectrum are such things as ITIL Foundation certification. The examination for ITIL Foundation certification tests broad knowledge of the ten processes and service desk which are behind the ITIL approach to service delivery and support. Reasonable preparation requires a two or three day course. It’s a test of basic process knowledge. But the ITIL process is winning increasing acceptance as the way to deliver and support IT services. The market clearly values such certification.

In this context, the Project Management Institute’s certified Project Management Professional (PMP) needs to be considered. Candidates for the PMP must present real evidence of project management work, and pass an examination based on the PMBOK. A guide to the PMBOK, or Project Management Body of Knowledge, is available as book length best practices project management text. The PMP says something important about project management candidates. The market seems to be placing increased value on such detailed process certification.

All of these certification efforts are credible. The importance of what they assert about certificants varies widely, but their assertions are all credible. The CSDP really has broad and deep knowledge and experience in software engineering. The ITIL Foundation certification does have basic knowledge of the ITIL process. And the PMP has both project management experience and demonstrated knowledge of project management best practices. This kind of credibility is not always present.

The Institute for Certification of Computer Professionals (ICCP) has been struggling to win acceptance of its certification efforts for a long time. They claim that those passing their examinations have demonstrated the knowledge required of a real computer professional. Based on the sample questions available on their website, it’s a large stretch to make such a claim. The examination behind their certification does test broad knowledge in a variety of areas. Problem is that this kind of broad demonstrated knowledge is not seen as distinguishing.

Years ago I did sit on the Board of the ICCP. They were struggling back then. They are still struggling. I’m now actively involved with the Canadian Information Processing Society (CIPS) and their certification effort. CIPS awards the Information System Professional, I.S.P., to those who meet its (basic) education, experience, and ethical standards. The initial goal was laudable. But the minimum requirement for the I.S.P. is almost exactly what the market would expect of a two year diploma graduate with a few years of experience.

Not surprisingly, the market does not give the I.S.P. designation much respect. CIPS is concerned and wants to do something to change this. What should it do? Ideally, the I.S.P. would mean that its holders are recognized and respected IT professionals. Holding the I.S.P. would be the first step to being accepted as trustworthy. The Code of Ethics and a commitment to it would mean the those holding the I.S.P. will have trustworthy intentions. The other requirements for the designation would mean that the competence of those holding the I.S.P. can be trusted. Very attractive as a goal, but practically impossible to achieve.

Competence would be key. Competence is about the ability to successfully perform some range of tasks in a particular context. I could be competent to work with databases in a single user desktop environment, but not at all competent to design, install, or manage a database that spanned many servers over multiple locations. The established professions get around this contextual problem by assuming that context isn’t all that important. A doctor competent to practice in a big city hospital is assumed to be competent to practice in a small rural clinic and vica versa. It’s not true, but many people are happy to maintain the fiction.

The gap between a big city hospital and a small rural clinic is much smaller than the gap between a desktop database and one that spans the globe. Context cannot be ignored, or assumed away, in computing. The contextual problem poses an almost insurmountable theoretical barrier to assuring trustworthy competence. The practical problems of assessing competence, even in limited or controlled environment, mean that it would be impossible to win acceptance of any broad competence assessment in IT.

The ideal professional certification is just not achievable, at least not by today’s CIPS. There is one possible approach which might be achievable, and which might win acceptance. The I.S.P. could, initially, mean that its holder has prepared her/himself for work as a professional. S/He has studied, not just the technology, but also some of the processes important in computing and at least one domain where computing is being applied. Add supervised working experience and a demonstrated knowledge of ethical and legal considerations. The I.S.P. would mean that its holder has systematically prepared for work as an IT professional.

Winning the I.S.P. designation would distinguish its holders from the common graduates of four year computing degree programs. The I.S.P. holders would have focused on really preparing themselves to work as IT professionals. In a competitive situation, this could be an important distinction. Once established, the challenge is to demonstrate that the individual continues with her/his professional self-development. Do they maintain and extend their knowledge of best practices? Do they expand their knowledge of domains where computing is used. Do they keep up with changing technology, and changing ethical and legal standards?

With the right focus, the I.S.P. could be a coveted distinction as the beginning of a professional career in computing. And it could continue to mean that the holder works on maintaining standing in the profession. It would not be the laudable, but unbelievable, promise of professional competence. It could a valuable way for IT professionals to distinguish themselves at the beginning of their careers and as their careers progresses.