ddspell-m3 wrote:

How would professional certification "formalize" MVDBs and bring
"legitimacy and respectability" to the technology? I don't understand
it. I would imagine it is necessary for things to be the otherway
around: the technology probably has to be respected before anybody
would think the certification or "professionals" has value.

Anthony

That's a good approach too, but I don't think it's a matter
of one _or_ the other. We need both. "Needed," maybe.

--
frosty (The worm is the spice; the spice is the worm.)

Sigh - when will I ever learn that brevity only evokes even longer
responses?

(Hey Dale, haven't exchanged notes with u in a while, I hope all is
well..)

OK, yes, years ago one of our respected colleagues was contracted to
produce a certification program for Pick Systems. For many reasons it
was one of the biggest FUBAR projects that I had ever witnessed. The
people putting together the material didn't know the subject material.
They didn't ask the right questions of people who did know the
material and no one was assigned to recognize or manage this
"disconnection". The questions and answers that were received weren't
properly in context in the testing material. Platforms like SCO and
NT were all mixed up. Somehow the circus ran for quite a long time
and in the end the concept of certification was regarded as a very bad
thing. I have no idea and don't care who was responsible for the
mess. Given some better management it could have gone much better. I
think it was just a serious mis-implementation of a good idea.

That said, there is a downside. Isn't there always? Let's say a
vendor like PS/RD certifies some of its resellers. What does that
mean for the rest of the uncertified resellers? They're incompetent?
They should get less referrals or lower commissions than the other
guys? Their reseller licenses should get revoked if they don't have a
certified technician on staff? What kind of message does any of this
send to the channel? Personally I think PS management was too weak to
work through this, so when it failed I think some people were
breathing easier that they didn't have to try to sell it to the user
base.

I'm a little more draconian in this regard. I know PS/RD has lost a
lot of business from end-users leaving because of incompetent
resellers and up-line support providers. If people knew more about
the systems they sold and claimed to support then this market might
not have such a high attrition rate. If an application developer
can't pass a DBMS certification exam then they should still be allowed
to sell their software but DBMS support (and related commissions)
should go to someone who's more qualified to address those specific
needs of the end-users. LOL - I'm sure you'll never hear that from
any of the DBMS vendors, but I'll bet they wish they could get away
with it.

Got my armor on, let the arrows of indignant reprisal soar... I warn
you though - if you're a VAR and don't know your trade then I advise
you to not openly advertise. If you do know your stuff, this isn't
about you.

T


"Dale" <benedictknowspam (AT) silk (DOT) net> wrote:

IBM have dropped the term VAR some time ago, you are IBM business
partner. However there is no check as to how good or bad you are. Then
again i know of some terrible so called microsoft consultants who are
MCSE certified but seem to know less then my mum about windows ...

The problem would be that each DB vendor would need its own
certification, Although IBM U2 is 80% of the market place, they wont
give certification on the aspects of D3 etc that are not common with
U2.

For many people their certification comes from their track record and
name in the industry. Not from sitting an exam.


Rgds
Symeon.

[complete ramble, no real content]
Agreed - a topic of concern is not just how "certification" is
interpreted, which was the only aspect I discussed in my last post,
but what does it really mean? I'm sure almost all of us know college
educated people who have no idea how the real business world works, or
how to code their way out of a loop. I've come to translate a two
year degree to be an indicator of stamina rather than quality, and
"final exams" as more of an individual's ability to take tests rather
than their ability to assimilate and use information in context.

Symeon, you're making an interesting distinction between MV and
specific MV platforms. (Thinking aloud here) How much of what we know
about MV is important only in a platform-specific context? As you
guys know, I'm intimate with D3 but pretty light on U2. If my MV
skills were judged based on my knowledge of the syntax and nuances of
Unidata (for example), I could be considered incompetent. Having
worked with a large number of MV environments I know what to look for,
I know what questions to ask, so I can solve the problems that I
stumble on with each MV environment - which is partially how I manage
to retain U2 clients. How the heck would someone be tested for
something like that? It seems certification really does need to be
based more on what you know about a specific platform, and we "jack of
all trades" types probably wouldn't do too well in "MV certification".

This is another example of how they say higher education is more about
teaching people how to think than what to think about, but the common
testing processes don't reflect that at all. To my knowledge, most
professional testing of any kind is based on facts that someone should
know on the spot rather than how capable someone is of getting
information they need. As a perfect example, we have "open book" and
"closed book" tests. That's a silly hang over from "traditional"
testing methods when in the real world today we aren't restricted to
the books on our desk. We have the internet and a wealth of other
resources that we can call upon (especially forums like this) to get
specific answers as well as new ideas about how to approach problems
or categories of problems.

I've never been very good with testing for some of these reasons, and
this is exactly why I never got a college degree. I wonder how many
other perfectly competent people cannot get certified or degreed or
otherwise demonstrate their competence simply because they don't do
well with standardized testing processes. If anyone were to come up
with MV certification, I would campaign to ensure that it made
allowance for such things.

T


"Symeon" wrote: