One of the points I have made a couple of times now is that the main reason certification exists at all is due to the relative youth of our profession. We don’t yet have the formal methods to validate our skills such as those in the fields of law or accounting, and we don’t yet have professional bodies in existence that are widely accepted that can compile an accepted body of knowledge. IT vendors, then, have filled the breach by creating certification programs on their products that are often tied to educational offerings. These new types of architecture programs fill a gap in the industry by taking certification to a new professional level.

Up until now, the majority of the certification programs relied on computer-based exams to test specific technical knowledge (usually tied to the vendor providing the exam, although of course some industry certifications exist). These new architectural programs will require candidates to have a broad range of skills, significant work history in the field and be able to demonstrate good architectural judgment in previous projects. These certifications are not something able to completed through a quick boot camp and soon forgotten, but instead mean that the holder is deemed to fulfill the standards required of a professional IT architect.

For the Microsoft program, although much of the detail is still to come, this certification represents quite a departure from its existing certifications. For example, the company has said that only 25 percent of the program will relate to Microsoft technologies; the remainder of the certification will cover a great degree of non-proprietary technologies. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how many architects choose to align themselves with a vendor-based certification versus a vendor-neutral program. Of course, there is nothing to suggest that qualified candidates can’t complete both programs should they choose; however, given the heavy time requirements to prepare for each of these certifications, I can imagine that few working architects will be able to afford the time to complete both.

One interesting contrast is the amount of architectural experience required to complete both programs. The Open Group specifies a minimum of three years; Microsoft wants a minimum of 10! Three years seems like a reasonable amount of time for an architect to have put the theory into practice and have learnt hard lessons from their work. I can’t help but think that 10 years a little on the excessive side -- surely even five years would have been enough. If Microsoft is expecting to have only certified architects with more than 10 years experience (and with Microsoft experience to boot), we are talking about those few hearty souls around at the times of Windows NT 3.51 and Windows 95. I’m sure they will have plenty of war stories from those early days, but I don’t understand why Microsoft decided on this, other than to set the bar so high that only the most qualified and experienced will be able to achieve this certification.

I’m really excited about these new certifications, and the implication of what these mean for our profession. As they grow in adoption I am hopeful that these concepts can be applied to certification of other roles within IT. What do you think these announcements mean for the future of IT certification? Let me know by posting your thoughts below.