Earlier this week the Scrum Alliance accidently posted some documents related to the Certified Scrum Developer program being released this week. While the documents were apparently an earlier draft, and not the finished product, there were two important points that have been confirmed (or at least reinforced) â€“ the existence of the Scrum Developer Certification (by taking three days of technical training) and the Scrum Alliance Registered Education Provider â€“ the only people allowed to teach the technical training.
If youâ€™ve been following my blog, youâ€™ll know that Iâ€™ve been calling for more technical support for software teams from the Scrum Alliance, and should be jumping around. Youâ€™ll also know that when I was the Community Liaison for the Scrum Alliance I supported the Certified Scrum Developer program at the time. But there are some big differences between then and now, and some important misconceptions out there.
CTISTAC – Certified That I Sat Through A Class
First off, the current CSD program looks very similar to what we had drafted earlier last year. A CSM just has to take 3-days of technical training and can then be stamped as a Certified Scrum Developer. Non-CSMs have to take a one-day Scrum training class, the 3 days of technical training, and a 1-day â€œelectiveâ€. To be a trainer, you either need to be a CST, Microsoft MVP in Application Lifecycle Management, or a Microsoft â€œInner Circleâ€ partner. If you are any of those, you just submit your content, get it reviewed by the Scrum Alliance, and off you go. If you arenâ€™t one of those, you just need to apply and give credentials, and then submit your materials and off you go.
When I was at the Scrum Alliance, this was seen as a big farce. Jim Cundiff and I had many discussions about it, and there were several reasons why the Scrum Alliance ended up with a program like that. But, since there wasnâ€™t much we could do about the CSD itself, we made two important distinctions to offset the impact:
- To be a CSD trainer (or SAREP) you had to co-teach with a specially designated trainer. In short, the Scrum Alliance was going to identify a short list of people who had the Scrum knowledge, technical knowledge, XP knowledge and passion for the role. Then anyone wishing to offer the course had to have one of these handpicked people come in and co-teach with them for one or two classes. At that point, the trainer would be signed-off and free to go about teaching. It may sound a bit like a â€œgood olâ€™ boys clubâ€ but I was very comfortable with the initial people because I felt they were being held accountable by the community. Further, it was designed as a short-term designation to seed the community, at which point the existing trainers could co-teach.
- The entire CSD program was going to be deemphasized. The CSD is a joke. I havenâ€™t found one person who hasnâ€™t said it is a joke. The training, however, is not a joke, and important as a starting point. So the term bandied about was a â€œCertified Scrum Developer Practitionerâ€ which was going to be a much more in-depth certification, involving hands-on practices, experience levels and other aspects which werenâ€™t just about sitting in a class. So, since we couldnâ€™t stop the CSD, weâ€™d make it like a high-school diploma â€“ fine to have, but outside of that, basically worthless.
In Ron Jeffriesâ€™ latest blog post he shows several examples of how the Scrum Alliance is committed to developer quality. And, in fact, I think the Registered Education Provider isnâ€™t a bad step by itself. After all, it makes sense to have a list of the things that are important and make sure that they are covered. The rub is this â€“ if you become an SA REP, and you teach the technical content, you are explicitly supporting the CSD program. There is no way around that. If you are against the CSD, but you become an SA-REP, then saying the CSD is a joke counters your actions.
Ron and Chet are great examples of the conundrum at play here. I think the course they offer will be fine and dandy, and that people will learn a tremendous amount from it. But imagine the power that would have happened, and the message they could have sent, by saying they would only become SA-REPs if there wasnâ€™t a CSD program. I understand Ronâ€™s point about influence, and I believe him. But for many others, itâ€™s about money.
It’s All About the Benjamins (with respect to Puff Daddy)
Letâ€™s do some quick math. The CSM class currently sells for $1000-$1500 USD a seat for a 2-day class. If you sell 20 seats in the class, your income is ((20*$1500)-(20*$50)-$1000) = $28,000. The $50 is the fee you have to pay the Scrum Alliance for each student, and the $1000 covers facility cost and catering. Even if you bump the costs up to $4000 USD, you are still clearing $20,000 USD for a 2-day class.
Since the CSD is going to be longer, more intensive, and rarer to begin with, letâ€™s imagine you can charge between $1500-$2000 a seat. There is no fee to the Scrum Alliance, so you end up $35,000-$38,000. Teach 5 of those a year (15 days of work) and you have cleared $175,000 USD of income.
And itâ€™s no surprise that the certification sells. As Ron says in his blog post:
And still, it sells better. We do our best to sell and teach without deceit, and as an insider I am certain that the Scrum Alliance and the Scrum Trainers that I know do the same. Thereâ€™s certainly a conflict of interest that I feel: on the one hand, Iâ€™m the same delightful guy with or without the certificate. On the other, I get more students, and thus more income, when I offer the CSM. On the gripping hand, I also get to influence more people.
Now, Uncle Bob in his latest blog post asks the question of what problem developer certification is trying to solve. And I think I know.
Many very good coaches and trainers offer training classes all over the country. But they canâ€™t get people to go to them. But suddenly tack on a 3-letter acronym and employers everywhere are willing to jump on it. So why is that a bad thing?
No-CSM (with respect to Eric Evans)
Because the Scrum Alliance didnâ€™t need to do it.
Letâ€™s go back to why the Certified Scrum Developer, and its separated-at-birth twin the Professional Scrum Developer were created. Teams were implementing Scrum but not getting good results because they didnâ€™t have the skills necessary to ship software that frequently. Companies were begging (to hear the story) Ken Schwaber and the Scrum Alliance for help. Imagine if the response had been for the Scrum Alliance to just offer the SA-REP program and show people where they could get more information, more experience, more training. Theoretically people would have jumped all over it. But for some awful reason they still had to stick a meaningless certification in front of it.
And so it comes to this. Either we stand for our principles against certification and let this CSD program die on the doorstep, or we explicitly support it with the thought that we can influence it later on. You know, after Iâ€™ve paid off my house and car and socked away a nice chunk of change. From my perspective, I know that Uncle Bob called for Craftsmanship over Crap. And I view the notion of certification in the same vein as a do the idea of writing tests after the code, or pretending we can adopt agile principles without changing our organizations â€“as crap.
To me, itâ€™s about integrity. I signed the Agile Manifesto and the Software Craftsmanship Manifesto because I truly believe we need serious change in how we build software. And Iâ€™m beginning to think that people are OK with that – when not being waved large sums of money in their face (at least judged by the number of â€œCertification sucks, but Iâ€™m going to apply to be an REP anywayâ€ statements Iâ€™ve heard). And, call me a softie, but that truly and utterly breaks my heart. Because this community is who Iâ€™ve always turned to when I needed to know that taking a stand was the right thing to do. And, without that, I honestly feel that perhaps I should just stop standing up for this stuff and effectively just look for what will make the most money. I have a strong SharePoint background, and I know how to do .NET and Software Architecture, and there are always offers being waved in front of me to go do that.
But I know if I do that, if I let this go, then I may as well not be involved at all. Because I couldnâ€™t take it. And thatâ€™s not what I want. But if this is the integrity we have, if this is how we respond to something we all agree is bad â€“ then what’s the point?
I hope Iâ€™m wrong. I hope that we see a lot of things changing. But I was on the inside. I pushed and yelled and screamed for things to be changed. And look what came out. I donâ€™t see how those who are making hand-over-fist amounts of money would be able to have any more impact.
So, we could wait and see. Or we, as a community, could recognize this as a serious problem and offer an alternative â€“ not a certification, or an organization â€“ but a path to technical excellence. I just havenâ€™t found anyone up to actually doing something like that. And so it goes, the CSD comes in to play, developers jump all over it, and now I get to work with teams who say they are doing Scrum AND XP, and still not shipping software.
Hmm, wonder if that SharePoint contract is still openâ€¦
(Addendum: I want to make it explicitly clear that the integrity issues of having money waved in front of you I in no way think affect Ron and Chet. I have the utmost respect for their integrity, and while I wish they didnâ€™t support the CSD, I believe in their statement that they are trying to influence the community by being on the inside. Besides, I’ve seen the pictures of Ron’s car.)