ESRI is about to launch its Technical Certification Program, which will offer certification at the Associate and Professional levels for Desktop, Developer, and Enterprise. There's been some buzz about these certifications and what they mean, and I want to get into some of the issues and concerns here.

Most of the discussion that I've seen or heard revolves around a comparison of the ESRI Technical Certification to the GIS Professional Certification. To start, this isn't the right comparison to make. The GIS Professional Certification is intended designate individuals as meeting a set of professional practice standards, whereas the ESRI Technical Certification is a certification program designed by a particular vendor around their technology. A better comparison would be to the Microsoft Certifications.

First, to certification in general. My perception is that a large segment of the community that supports certification wishes to include themselves in the “in” crowd and to exclude others, under the banner of “certification”. I sense that, in industry, having a GISP Certification doesn't carry much weight other than with other GISP's. I note that, currently, the GISCI is considering tightening the certification criteria after 6 years of offering certification. I know that this can be seen as a harsh view, and I also recognize that there are many other valid reasons to support certification. Full disclosure: I've been a certified GISP since 2009.

One of the arguments that is often given in support of certification is that it will give employers confidence in the qualifications of certified individuals. Nonsense! A Ph.D. from an accredited university doesn't guarantee the competence of the holder. I know that I've interviewed people whom have held Microsoft Certifications and whom I've thought would make terrible software developers based on a number of factors other than their certification status.

Back to the comparison to the Microsoft Certifications. The ESRI Technical Certifications seem to be closely modelled after the Microsoft Certifications. ESRI recommends some courses, you pay the fee, you take the exam, and you're certified. If we're trying to make a case for the value of the ESRI Technical Certifications, I would look at what value is placed on the Microsoft Certifications in industry. My sense is that it's not as important in the private sector, but it may be more important in the public sector. Still, I don't come across that many requirements that specify Microsoft Certified individuals. This may be because there has been a lot of churn in the Microsoft certifications over the last few years, with requirements, courses, and designations changing, which is one of the dangers inherent in a vendor-specific certifications.

Which brings me to my points of concern with the ESRI Technical Certifications. It's not the examination cost; it'll be a couple of hundred bucks. It may be expensive for new grads, but not too bad in the big scheme of things. The big cost is in the courses that you'll probably need to take in order to be able to pass the exams successfully. Training ain't cheap. Looking at the ArcGIS Desktop Associate designation, taking all of the identified courses will cost $9203 and take you 176 hours! That's where the money is. As a small business owner, this puts me at a huge disadvantage. Large IT consulting companies have long benches, and can afford to send their consultants for almost 5 weeks of training at a time, in order to be able to put “certified” resources on bid proposals. I want to see ESRI tighten up the recommended training lists rather than just throw a list of courses up on the board and letting us have at it.

As to certification in general, as a professional community we need to decide whether we want certification or something more rigorous like licensing. Here in Ontario, as in other jurisdictions, engineers, doctors, and lawyers are all governed by legislation and licensed by self-regulating professional bodies. It's important that these professions are regulated like this, and that their practitioners are held to standards of competence and ethical conduct. Do we need the same level of regulation for GIS practitioners? I would argue that we don't, but when you're talking about confidence in competence levels and ethics, this is what doing it right looks like.

Do we need certification at all? I would argue that we don't, because certification doesn't provide the desired outcomes, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens.