ADT Snippets

Blog archive

Do IT Architects Need Better Certification?

The Industry Association of Software Architects conference is set to take place later this month in New York.

As I reported last month, this month's IASA IT Architect Regional Conference is being billed as the largest gathering of IT architects because such luminaries as Grady Booch, Len Bass, John Zachman, Eric Evans, Rob High and Angela Yochem are slated to speak.

According to IASA CEO Paul Preiss, many of these architects have never met each other. But also at the conference, IASA is kicking off a new certification program for IT and software architects.

The new professional CITA program involves intensive training, according to Preiss. "It is a full board examination by a set of peers that actually tests an architect on their ability to deliver against the IASA skills taxonomy," he said. "So it basically says that IASA claims that this person is not only an architect but a good architect."

The report begged the question by Peter Kent, a program manager at G&B Solutions in Reston, VA. "How will the IASA certification be different from FEAC enterprise architecture certification?" he asked.

I ran the question by Preiss, and here's his answer.

  • CITA is a multi-level, multi-specialization certification. We have entry level and full professional levels.
  • CITA is not related to a particular framework such as TOGAF, FEAF, or DODAF.
  • CITA is skill based and therefore focused on delivery underlying all frameworks and implementations.
  • CITA is run and delivered by the profession. For a distinction think about the difference (make believe) between the current board certifications for doctors and one run by Pfizer.
  • Last but not least, CITA is based on a common distinguishing value proposition for all architects. With both FEAC and ITAC it is difficult to determine what they suggest architecture is, much less why employers should hire them.

It will be interesting to see how many take advantage of  the newCITA program, especially in these tight economic times. Many who are either independent or work for organizations that have slashed their training budgets may have to flip the bill themselves, presuming they feel it will enhance their career prospects.

What's your take? Drop me a line at jschwartz@1105media.com.

Posted by Jeffrey Schwartz on 10/01/2009 at 11:06 AM


Reader Comments:

Fri, Oct 2, 2009 Jay

And I suspect they will charge for it. Most certifications are just profit centers.

Fri, Oct 2, 2009 Robert

I think they should go for it if they think it is worthwhile. I know too much is given to those with certifications as if those who do not have them are somehow less. Certainly there is value in a certification to some extent, but the certification crap is turning into what accreditation is to education as a whole - just a way to control/constrain education into a box. So I'm not for the propagation of more stupidity under the guise of greed, profit margins, and all that through upteen certifications that mainly mean filling up other people's wallets at the expense of the worker/architect. If all I get is burdened down by you need this and that cert, then I'll go do something else for a living where sanity is more likely. Of course that is getting harder and harder to find... lol.

Thu, Oct 1, 2009 Geoff Houston

We need an industry recognized certification like the PMP that businesses see as valuable. Right now an architect means different things to different companies.

Thu, Oct 1, 2009 Jason Martin Washington DC

No, I don't believe that we need more certification courses for EA. There are too many out there already, and most are not standardized and therefore not respected in the marketplace. I for one do not want to see this skill area grow into something that needs constant "continuing education" just to keep a title. Your work should speak for your continuing education, not just some class that you attend. In these days of shrinking budgets, it's difficult to keep up the paid training classes.

Thu, Oct 1, 2009 Mike

The title "Architect" is thrown around so much these days it amazes me. I've met and worked with architects that couldn't build or design a 'hello world' app using a web service and run it on 2 seperate web servers, but yet they're architects. I've also worked on projects that I knew more then the 'Enterprise Architect' assigned to the project. I myself, am a developer though I "architect" many web applications, processes and solutions from .NET, Java to BizTalk and everything in between, though my title is 'application developer'.

Add Your Comment Now:

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above