One More Arrow in Our Quiver

Some thoughts from Chet Hendrickson on the CSD program.

One of the curses of Agile Software Development is the way in which it exposes a team’s weaknesses. Time and again we see teams that can’t, or at least don’t get their promised work done by iteration’s end. We see designs that start out so complex that they quickly collapse under their own weight. We see designs that are so random that they can barely be called designs. We see woefully inadequate developer testing and non-existent customer testing.

It is sad to admit, but most of us just aren’t very good programmers.

For every programmer reading and trying to apply the lessons of Bob Martin or Kent Beck’s latest book, there are hundreds of programmers sitting in their cube doing their best Wally imitation.

This is a big problem and improving the situation will be difficult. Doing anything about it will require a multi-pronged approach.

Today’s most popular tactic is ‘preaching to the choir’. Some industry name tweets or blogs, or sometimes writes an article, bemoaning the lack of skill among some group of developers they have just observed. (What I am writing here is a good example.)

‘Preaching to the choir’ is a good way to look like you are doing something, without actually accomplishing much.

It doesn’t accomplish much, because the guys who are the problem aren’t reading the articles. Remember, they are in their cube doing their Wally imitations.

What we are doing now isn’t working. If we care about the state of software development technical practice, we need to try some new stuff.

A thing that Ron and I are trying is our new Agile Developer Skills course. We are offering that course in support of the Scrum Alliance’s new Certified Scrum Developer program.

We all know that a certificate doesn’t make you a better developer. There thousands of Certified Java this’s and Certified Microsoft that’s out there that can’t program themselves out of a wet paper bag. But at least they know some syntax. They know, or at least knew, a little more than they knew before. And that is a good thing.

No, certifications aren’t the answer, but training is part of the answer. And, no one can argue that certifications don’t help get butts in seats.

Over fifty thousand people have taken a CSM course. Maybe a few hundred took Object Mentor’s XP Immersion course.

There is no question that the XP Immersion was a great course. If you ever run across someone who took it, they will still tell you what at great experience it was. But in the average month, more people take a CSM course than took the XP Immersion in two years.

Part of the reason is the Certification. We shouldn’t let the word get in our way, if using it means improving the quality of technical practice in our profession.

Should we believe that someone with a certification is always better thansomeone without one? Of course not.

Should companies rely on a certification program to weed out bad job applicants? Don’t be silly.

Should we use every tool at our disposal to increase the skill level of our profession? You bet your ass, we should.

The CSD is not a panacea; it is one more arrow in our quiver.

When you get done mocking it, tell me what you are doing to raise awareness among the Wallys of the world. Something that isn’t just preaching to the choir.

Posted on:

Written by: Chet Hendrickson

Categorization: Articles

11 Responses to “One More Arrow in Our Quiver”

Lisa Crispin

April 1, 2010

3:14 pm

permalink

True Wallys (no offense to my good friend Wally who is an awesome developer) aren’t going to go to a CSD course, either. But it is an interesting point that more people have gone to CSM course than to XP Immersion. I’d be curious in more research as to why that is.

I think a lot of programmers don’t take time to go learn because their managers don’t value learning, don’t give them any slack time to learn, and pressure them all the time to meet deadlines. They are rewarded for cranking out code to deadlines. They aren’t rewarded for quality.

If we want to improve software development, perhaps we need some certification course for managers so they understand the importance – the critical-ness – of learning, room for creativity, room for experimenting. Managers need to tolerate mistakes. Without innovation, our industry will not get any better.

That said, I am certain that this is a terrific course! If I interviewed a candidate who had taken it, I would give import to the fact that the person had the motivation to go get some training – I wouldn’t care at all about the certification.

FutureTurnip

April 1, 2010

3:39 pm

permalink

The certification course you’re going to offer is awesome. Unfortunately, I think it’s another extended instance of preaching to the choir. The only way to solve this problem (at least to some extent) is to put political and economic pressure on the corporations that buy or produce software. We need a Guild/Union.

Jon Kern

April 1, 2010

4:42 pm

permalink

We don’t need a union (that’s for woosies). We need to raise awareness and let the free market work. There are lousy *insert profession* everywhere — I would even assert unionization perpetuates this.

But with competition, lousy *insert profession* is usually exposed.

Agile is competition for most organizations — from within. As stated above, agile — I believe because it requires ore thoughtfulness — is hard and it exposes many weaknesses.

Go-getters will swarm to this candle. Ho-hummers will run the other way, seeking refuge behind the façade of a RealSoftwareDevlopmentProcess. Phooey on all that.

Change the world by teaching, one student at a time. Maybe a group of 12-15.

I’m in (and have been doing it in my own fashion since early 90s).

Paul Beckford

April 2, 2010

1:11 am

permalink

Hi,

All good comments, and Chet is right, the Certification word does sell. I was a coach at a place where the Management saw getting all the developers a CSM as some sort of compensation for asking them to work all the hours God sends :) The funny thing is the developers were pretty interested in the certification idea too.

To Jon’s point, I just don’t think the market has worked for software. It would be nice if it did. The big problem is that the quality of our work isn’t visible to anyone. Well at least not to the people paying the bills.

I’ve given up on the idea of “improving the industry”. I’m much more modest. The point that what ever you do you’ll be preaching to the choir is a fair one.

No in the end I think that the Guild/Professional body route is the only way that standards across the board will ever improve, and the impetus for such change will have to come from developers themselves.

At our current rate of progress we should get there in… lets say 50 years?

Regards,

Paul.

Ron Jeffries

April 2, 2010

6:05 am

permalink

A Guild or professional body might help — or might not. They don’t always help afaict, and have often served to limit information transfer and stifle progress. Why, I remember in the Middle Ages when …

Even so, it seems to me that the prospects for creating such a thing, getting it to be seen to be good, getting people into it and so on … are not so good.

Celso Martins

April 2, 2010

10:09 am

permalink

I’m against certifications, but I think they can help people to be organized. Some kind of people need someone saying what they need to do now and simply cannot discover the next step. They can not to be self organized.
The other point, in my opinion, is the motivation. For some misterious reason, the certification goal, put them on chair (like you said), in front of a book. They want to put the paper on the wall.
Is really difficult to motivate people just get out from college, to continue their studies. I always say: The journey just begun. The college is just the first step, now you are by yourself, without a teacher or exams. Read books and articles to keep yourself on the right way. But few listen to me. When finish the ordinary study, they only want to rest, and answer me: “That’s time to enjoy the life. I deserve.” And I say: “Bullshit, now you need to study more than ever, because now the game begins.”
I have to deal with this kind of professional all day long.

Congratulations! Very good post and points.

Paul Beckford

April 2, 2010

12:05 pm

permalink

Just to be clear. I think what you guys are doing is positive.

All the best

Paul

Alan Shalloway

April 4, 2010

2:06 am

permalink

Let me make sure I understand your salient points here:
1) Certification doesn’t really mean anything
2) It puts butts in seats
3) Great courses available for years haven’t been well attended because people attended CSM courses instead
4) So we now have a new, unproven course, that you’ll be able to better market because it’ll have certification on it
5) The ends justifies the means.
Please let me know what I got wrong.

Ron Jeffries

April 4, 2010

6:33 am

permalink

  1. Yes, this certification means very little.
  2. Yes, it measurably and unquestionably puts butts in seats.
  3. Unknown, but plausible, as people usually attend only a small number of courses per unit time.
  4. Chet’s and my CSD course is neither new nor unproven. We have offered it for years. And yes, I do expect that it will be better attended.
  5. Not all means are justified by just any ends. In this case, since the harm appears to be small and there is real value in what we teach, I’m living with the ambiguity.

What you got wrong, if anything … well, I’ll leave that up to our readers.

Alan Shalloway

April 7, 2010

12:28 am

permalink

One thing I am sure of Ron, is that an agile course with technical practices taught by you and/or Chet will be of great value. What makes it good is the quality of the instructors. I wasn’t trying to imply your course was new – but I bet it’ll be new (and with varying quality) to a lot of others who teach it.

Alan Shalloway

April 7, 2010

5:52 pm

permalink

Had meant to post this note to help the wallys of the world as well.
I have always felt that underneath a certification program should be the competencies that are being certified. In the case of Scrum this would be what we call “team agility” or those steps related to team process. Because I have never seen this identified, we wrote a book called “The Lean-Agile Pocket Guide for Scrum Teams”. We’ve put this online at http://www.netobjectives.com/lapgfst as a community service. We’ve also created the Scrum clinic to address issues teams have faced with Scrum (http://www.netobjectives.com/resources/scrum-clinic ) also free.

But building software, as your blog addresses, must also include technical skills (we refer to this as (technical agility). We’ve done some work here as well – creating a Road-map to Lean-Agile Programming Competencies (http://www.netobjectives.com/competencies/lean-agile-programming ). This not only lays out what you should know but provides webinars, articles and more to get you there.

Note, for some of this information you’ll need to register at our site, but most of it is labeled as guest access.

http://www.netobjectives.com/competencies/lean-agile-programming

Recent Articles

Scrum Information Base — Agile Skills

Chet Hendrickson and I have offered to help the Scrum Alliance build a broad and growing base of information relating to Scrum / Agile, and to the many skills and practices that can help teams be successful. Our offer has…

Events & Classes

  • No events.