Re: Engineering approach to certification

[Tim Altom <taltom -at- SIMPLYWRITTEN -dot- COM>]

> I don't believe for a moment that you have conquered the "diversity
>dilemma".   However, I believe that you would like us to think you have.

Belief is not equal to truth or experience, of course. Despite what you may
believe, there are several recognition programs that have been in existence
for quite some time, and the practitioners who achieve them are rightfully
proud of having done so. I have participated in some of them, and the ones I
know of are extraordinarily challenging, as well as being generally judged
as being fair overall.

One such that I'm quite familiar with is the technologist/engineer two-tier
recognition awarded by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. The testing
is rigorous for both, but especially so for the higher, engineer,
recognition. The preliminary test, that of technologist, covers the basics:
physics, mathematics, chemistry, mechanics, statics, and so forth. The
higher test has a basic component and a specialty area (this because
manufacturing engineers work in so many different industries, from chemicals
to machining to assembly). Anyone achieving the Certified Manufacturing
Engineer level has every reason to celebrate; it's a very, very difficult
accomplishment, even for degreed engineers.

Of course, the rewards of having such official recognition are often hidden.
It hasn't eliminated bad engineers. Nor has it guaranteed that a certified
engineer is necessarily of the highest caliber on the job. But the
recognition program HAS resulted in higher respect in the workplace for
people who were, until recently, not often degreed, but frequently drawn
from the shop floor. And in today's round-robin job market, having the paper
on the wall is often a deciding factor when two candidates seem otherwise
evenly matched. And this is as it should be, for a candidate who has put in
the time and effort necessary to meet a forbidding set of standards.
Further, the paper gives newcomers a good shot at concretely proving to
colleagues, employers, and fellow SME members that they are minimally
qualified, something that might prove extremely difficult otherwise. An
employee who does routine work is often overlooked for more visible jobs.
Being able to prove minimal competence truly does go a long way toward
affecting the opinions of management.

To save space, I think I can paraphrase the remaining arguments this way:
that a recognition program is senseless and useless, and even if implemented
will gradually force out of the profession a host of promising young lights.
The testing would inevitably be taken over by language-arts-focused people.
There are too many diverse skills to test fairly. I also sense an illogical
stand that although no one would take such a thing seriously, it would
nonetheless have a devastating effect on practitioners everywhere.

My response is a general one...let those of us who value such a thing have a
program and participate in it. Those who don't care to, can refrain without
penalty. No governmental agency exists to enforce recognition before hiring;
no state, no federal agency, no group of any kind has advocated licensure of
technical communicators, nor is anyone likely to do so. No professional
recognition program has ever resulted in eventual licensing; indeed, it has
forestalled it in some cases where governmental agencies were threatening to
do it themselves. No recognition program has ever restricted a
practitioner's right to practice, although if it is a good enough program,
market forces will benefit the holders by making it easier to get good jobs.

Let those of us who care to help define a set of core competencies do so,
without threats and shrill denunciation, and let those of us so minded mold
a recognition program around those core competencies. Those who choose not
to participate can simply go on with their lives as they were. If market
forces then benefit the holders of the recognition, we who participate will
have a payoff for all of our hard work. If market forces do not benefit us,
we will have thrown away that effort. But it would be for us to determine
whether or not to take the risk. All we would ask is that we not be
denounced for taking that risk.

Many organizations have established recognition programs. Some have even
rescinded them after some time has passed. Only time can judge whether it
benefits us or not. But we should not let fear be the deciding vote for
whether we establish such a program or not: fear of not measuring up, fear
of encroachment, fear of eventual licensure, fear of each other.

Tim Altom
Adobe Certified Expert, Acrobat
Simply Written, Inc.
The FrameMaker support people
Ask about Clustar Method training and consulting
317.899.5882
http://www.simplywritten.com


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=