April 2, 2010 at 8:53 am
I think I can see people focusing this cert only to DBA's. I don't see that as the case. This should be certification that is also targeted to developers, and with a possible split, to BI developers as well. I split DBA/Developer and BI based more on the focus of the parts of the SQL Server product each use, not saying a developer won;t use SSIS or SSRS, but who is more likely to use various parts of SQL Server.
I definately see a split in the MCJ; MCJ SQL Server and MCJ BI.
April 2, 2010 at 9:01 am
Steve Thompson-454462 (4/2/2010)
As to TIS, if this requirement is being dropped doesn't the J - for Journeyman need to be dropped as well (in my mind this implies having completed some sort of apprenticeship, or level of experience). Just a semantic point, but the cert name might not make sense if you can achieve it fresh out of school.If the biggest problem with TIS is the overhead, but it still seems valuable for the validity of the certification, then, maybe it should stay but not be strongly enforced. I mean, wouldn't the cert panel be in the same position as any job interviewer: you ask for x years of experience, the applicant supplies a resume that documents that experience; during the interview they answer questions that demonstrate they have the experience they claim and if there's any doubt, references are checked.
If we divide knowledge into "book smarts" and "practical knowledge" (one you get from studying, one from solving real world problems), and the goal of this cert is to acknowledge applicants who can demonstrate both, than TIS may be important. But the dichotomy is not that sharp; i.e. the two types of knowledge reinforce each other.
Therefore, to "game" the TIS, an applicant might falsely claim experience that he or she does not have, but they can only get away with this if they can capably pass the other criteria (which I believe may include both a written and practical exam); therefore only candidates who are borderline might need their experience questioned and in these cases this could be verified by checking a random reference or two.
Candidates who are competent in the other requirements may be able to get away with fudging their experience, but in these cases you don't push it, since competence is competence. So basically, TIS becomes a "nominal" requirement (you're supposed to have it), but it's only going to be verified in the cases of borderline candidates (of course the applicants don't need to know this).
Yes that make sense to me. If the goal is to make the cert valuable to employers then am quite sure my employer or some people i worked for would not find it valuable if it was handed out to a person who is a technical geek with no real world experience. On the other hand am not under estimating the fact that knowledge and experience go hand in hand either and the difficulties involved in verifying employment. Perhaps again it may not be necessary to do a check on employment but more to ask questions in detail on projects the candidate claims to have worked and the decisions he/she made in the process. I have talked to candidates who put down setting up a DTS data export job as a 'project' by the way and the details come out when you talk to them about it.
April 2, 2010 at 9:17 am
To this point I've stayed out of the more detailed discussion, but I'll weigh in on the TIS.
I think it needs to stay in. I agree that it would not be feasible, at least to start, to enforce before granting the certification, but I think that it should be included so that, if someone has been found to have lied about it, the certification can be revoked. In this business, being ethical is very important and any unethical behavior should invalidate a certification.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
April 2, 2010 at 9:19 am
I think you ought to keep TIS, though perhaps make it lightweight to administer. Have someone list the time and percentage of that time, working with SQL Server. Developer might be 1 year * 50% of time writing code.
People will game it, but it's just a rough measurement of experience and skill. After all, 10 years for a DBA can be 1x10 years or 10x1 year. Is that better or worse? Just have someone document it, and as far as employers go, if they choose to verify, or look at it against a resume, they can add their own weight to it.
April 2, 2010 at 9:41 am
dma-669038 (4/2/2010)
Am really sorry to hear Wayne thinks he is 'waffling' about it , I didnt think he was and i dont' think it should just be tossed out either.
Hey, I didn't say I had changed my mind now. Just that Grant made several good arguments against it, good enough for me to question why I wanted the t-i-s.
Steve Jones - Editor (4/2/2010)
I think you ought to keep TIS, though perhaps make it lightweight to administer. Have someone list the time and percentage of that time, working with SQL Server. Developer might be 1 year * 50% of time writing code.People will game it, but it's just a rough measurement of experience and skill. After all, 10 years for a DBA can be 1x10 years or 10x1 year. Is that better or worse? Just have someone document it, and as far as employers go, if they choose to verify, or look at it against a resume, they can add their own weight to it.
Steve, I really like this idea - it keeps the TIS, but minimizes the administrative effort of it. Would you say the 1 yr * 50% = 1 yr experience, or 1/2yr experience? I would lean towards the 1yr myself.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 2, 2010 at 9:46 am
Lynn Pettis (4/1/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/1/2010)
Lynn Pettis (4/1/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/1/2010)
Correct. As a SQL Server Database professional. It shouldn't matter that you are a developer, BI Specialist, or Admin. Working with SQL Server is the important underscore.Let's look at the MCM for a moment, does it specify which MCITP you need to hold? Checking the requirements, it requires MCITP Database Administrator and Database Developer. This tells me that it isn't a BI certification. Would it make sense to split the the proposed MCJ into two certifications, MCJ SQL Server (DBA/Developer) and MCJ Business Intelligence (BI, as if it weren't obvious)?
I can see merging the DBA/Developer as the knowledge and experience of both should start to merge. More experienced DBA/Developers should begin to see things in the same ways. If we did this, do we require that the prospect also have both MCITP certifications for the MCJ SQL Server or should one or the other be sufficient? Personally, I go for the later.
As I think about this, there should probably be two tests if we split the certification. A core test that is the same for both, then a second that focuses more on the specific area of expertise. For the MCJ SS, more on the engine, performance tuning, DR/HA, backup/restores. For the MCJ BI, the second test would focus more on SSIS, SSAS, SSRS and the various issues and problems more specific to the BI area.
I was thinking of splitting it out even more granularly. Having an MCJ for each of those specialties - one for SSIS, one for SSAS, one for SSRS, etc. I think, otherwise it would still lend itself to being too general.
I'm thinking more about the interaction between them in a BI environment. As you gain experience, you are going to find yourself working more closely with them as a unt than you might earlier where you may only be a Report Writer, or ETL Specialist, or DataMart Developer. You may be leading a small team where you are working with people in these areas and you really hould have a firm grasp of them all, but maybe not expert level. I would see that more in a MCM BI type certification if Microsoft were to develop one.
That makes sense
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 2, 2010 at 9:47 am
If you spend 50% of your time coding, what were you doing with the other 50%? There is more than coding, so I have to say 1 year is 1 year.
April 2, 2010 at 9:48 am
WayneS (4/1/2010)
Lynn Pettis (4/1/2010)
I'm thinking more about the interaction between them in a BI environment. As you gain experience, you are going to find yourself working more closely with them as a unt than you might earlier where you may only be a Report Writer, or ETL Specialist, or DataMart Developer. You may be leading a small team where you are working with people in these areas and you really hould have a firm grasp of them all, but maybe not expert level. I would see that more in a MCM BI type certification if Microsoft were to develop one.I see where you're going with this. From what I understand about SSAS (and I know next to nothing about it), it's pretty much it's own specialty in and of itself.
So how about: MCJ-DBA, MCJ-SSAS and MCJ-BI (includes SSIS & SSRS)
If others feel that SSAS should be included in the MCJ-BI, I'm fine with that.
I think I would lump SSAS into BI
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 2, 2010 at 9:50 am
Lynn Pettis (4/2/2010)
If you spend 50% of your time coding, what were you doing with the other 50%? There is more than coding, so I have to say 1 year is 1 year.
I guess I was thinking that a web developer or C# developer might build business logic. Their time spend working on T-SQL code, or SQL Server might be 20-30% of their job.
As opposed to a DBA that spends all day working with SQL Server.
April 2, 2010 at 9:53 am
Just a note on requiring Time in Service. What are you going to do if the company that the person was working for goes out of business and the upper executive structure goes to jail for the crimes that caused the business to fail?
Okay, it might not often, but I'm sure there are lotos of instances where the company goes out of business and there is no way to verify that a) the company existed or b) someone was employeed there or c) they worked on SQL Server.
Not sure how other certification programs that require time in service would deal with something like that, but it will come up, either legitimately or from someone gaming the system.
-- Kit
April 2, 2010 at 9:55 am
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
That's the problem with bringing titles and time in rate to the equation. One of the best DBA's I know isn't a DBA, she's a developer; Gail Shaw.
Correct. I agree with that. Thus I see no need to consider the title one has - just that the person has worked with the technology. To me it doesn't matter if you are the accidental DBA or if you are the DBA, SYSAdmin, Network Engineer and helpdesk all rolled in one (been there done that myself).
Sweating someone's title or the lack thereof, or their time on the job just doesn't matter. Set a decently high bar. If people clear it, they're certified. If they don't... go study and come back again in 3-6-9 months and try it again.
This is an important consideration that should be added to our list. When is one eligible for reconsideration if they don't pass the review, exam, project etc? I think that should be evaluated closely.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 2, 2010 at 9:55 am
As an aside, I have toyed with SSAS since SQL Server 2000. I think it was easier to experiment with in SQL Server 2000 than it is now in SQL Server 2005/2008, but they have added a lot of power and flexibility over what it had in SQL Server 2000.
At a previous employer I had a simple cube that I used to verify Invoices/Debits/Credits/Returns in our AIS database to the source. The cube made it easy to compare data back to a master report run monthly. If the summaries matched, I was confident that I had all the data downloaded.
April 2, 2010 at 10:21 am
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
I think the time in service, as part of the bridge between MCTIP and MCM, actually adds unecessary overhead that is simply going to be gamed anyway. I'm assuming this will be a fairly open certification, meaning, if you want it, go for it. Unlike MCM, which requires you to apply and be accepted or receive an invite. MCM can supply the process to determine that someone has been involved with the product for X years, but if MCJ tries to do that, it's going to either be something that everyone lies about, or it's going to add quite a bit of cost to the process while the claims are verified (and people will still game this verification process). So rather than add another silly level of gaming and fairly substantial cost to the governing body, toss that somewhat unenforceable requirement and keep the focus on where it belongs. Can you do the job? Do you know the technology? Can you make it work? Those things are well above the MCTIP and if achieved will make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.
You make a good argument against the Time in Service.
If we drop the time in service, would we implement more tests? I see more tests as a way of validating more increased knowledge about a topic.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 2, 2010 at 10:24 am
Lynn Pettis (4/2/2010)
WayneS (4/2/2010)
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
I think the time in service, as part of the bridge between MCTIP and MCM, actually adds unnecessary overhead that is simply going to be gamed anyway. ... So rather than add another silly level of gaming and fairly substantial cost to the governing body, toss that somewhat unenforceable requirement and keep the focus on where it belongs. Can you do the job? Do you know the technology? Can you make it work? Those things are well above the MCTIP and if achieved will make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.Grant, you've made a very good argument against the t-i-s... good enough that I'm waffling about it. Regardless of how the t-i-s goes, we need to keep the goal in mind...
make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.
I wouldn't say I am waffling about, but I could either way. Please remember, these are just ideas put out there for discussion. The more we hear both pro and con help to make a decision that makes sense and can be defended if questioned.
Agreed.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 2, 2010 at 10:29 am
Luke L (4/2/2010)
dma-669038 (4/2/2010)
I can understand surely the overhead involved. I don't believe the process can be totally gamed and there must be some way for someone to verify experiential credentials.How much effort does the governing body have to put into verifying the time someone used SQL Server? Is it a nice letter that is reviewed and followed up with a phone call? Fine I use my buddy's cell phone number, and he tells you how wonderful I am at implementing xyz technology. So ok, the governing body can't trust the phone numbers included in the document... Now I have to search for the phone number of that company and find a way to get in touch with your manager to validate your credentials. Sure there are services that help to automate these things, think skip tracing services for credit agencies, but they all cost money and money = overhead = more expensive tests etc etc...
If people can game these types of things for regular interviews, it isn't hard to imagine the ways they could come up with for other such things...
-Luke.
If we have a review panel, and the form that the candidate lists experience - this cost could be very inconsequential relative to implementing that panel in the first place.
Provide your resume. Provide some details about the projects you have done. If not employed but have worked with the product - provide details. I think the review panel could see through the details provided if they are gamed.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 685 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply