IT Certifications are still a load of BS

IT Certifications are still bullshit....

I won't accept any opinion to the contrary.  Plain and simple what IT certification was supposed to provide to non-technical people was a measurement to evaluate skills competency. It's still sold that way but the sad fact is, nothing could be further from reality.   The bulk of IT certifications are about as reliable as a Yelp! review.

It was IT that really started the current certification craze that has spread to other industries.  While some might argue that the ASE ( Automotive Service Excellence)  programs beat them to it I'd say you were wrong.

Here's why.

Where an ASE certification generally involves some of the same types of procedures for their testing, there's also a requirement to have "hands-on" experience.   In fact you can't even take the written portion of the test until you can show a period of actual work experience.  In other words, experience counts.

IT certification with very limited exception doesn't work that way. 

Check your local bookstore (if you can find one) and you'll see rows filled to the brim with certification "exam cram" books.   For many a few hundred dollars worth of these tomes is all that's necessary to effectively pass an exam.

When you crack one open you'll find it organized similar to study books for passing college entrance exams.

There's a reason for that.  Just like standardized testing in schools and the SAT's, IT certification programs are designed to "teach to the test."  No more and ultimately a whole lot less. 

In the end just like the SAT's you're going to forget 90% of the limited learning you may have gleaned from all your "cramming" anyway.

I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like a great model to measure anybody's competency.

But it's not about competency, it's about marketing...

I'll give you a recent example that happened just the other day.

As you know I've been in the field for close to a quarter of a  decade.  I cut my teeth setting up servers and networks in the days when people thought email was just a fad.  So ok,  I've been around a bit and done some stuff.

Today I went on an interview for a position that was decidedly "entry-level" but I'm a humble guy.  I've been working for less than cutting edge clients over the past few years so I'm willing to take a hit in the wallet (and as it turns out my dignity) to get up to speed on the latest and greatest.

As I at down with the hiring manager I had already done my homework.  I knew his background ( thanks LinkedIn) knew what the company did, memorized the job description and what jobs like this typically paid.

As the conversation wore on and I did my spiel about my background and experience those fatal words fell from his lips.

"Do you have any certifications?"

I did but was honest and told him they weren't current.

I've become a student of the subtleties of body language and I instantly recognized a furrowed brow after sharing that information.  He uttered, " They're not current?"

Slightly annoyed I said, "No, but the $60,000 in student loans from 2 IT degrees and 24 years experience are."

More brow action and the start of some head shaking when he said, " I need certifications to make sure my customers get helped.."

In my head I started screaming, " Wrong, wrong, wrong, 1000 times wrong!  You need competency not certification!" 

Instead of making a scene, however, I just said, "stop, we're done here."

I cut the interview short, something I would never consider doing especially since things aren't that great these days but as I said, I'm a student of subtlety.

As I got up and thanked this misguided moron for his time I looked straight at him and said, " I find zero value in certifications."

He actually looked surprised as I headed for the door.  

What, was I supposed to waste even more of our time on a job neither of us wanted me to have?

I should mention this MORON was a lord high mucky muck with the entirety of his background  not in IT but in sales over the past 20 years.  Not one day spent ever doing ANYTHING in IT but selling products.   Let's face it, a salesman sells a server the same way he'll sell you a used car.

To be honest I was actually offended that some *fat sales goon was casting aspersions on my qualification and abilities based on nothing more than being blessed by  another glorified "product."  That product  being certifications. 

* (and he was fat, like add a seat belt extender to his 7 series BMW fat)

That's all an IT certification is folks, a stupid product.  Just like your phone or your tablet.  It's a sales tool used by marketers to fool unwary customers into believing in their credibility.  As pure product, it's sold to IT folks as a shortcut to relevancy.  Problem is, It's no more a measure of ability or competency than those standardized tests I mentioned earlier.  Folks, we already know what dividends those have paid.

This interview was over the minute he professed his undying love of certifications.  He had made a judgment call based on a flawed premise.  He chose to Ignore experience and competency for the sake of a marketing tool.  He never bothered to even try to find out what I knew, he was only interested in the labels.  If he was serious he would have had a technical person in on the interview.

The arrogance and dismissive attitude is what really rubbed me wrong.  Honestly, if I'd stayed any longer I might have been much more demonstrative of my irritation with him.

To be fair, however, I couldn't expect any more from someone who was really unqualified to interview me for any technical position.  It would be like me trying to hire someone to run a nuclear power plant. 

I'd have been better served by just blowing this interview off.  As it was it cost me 4 gallons of gas just to get there.  Wasted time, wasted effort and a waste of limited resources.

It's a problem that has spread through the industry like an STD without a prescription cream.   Strangely, however, it seems that the higher the pay grade the less emphasis there is on such things.  

For example, I've yet to meet an IT manager in the past decade who had or was required to have anything like the demands for certification that I see for low and mid level IT jobs.  Apparently the guys who make the tough calls aren't chosen based on their labels.

The bottom line is that certifications are just a crutch for ignorant managers and organizations.  Think I'm wrong?  Well friend you can proceed straight to hell with due haste.  I won't bother with anyone who thinks otherwise because I've seen the detrimental effect on the industry.  I sure as hell won't be judged by anyone like that either.

I may go hungry and homeless for my point of view but hell, I will anyway if things continue on like they are.  Am I against education and keeping my skills up?  Not at all and you're missing the point.  IT certifications don't teach skills nor do they test them.  They exist only for their own benefit as a product which makes them useless as a measure of competency.  Who cares if I'm good at playing with a marketing tool if I can't fix your problem!  

Ah, and the thing that proves my point the best is the investment required to acquire this "product."  

I haven't mentioned to this point the high cost that YOU not the employer has to shoulder to get these certs.  Training materials and "classes" can run into the hundreds even thousands of dollars.  It's an industry in itself producing a product of little more than the facade of competency.  And just like any other product it must be purchased over and over again.  Here's the saddest part of it...I haven't found any company in the past 2 decades that would pay for a certification they demanded for a position.  Sorry you poor misguided souls but that aint me, I'd rather spend that money on rent thank you very much!

Until  IT certifications are administered more like the ASE program (and by the way, Why the hell aren't  they? ) they serve no purpose as anything but a sham product. 

Which makes sense, this fat moron I interviewed with knew nothing about IT other than selling products.  He was a salesman not an IT professional so I can understand why he was so enamored with certifications.  He was  just too ignorant to know any better.

If you're OK being evaluated like an IPhone or a pair of shoes then by all means enjoy your naive bliss just stay away from anywhere I'm working.

I don't need your kind of "help."

The Truth about IT

I'm going to let you in on a secret...

If you're in IT nothing you do really matters.  At least not in the sense  of doing anything the world cares about.  I've said it before, IT exists to service people who actually create something.  It's a classic service industry job no matter what your title and that puts you right up there with the plumbers and auto mechanics. 

Plumbers don't get their names on monuments.  Neither do cab drivers, doormen or IT pros.  The world becomes more inconvenient without them but in the end they only exist to make someone else's life easier. 

I suppose that's why there's so many certifications for the profession now, assuming you could call it a profession.  It's not good enough to just be competent, now we need a governing authority to validate us.  A governing authority that's built a multi-billion dollar business out of our own insecurities.  As though we needed another reason to doubt our own abilities.

Even worse, validation from these governing authorities is suspect.  They exist less for the advancement of knowledge than their own revenue.  Why for instance would I need to not only carry a certification for Network knowledge but also specific product knowledge?

If I've been building networks for 20 years who cares if I have a Network + , A+ or ITIL anyway?  Those are supposed to be vendor neutral.  Surprise! network + was primarily developed by Cisco and A+ was written by hardware manufactures like HP, Dell and IBM.

 ITIL was written by masochists.

I've actually been disqualified for entry level tech jobs with (at the time) a decade of experience because I didn't have the right certification.  Never mind that on top of the experience  I had an electronics engineering degree, actually know what to do with a logic probe and was trained to troubleshoot PC's at board level. 

Because I refuse to spend $110 on an exam to see if I know which pin of a Molex connector is ground I can be denied a job I could do in my sleep because somebody thinks managing IT is all about the right certification.   If I've been working with networking  and computer equipment for most of my career why is it important what brand names were on the faceplates?

I know why and so do you, the people you're talking to don't have a clue about the department they're managing or worse don't really care. 

What's really sad is that your choice to work in the field means you have an 8 in 10 chance for having to work for them.

Here's a newsflash for the uninitiated, In the IT space everybody has to play by the same rules or nothing works. 

Do you really believe that the whole world runs exclusively on Cisco, Juniper, HP or 3Com equipment? 

Then it might surprise you to know that two brand agnostic organizations (IEEE, IETF) make the  Internet and networking in general possible.  They could care less whose brand is on your router so long as it plays by the rules they make. 

It's a perfect example of how useless vendor certifications are and an equally perfect indicator of a broken IT organization should it subscribe to another useless certification, the ITIL.

If you see a job description that demands a specific brand certification or worse the dreaded "familiar with ITIL methodology" you're likely dealing with a hiring manager that doesn't understand their own department.  A hallmark of an ITIL organization shows itself when ability is defined only by plug and play solutions no matter how ineffective.  They're not looking for ability, they're looking for the status quo even if it's dysfunctional.

I'm not against education or training, I'm just against the commoditization of it.  I'm also against lazy management practices based on buzzwords and fads.  Effective IT managers know at least something about the nuts and bolts of their department and can lead from experience.   

Ineffective IT managers are just waiting around till the next seminar on their way to their next job.  They rule by edicts lifted straight out of the framework of the dogma they've embraced and then slam the door on your way out. 

Good managers lead from experience not seminars.  You have to know what's right to know when things have really gone wrong.  You also have to give a damn or you're useless. 

That can be a tall order considering how neutered the IT function has become in the last decade.  IT budgets are strictly administered (usually by someone other than IT) and organizations don't have the latitude they once did.

If you're unlucky enough to be working in an organization that's fully embraced the ITIL construct you can expect to be constantly swimming upstream.  ITIL demands that technology and technical concerns take a back seat to the every whim of the user base.  

Yes, IT is a service profession but constant pandering leads to sloppy IT organizations and eventually to another tenet of ITIL, workarounds.  In other words, band-aids and bailing wire take precedence over actually fixing the problem.

Everyone demands zero downtime but refuses to do what it takes to achieve it.  IT professionals are expected to be on-call 24/7 for a wage that doesn't compensate them for that commitment.   Lest we forget the hardware to make it happen.

You're a fool if you accept that but most fools in IT do. 

If you care about what you do you then you don't mind the crazy hours but I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who were doing more than going through the motions.  Here's another newsflash, they weren't working 9 to 5.

We've come full circle.  The cold hard reality is that IT is a service profession and doesn't lend itself to rigid schedules and the meaningless busywork. 

So what can you look forward to if you happen to land that "dream?" IT job.  Maybe you're the new System Admin or IT manager.  Good for you.  Now that the pleasantries are over it's time to figure out if you'll be around long enough to wear out your office chair.

Let's play a little point/counterpoint framed in the context of questions asked in the average IT interview...

Why do you want to work in IT?

Point	Counterpoint
I love technology and I want to help people make the best use of it.	Technology makes the world go round and it's better than flipping burgers for a living.  But not by much.

Where do you see yourself in 5 years?

Point

Counterpoint

Hopefully in a management position so I can help further business goals using IT.

Probably in management because the last 2 IT managers quit and I managed to not get fired.  However, I know I'll be burned out because nobody is willing to do what it takes so I'll just bide my time.  I'll probably attend a lot of seminars looking for a way to make my life easier and do the bare minimum.  I'll hire lots of people with letters behind their names to make the department look good till I move on to my next job.

What is IT's function?

Point	Counterpoint
To further the organization's goals with the services I provide.	To keep the executive suite from complaining too much and maintaining the status quo because nobody really gives a damn what I do so long as they get their email and can play Farmville on their IPAD.

What's the value of IT certification?

Point	Counterpoint
It shows a commitment to continuous improvement and allows me to keep up to date with the latest technology.	Nobody cares about my MBA so I better have some more letters behind my name if I want to keep my job.

What's more important, Technology or customer service?

Point	Counterpoint
IT is a service industry, our users, customers or whatever the label, come first.  They need to feel confident in the resources we provide	IT IS a service industry and you shouldn't be in it unless you understand that.  However, if you don't have the resources to do your job properly and decisions are made based on price instead of value (there's a difference) then you're never going to achieve customer satisfaction.  That is unless they're satisfied with you constantly saying "I'm sorry"

Ok, so the counterpoint looks like someone you wouldn't want within 100 miles of an IT department.  Here's the rub, the Point column is largely BS and everyone in the field knows it.  It looks good on glossy brochures but you can't get blood from a stone. 

Most IT departments are lucky to get new patch cables let alone the resources they need to meet user  demands.  The "Counterpoint" side is sadly closer to reality than anyone wants to admit to.  It's why I personally prefer contract work because I'd rather not waste time spinning my wheels and going nowhere while the rest of the department struggles for legitimacy that the field just can't provide.

IT can be rewarding but not when it's treated like the accounting department.  Truth be told if technology was forced to evolve in an average IT department, we'd still be using Motorola Dynatacs and dialing up to AOL for email on 28.8K modems.

The problem with corporate IT management methodologies is that you have a lot of people sitting around just waiting for something to happen.  When you are busy it's generally because one of the band-aids fell off the server and the CEO is screaming about how he can't get to EBay because of it.

Lets' face it, we're the plumbers, electricians and architects of technology.  We know what to do and how to do it (Hopefully?)  The best measure of success is that things work when they need to and that's the only goal that matters.

 We do what we do because we care about our life's work. (Well, at least first before we get jaded.)  Thing is,  that much ambition doesn't get you too far in most corporate IT departments.  Too much passion scares corporate types which means you either get shown the door or you just trudge on and abandon your soul.

Where a real tradesman is looked upon as the authority in their profession, IT is frequently seen as a necessary evil.  It's hard if not impossible to meet the demands of an organization when your hands are tied by corporate dogma. 

It's not that I'd advocate IT having no oversight but when you have to pass every decision through the  corporate litmus test, the result is going to be mediocre at best. 

Thus we have the "standard of mediocrity" ultimately resulting in IT pros clutching at straws to appear relevant.  That feeds my earlier assertion of how IT certifications prey on your own insecurities.  If you really care about the field and really want to effect change then you have to be brave enough to not just suffer in silence or load your resume up with worthless certifications.

The best known figures in technology didn't hide behind their cubicles hoping for someday.  Bill Gates of Microsoft and Steve Jobs  of Apple would have never survived in the average IT department.  Hell, they couldn't even stand college where at least there was beer and girls!

So why do we expect people who thrive on technology to function like accountants?  Would it be reasonable to expect an auto mechanic to fix your car in your bathroom? 

Well, I'm sorry to tell you, that's the reality of IT more often than not.  Unless you can make a go of it with the feast or famine cycle of consulting (as in independent not Robert Half) you're stuck with it. 

Of course, If you're more into the management track or the cubicle lifestyle I suppose it can work for you but I can guarantee I won't at least not as your employee.

Is it a Role or a Feature?

I had an interesting experience today.  Without boring you with the details let's just say I'm no richer for the experience save for providing the catalyst for the following instructional tidbit.  The catalyst in this case was a question posed to me.  I was asked what the difference was between a Role and a Feature when configuring a Windows server.

Now most of you who have any experience at all in Windows Administration may not necessarily be comfortable with the concepts of Server Roles and Features.  It's been a slow but steady evolution from an abstract label to a shortcut in Server Manager. 

Since Windows 2000's introduction of Active Directory, the concept of a server role took on new meaning.  Instead of being limited to just designating a server as a Primary or Backup Domain controller now we had multiple roles that made the old labels moot.

Yeah, I'm talking about the most confusing collection of server "Roles" ever introduced to the Windows Universe, the FSMO or Flexible Single Master Operation.  5 labels that have confused Windows Administrators for a decade. 

I mean, the PDC emulator is fairly intuitive, for example.  We know what that's for right?  Well only partially because that role handles a lot more than just  Primary Domain Controller services for Windows NT (non AD) networks.  It also provides Time synchronization, Group Policy replication, and account lockout and password change services for an entire windows domain.  If the server that holds this role fails you're going to have a very bad day until you move it to another server.

Relative ID master?  All that does is keep all the names on your network unique.  It's function is to keep combining computer or user object Identifiers (SIDS) with a pool of unique Identifiers managed by this role (RID)  Combining the two values ensures that no two objects on an AD network are alike even if everything else about them is the same.  The RID master can't allow its pool of RIDS to go empty or it won't have anything to combine with the new SIDS that come from a new user or computer account.  Yeah, that's real obvious.

How about the Infrastructure Master?  It's a role and its function is... uhh...Oh yeah, it makes sure that if someone from one domain gets rights to something in another domain their specific information is recognized properly.  How come such a serious sounding name for such a tiny function that's so rarely used?  Whatever..

Those three roles are considered the "Domain" roles in Active Directory networks.  That means they only affect the immediate domain they serve.  There are two other roles that are considered Forest or Enterprise level roles.  That means they live at the top of your AD network above all the domains (assuming there's more than 1) that branch off of the "trunk" of your "forest". 

In case all this talk of Directories and Forests is confusing try a different metaphor.  Think of AD in the context of a Phone Book instead of a forest.  You usually have one Phone book for a town and it contains all the names and numbers of the people with phones.  Those names and numbers can be thought of as domains.

Now say your aunt Bessie changes her phone number.  The phone book is going to need to be updated to reflect the change or she'll be very lonely because nobody will be able to call her anymore.  That would be sad for Aunt Bessie and nobody wants that!

If the phone company decides to change the area code for your town then all the people listed in the phone book have to tell their out of state relatives what the new area code is or they won't be able to call them anymore.  Changing the area code, by the way, would be considered an enterprise event to the people listed in the phone book.  So would changing the name of the town by the way. 

It's the concept of changing names within an organization that leads us to the first of the two "Forest" or "Enterprise" level roles in Active Directory.  Coincidentally, it's called the Domain Naming Master and the simplest way to explain its role is to refer back to our theoretical phone book. 

Remember when Aunt Bessie changed her number?  Well she's a spry old gal and decided to get hitched up to a nice older gent.  That meant her last name changed.  To make sure everyone can find the happy newlyweds we'll need to get the phone book entry updated.  To accomplish that, she had to call the phone company and ask them to change it.  The phone company is responsible for changing Bessie's name in the phone book and they are the only ones that could do it.  If the phone company is closed nothing changes just as no domain names throughout the enterprise can change if the Domain Naming Master goes offline.

The second and final enterprise FSMO role is easier to understand since its name is a little more descriptive than the others.  It's the Schema Master and if you have any experience with databases its function will be instantly recognizable.  If you remember that all the information in Active Directory is stored in a database then you know that something has to control the way its organized.  That's the function of the Schema Master along with copying (replicating) any changes that occur to the Schema to the rest of the Enterprise. 

Going back to the phone book example, the Schema Master would be the guy who decides how the phone book is going to be organized.  Will it be sorted by name or phone number? How much information will each listing contain?  These questions are all answered by the guy printing the phone book.  He is the Schema Master.

Ok maybe not so dramatic but the Schema Master is an important Role.  Without it Active Directory couldn't exist.

I've actually went a bit deeper into FSMO roles than I planned but it's important information.  It's also important to know how Microsoft tends to overload their terminology.

In the previous discussion I've laid out what Microsoft defines as a "Role" in the context of functions that support Active Directory.  There's another definition of a server role, however, that has nothing to do with supporting Windows but rather defines services for users. 

You may have noticed that I haven't said much about "Features" to this point.  That has everything to do with Microsoft's overloaded terminology again.  In the context of an FSMO role a feature is nothing more than a facility for management of a given role.

In the context of a Server Role, however, features become very important.  A Server Role in Windows 2000 and later is designated set of services that support user activities.  Examples are File and Print services, Application Server and DNS Server roles.  Each of these roles is task based defining a set of services to be offered to users by the server. 

Server Roles can be viewed more as containers than mechanisms.  They are comprised of programs and services tailored to the support of the role.  Features are usually the programs and services that provide the functionality of the role.  Think of it as the option list on a new car.

A new car has one role, to provide transportation.  It's price, however, is dependent on the number of features it has.  A base model won't have as many amenities but will still satisfy the core requirement to provide transportation.  Many times you can specify additional equipment to tailor its function to better match your needs.  This affords additional functionality or "Features" without affecting the core requirement of providing transportation.

It's really that simple.  Roles define a task and features support it. 

That's about enough, I really don't want to write the word "Role" anymore..

:-)