Thursday, February 16, 2006

Why AR accreditation might now matter

I discovered a draft post last night on AR accreditation. It was a debate* I'd followed with some interest.

In short, my draft said that:

- I’m a big believer in the value of training but I’m more skeptical about certification and accreditation.

- Accreditation only really becomes important when people are hired because they have it - and, as importantly, when they aren't hired because they don't (think lawyers and accountants).

- A good course is a good course. Whether it results in 'certification' or 'accreditation' is irrelevant.

So, I was wondering whether to still post it when – lo and behold – what did I come across but this:

CSC is looking to hire an AR professional in the US. The job description is very clear: “IAR Professional Certification preferred. If not, the candidate will be required to obtain certification after employment starts.”

(Hat tip to Duncan).

So, with a wry smile, I have to change my conclusion.

Given what CSC is saying, AR accreditation could now really start to mean something.

Certainly if you want to work for the IT services giant, achieving professional certification has taken on a new degree of importance.


* James Governor started the debate here, commenting skeptically about its merits. Catherine Helzerman agreed (see her post here). ARmadgeddon (here) has also joined in. The concensus view is "training good, accreditation - so what?"

It's a view I used to agree with!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps CSC's requirement of this meaningless 'certification' is simply a way to reduce the pool of candidates and to favor acquaintances of the staff there?