Motivation of software professionals
in [Dot Net]
|
From: Seebs on 8 Feb 2010 21:24 On 2010-02-09, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software > developers. So it's pretty much a moot point. I am not convinced that they don't; formalization is not existance. > If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed > a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a > certification process? How would you know if there WERE a certification process? Answer: You wouldn't. It's not as though no one's ever tried it. We have a number of certification processes. They consistently work, if what you want is to know that someone once managed to memorize a bunch of stuff for a test. I have seen nothing to suggest that any other field's "certification processes" are actually substantially better than this. Certainly, they are extremely popular, especially among people who have already obtained those certifications. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Arved Sandstrom on 9 Feb 2010 04:44 Seebs wrote: > On 2010-02-09, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software >> developers. So it's pretty much a moot point. > > I am not convinced that they don't; formalization is not existance. > >> If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed >> a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a >> certification process? > > How would you know if there WERE a certification process? Answer: You > wouldn't. How would I, or you, not know? It's not like we are discussing Masonic rites here. I myself have chosen not to get any software development certifications, except for one that I got from the technical campus of Dalhousie University for a series of software development courses. It's not that I consider many of the MS and Java etc etc certifications to be individually useless - many are not - but lacking a larger professional development framework to plug them into, and because the accountability of software developers currently is risible, why bother? > It's not as though no one's ever tried it. We have a number of certification > processes. They consistently work, if what you want is to know that someone > once managed to memorize a bunch of stuff for a test. I have seen nothing > to suggest that any other field's "certification processes" are actually > substantially better than this. I can only comment on engineering (I am not one myself but I have a diploma in engineering, and most of the credits for a baccalaureate in engineering - I eventually decided to concentrate on a physics degree; I am also reasonably familiar with how APENS, the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia, does these things). Engineering "certification" processes are considerably better and more comprehensive than anything that most software developers are ever exposed to. Starting with education - there's no requirement at all that software developers have a relevant degree or associate degree, or indeed any real SD training at all. Try that with prospective professional engineeers. It's not just entry-level certification that software developers lack. It's code of conduct, professional education, duty to the client, professional discipline and so forth. These are all standards. In order for software "engineering" to really be engineering it has to adopt similar standards. Certainly, they are extremely popular, > especially among people who have already obtained those certifications. > > -s _What_ are extremely popular? Professional engineering accreditations or software development certifications? I expect both are. AHS
From: debra h on 9 Feb 2010 05:44 On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Roedy Green <see_webs...(a)mindprod.com.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:23:41 -0800 (PST), Richard Cornford > <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted > someone who said : > > > > >Strange question; the most efficient motivator of professionals is > >money, and money is very popular. > > That may be a motivator for taking a job, but I suspect is fairly far > down the list for leaving a job. > > Leaving motivations might include: > > personality conflict > boredom > too much pressure > > Personally, the opportunity to do something I had never done before > was always the top priority. Employers usually want people who have > extensive specific experience. > > In hiring, my main interest was loyalty. Employees don't get really > useful until after the first year. I don't expect them to hit the > ground running. I anticipate investing considerable effort in training > them. I looked for reasons why they would likely want to stay. > -- > Roedy Green Canadian Mind Productshttp://mindprod.com > > You cant have great software without a great team, and most software teams behave like dysfunctional families. > ~ Jim McCarthy Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have nothing like this at all, I see no problem here.
From: MarkusSchaber on 9 Feb 2010 09:05 Hi, On 9 Feb., 14:23, Mike Duffy <resp...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > Death is always the most compelling reason for not continuing to work. May I consider this the "Quote of the day"[tm]?
From: John Koy on 9 Feb 2010 18:02
Arved Sandstrom wrote: [...] > Engineering "certification" processes are considerably better and more > comprehensive than anything that most software developers are ever > exposed to. Starting with education - there's no requirement at all that > software developers have a relevant degree or associate degree, or > indeed any real SD training at all. Try that with prospective > professional engineeers. > > It's not just entry-level certification that software developers lack. > It's code of conduct, professional education, duty to the client, > professional discipline and so forth. These are all standards. In order > for software "engineering" to really be engineering it has to adopt > similar standards. > As long as we disclaim all liability and give no warranties for the solutions/products we build, SD cannot be an engineering field and the term "software engineer" remains as an oxymoron. |