Association of Open Group Architects [modified]
-
Ok, we've discussed certification programs and their general lack of value, but what about something like this? Do you have any opinion on the matter, and what about in general, the topic of being qualified to do this work? You have to take a test to be licensed as an electrician, but not as a software developer. AOGEA[^] From an email I get: The Open Group is launching the Association of Open Group Enterprise Architects today, with the goal of elevating the profession through the establishment of standards of ethics, codes of conduct and, borrowing from the financial world, generally accepted architecture principles. "Businesses need to know if their IT staff or service providers have the skills and experience to address the new complexities of enterprise architecture," said Allen Brown, president and CEO of The Open Group. Brown explained that the group's vision involves boundary-less flow of information—actually, permeable boundaries—and the adoption of enterprise architecture, which Brown described as having a "city planner" view of an enterprise as barriers between data, applications and departments break down. Enterprise architects will be certified by the new organization to denote that they meet standards developed by The Open Group members for skills and experience. -- modified at 16:01 Monday 29th January, 2007
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Ok, we've discussed certification programs and their general lack of value, but what about something like this? Do you have any opinion on the matter, and what about in general, the topic of being qualified to do this work? You have to take a test to be licensed as an electrician, but not as a software developer.
You mean you aim to create even more 'architects'??? :suss:
-
Funky, guess CP inserts the http when its https. The site redirects you to the secure version. Corrected now in the original.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
It's an interesting concept, though I question whether they can really maintain an unbiased, technology-neutral perspective. I never believe anything that makes that claim. Also, while I agree that enterprise architectures are an important development, I'd be reluctant to participate in something that only works with open standards. This pretty much shuts the door on a lot of technologies and vendors that are useful in an enterprise architecture but none-the-less implement proprietary or closed standards. And finally, there's the fee thing. OK, $35 for an affiliate is cheap enough. Odd they don't mention prices for the top two rankings. And what do they really offer for the fee? There's a lot of text to wade through that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, but I was left feeling a bit "empty" afterwards. Where's the beef? Well, the beef is for the guys running the site and collecting something for nothing, IMO. And the site is dog slow. I wonder where it's being hosted. Slow sites like that, well, I get suspicious. So, that's my general, I took a 5 minute look, here's my negative take on it, response. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
It's an interesting concept, though I question whether they can really maintain an unbiased, technology-neutral perspective. I never believe anything that makes that claim. Also, while I agree that enterprise architectures are an important development, I'd be reluctant to participate in something that only works with open standards. This pretty much shuts the door on a lot of technologies and vendors that are useful in an enterprise architecture but none-the-less implement proprietary or closed standards. And finally, there's the fee thing. OK, $35 for an affiliate is cheap enough. Odd they don't mention prices for the top two rankings. And what do they really offer for the fee? There's a lot of text to wade through that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, but I was left feeling a bit "empty" afterwards. Where's the beef? Well, the beef is for the guys running the site and collecting something for nothing, IMO. And the site is dog slow. I wonder where it's being hosted. Slow sites like that, well, I get suspicious. So, that's my general, I took a 5 minute look, here's my negative take on it, response. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
Also, while I agree that enterprise architectures are an important development, I'd be reluctant to participate in something that only works with open standards. This pretty much shuts the door on a lot of technologies and vendors that are useful in an enterprise architecture but none-the-less implement proprietary or closed standards.
I agree. My feeling is that this is some sort of response to the push at MS to be certified in their technologies.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And finally, there's the fee thing. OK, $35 for an affiliate is cheap enough. Odd they don't mention prices for the top two rankings. And what do they really offer for the fee?
Right, the fee for the exam, which is a pre-qualifier to becoming a member is $400 usd.
Marc Clifton wrote:
So, that's my general, I took a 5 minute look, here's my negative take on it, response.
Fair enough. My thoughts are along the same lines, but I wonder if something like this won't gain momentum in the coming years.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Ok, we've discussed certification programs and their general lack of value, but what about something like this? Do you have any opinion on the matter, and what about in general, the topic of being qualified to do this work? You have to take a test to be licensed as an electrician, but not as a software developer.
You mean you aim to create even more 'architects'??? :suss:
Sceptic Mole wrote:
You mean you aim to create even more 'architects'???
I don't aim to create anything except software and a decent semblage of a life well lived. I was curious about peoples response to an organization aiming to certify people as qualified enterprise level architects. And the general thought of being regulated as in other trades. By the way, I'm not associated with the linked site, but found it interesting.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Sceptic Mole wrote:
You mean you aim to create even more 'architects'???
I don't aim to create anything except software and a decent semblage of a life well lived. I was curious about peoples response to an organization aiming to certify people as qualified enterprise level architects. And the general thought of being regulated as in other trades. By the way, I'm not associated with the linked site, but found it interesting.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I was curious about peoples response to an organization aiming to certify people as qualified
Funny, but I remember when a diploma was supposed to do that :) The industry specific certifications came out and they were supposed to do that :) Personally, I think the best way to know this is via word of mouth.
-
Sceptic Mole wrote:
You mean you aim to create even more 'architects'???
I don't aim to create anything except software and a decent semblage of a life well lived. I was curious about peoples response to an organization aiming to certify people as qualified enterprise level architects. And the general thought of being regulated as in other trades. By the way, I'm not associated with the linked site, but found it interesting.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I was curious about peoples response to an organization aiming to certify people as qualified enterprise level architects. And the general thought of being regulated as in other trades.
You probably end up with an inflation of 'architects' like in Java (http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44011[^]).
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Also, while I agree that enterprise architectures are an important development, I'd be reluctant to participate in something that only works with open standards. This pretty much shuts the door on a lot of technologies and vendors that are useful in an enterprise architecture but none-the-less implement proprietary or closed standards.
I agree. My feeling is that this is some sort of response to the push at MS to be certified in their technologies.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And finally, there's the fee thing. OK, $35 for an affiliate is cheap enough. Odd they don't mention prices for the top two rankings. And what do they really offer for the fee?
Right, the fee for the exam, which is a pre-qualifier to becoming a member is $400 usd.
Marc Clifton wrote:
So, that's my general, I took a 5 minute look, here's my negative take on it, response.
Fair enough. My thoughts are along the same lines, but I wonder if something like this won't gain momentum in the coming years.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I wonder if something like this won't gain momentum in the coming years.
I was wondering that myself. There's a few issues. I think technology moves a lot faster than just about any other industry, so it's going to be hard work to stay up to date with "enterprise architectures". Also, unlike other industries, I think today's standards are tomorrow's obsolete standards--again, things move quickly and are often completely replaced, whereas in other industries, take construction for example, standards are tightened or upgraded or addendums are written to deal with new materials or laws (yes, I'm generalizing, I know). And then there's people and specific enterprise applications and specific customers. It seems to me that software development is anything but "standard", and that open standards are little more than a wooden sword counterthrust to the "standards" that the closed source companies like Microsoft develop. But even that aside, projects are so custom, and people are so, well, fickle, something like this would have a hard time getting off the ground, it seems. We shall see! :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I wonder if something like this won't gain momentum in the coming years.
I was wondering that myself. There's a few issues. I think technology moves a lot faster than just about any other industry, so it's going to be hard work to stay up to date with "enterprise architectures". Also, unlike other industries, I think today's standards are tomorrow's obsolete standards--again, things move quickly and are often completely replaced, whereas in other industries, take construction for example, standards are tightened or upgraded or addendums are written to deal with new materials or laws (yes, I'm generalizing, I know). And then there's people and specific enterprise applications and specific customers. It seems to me that software development is anything but "standard", and that open standards are little more than a wooden sword counterthrust to the "standards" that the closed source companies like Microsoft develop. But even that aside, projects are so custom, and people are so, well, fickle, something like this would have a hard time getting off the ground, it seems. We shall see! :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
I think today's standards are tomorrow's obsolete standards--again, things move quickly and are often completely replaced, whereas in other industries, take construction for example, standards are tightened or upgraded or addendums are written to deal with new materials or laws (yes, I'm generalizing, I know).
Nah, I think your on target. Tech will be a moving target for quite awhile. Construction standards don't seem to change that often.
Marc Clifton wrote:
We shall see!
That we shall. :)
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Ok, we've discussed certification programs and their general lack of value, but what about something like this? Do you have any opinion on the matter, and what about in general, the topic of being qualified to do this work? You have to take a test to be licensed as an electrician, but not as a software developer. AOGEA[^] From an email I get: The Open Group is launching the Association of Open Group Enterprise Architects today, with the goal of elevating the profession through the establishment of standards of ethics, codes of conduct and, borrowing from the financial world, generally accepted architecture principles. "Businesses need to know if their IT staff or service providers have the skills and experience to address the new complexities of enterprise architecture," said Allen Brown, president and CEO of The Open Group. Brown explained that the group's vision involves boundary-less flow of information—actually, permeable boundaries—and the adoption of enterprise architecture, which Brown described as having a "city planner" view of an enterprise as barriers between data, applications and departments break down. Enterprise architects will be certified by the new organization to denote that they meet standards developed by The Open Group members for skills and experience. -- modified at 16:01 Monday 29th January, 2007
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Wiring houses or circuits is one thing. You spend 5 years on the job with a foreman learning as you go. You have platforms and criteria that must be met during that time. All of this while on the job and all of it while under the supervision of others. There are many problems with this idea and frankly it just won't fly. It's to "far away" to easy to fool and it lacks the roots of what has become modern day electricians. I don't like the idea on 1000 levels and mainly because it's too subjective. To easy to bluff, spoof, fool.
-
Wiring houses or circuits is one thing. You spend 5 years on the job with a foreman learning as you go. You have platforms and criteria that must be met during that time. All of this while on the job and all of it while under the supervision of others. There are many problems with this idea and frankly it just won't fly. It's to "far away" to easy to fool and it lacks the roots of what has become modern day electricians. I don't like the idea on 1000 levels and mainly because it's too subjective. To easy to bluff, spoof, fool.
code-frog wrote:
All of this while on the job and all of it while under the supervision of others.
Actually, you only need to verify employment for a given period of time, like 4 years, then you study for a test and pass it to get licensed as a contractor able to do business for yourself. That's pretty loose in itself. You could have just been a helper pulling wire through tubing for 4 years, but study on the side, take your test, and viola! Licensed electrician. Then you could jsut sub out all the tough work you really don't have the skill for, but the knowledge of that allowed you to pass the test, and be in business.
code-frog wrote:
It's to "far away" to easy to fool and it lacks the roots of what has become modern day electricians.
I don't know about that. The roots of the standards in electrical work is largely due to safety. That's probably true for most construction. Minimums and maximums to be within acceptable limits. To get licensed as an electrician you only need to be employed for a given amount of time and take a test. Not too complicated or supervised. I think that as our society becomes more and more inseperable from software we'll see the potential for something like this gaining ground. Maybe it will only touch the fields of danger like medical and defense software. Control systems, etc... dunno. I still find the topic interesting. I've heard other developers wish for this for 10 years now.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder