4 ms·

Can we talk about software engineer certification yet? I tought things like this suppose to push on the movement.

gnoway 13y ago
Certification would be, at best, a third of the equation. It can demonstrate that you know how to do something correctly, not that you will do it correctly all the time or that you will be working in an environment that permits you to do it correctly.
- stan_rogers 13y ago
  No, we're talking about "affix a stamp and make yourself liable" engineering certs, not just competency testing. You know, PEng engineers, not just inflated job titles.
herge 13y ago
I'm sure your software engineer certification program will be way more successful and effective than government procurement certification program that certified these clowns in the first place.
fiatmoney 13y ago
I guarantee that the contractors involved were loaded with a significant number of Java & Microsoft certified developers. Furthermore, I'd guarantee that the Big Dig, et al, were loaded with certified "real" engineers. Certification (even some fancy "project management" certification) doesn't get you any guarantees of project quality as a whole. If anything, I'd expect a focus on certification to decrease quality. Those things are expensive & time-consuming and the only ones who invest in them are the people who expect to be in that consulting ecosystem for a long time. There are processes, not certifications, that result in generally high-quality projects (see NASA's processes) at the cost of being incredibly slow and expensive.
- lightblade 13y ago
  Sorry, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough. I wasn't talking about those Java/MS certs. I was talking about this: http://cdn1.ncees.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Exam-specifications_PE-Software-Apr-2013.pdf http://cdn1.ncees.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Exam-specifi...
  - swalsh 13y ago
    Is there like an example test online? I've been in this game for 7 years, but I still learn new things all the time. I'd be curious how well i'd do :D
eli 13y ago
I'm not so sure it was incompetent engineers on the bottom of this equation who caused it to fail.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Iftheshoefits 13y ago
I am 99% certain that the software engineers involved--that is, the ones who did the actual development of the software--had almost no say in the process that created this debacle, and were almost certainly powerless in steering the project's direction. To take something from the article as an example, the QSSI executive's hedge about security not being part of his contract illustrates one of the real problems with our government contracting system. The sad fact is that it is more likely to have technologically illiterate "Business Analyst" and (cost-conscious) "Project Management" types making critical technology-related decisions about the scope of a project and contents of contracts than people who are technology-savvy, such as software or systems engineers, even if said people have some input. A companion problem to this is the nature of government contracting. The QSSI guy is just doing what contractors do: they fulfill the letter of the contract (sometimes completely, sometimes by handwaving) and then when the government complains that the product doesn't work the way they wanted the contractor wins an extension or a follow-on (paid) contract to do the "additional" work. It works like this for a reason. The "Analyst" ass-clowns in the government get better job security, because they're overseeing a project that can have its duration extended almost indefinitely. The contractor owners get to reap huge contracting windfalls. The lobbyists for the contractors who continue to bilk the government continue to get paid, and the Congressmen who the contractors buy, er, provide donations and campaign support for continue to hold their seats of power. Look it like this: from their perspective, badly run projects that don't actually accomplish what they need to are a feature of government contracting, not a bug or problem to be solved.

Certification would be, at best, a third of the equation. It can demonstrate that you know how to do something correctly, not that you will do it correctly all the time or that you will be working in an environment that permits you to do it correctly.

stan_rogers 13y ago
No, we're talking about "affix a stamp and make yourself liable" engineering certs, not just competency testing. You know, PEng engineers, not just inflated job titles.

herge 13y ago

I'm sure your software engineer certification program will be way more successful and effective than government procurement certification program that certified these clowns in the first place.

fiatmoney 13y ago

I guarantee that the contractors involved were loaded with a significant number of Java & Microsoft certified developers. Furthermore, I'd guarantee that the Big Dig, et al, were loaded with certified "real" engineers. Certification (even some fancy "project management" certification) doesn't get you any guarantees of project quality as a whole. If anything, I'd expect a focus on certification to decrease quality. Those things are expensive & time-consuming and the only ones who invest in them are the people who expect to be in that consulting ecosystem for a long time. There are processes, not certifications, that result in generally high-quality projects (see NASA's processes) at the cost of being incredibly slow and expensive.

lightblade 13y ago
Sorry, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough. I wasn't talking about those Java/MS certs. I was talking about this: http://cdn1.ncees.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Exam-specifications_PE-Software-Apr-2013.pdf http://cdn1.ncees.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Exam-specifi...
- swalsh 13y ago
  Is there like an example test online? I've been in this game for 7 years, but I still learn new things all the time. I'd be curious how well i'd do :D

eli 13y ago

I'm not so sure it was incompetent engineers on the bottom of this equation who caused it to fail.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Iftheshoefits 13y ago

I am 99% certain that the software engineers involved--that is, the ones who did the actual development of the software--had almost no say in the process that created this debacle, and were almost certainly powerless in steering the project's direction. To take something from the article as an example, the QSSI executive's hedge about security not being part of his contract illustrates one of the real problems with our government contracting system. The sad fact is that it is more likely to have technologically illiterate "Business Analyst" and (cost-conscious) "Project Management" types making critical technology-related decisions about the scope of a project and contents of contracts than people who are technology-savvy, such as software or systems engineers, even if said people have some input. A companion problem to this is the nature of government contracting. The QSSI guy is just doing what contractors do: they fulfill the letter of the contract (sometimes completely, sometimes by handwaving) and then when the government complains that the product doesn't work the way they wanted the contractor wins an extension or a follow-on (paid) contract to do the "additional" work. It works like this for a reason. The "Analyst" ass-clowns in the government get better job security, because they're overseeing a project that can have its duration extended almost indefinitely. The contractor owners get to reap huge contracting windfalls. The lobbyists for the contractors who continue to bilk the government continue to get paid, and the Congressmen who the contractors buy, er, provide donations and campaign support for continue to hold their seats of power. Look it like this: from their perspective, badly run projects that don't actually accomplish what they need to are a feature of government contracting, not a bug or problem to be solved.