Why New Gen?
Of all the questions I've gotten since I started in this position, the question of why we took apart the MCP/MCAD/MCSD certifications to create the new generation program is easily the most common. And just when I thought that I had explained it enough so that everyone understood, the topic would come up again. So in this post, I want to provide you a little more context into the thought behind the new generation program. I will also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the previous certification programs such as the MCSD and the strengths and weaknesses of the new gen program (as they have been observed thus far). Having laid that foundation, let's dive in.
Many of you are very familiar with the MCP program and I'm sure that many of you hold either the MCAD or MCSD certification. These certifications are well recognized and there is general agreement in the market as to the skills that they assert about an individual. So why take a credential like the MCSD and split it into multiple certifications? If you've been following the program from the beginning, you will no doubt come back with the same thing that I was told when I joined – "the new generation certifications allow for the separation of technical skills from job role skills" – and you would be correct. But seriously, why do that? Is it really worth abandoning the strong market recognition held by a program like the MCSD for such a seeming esoteric reason? I will argue that it was absolutely necessary – but more because of the reasons behind the desire to separate technical skills from job role skills.
Firstly, let's consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MCP program certifications like the MCSD.
Strengths
- Widely recognized in the market
- Good coverage of core development concepts
- General recognition of base programming skills covered
Weaknesses
- No room for differentiation within a pool of people holding the same credential (e.g. – to an employer, what makes you as a MCSD better than your competition, all of whom also hold MCSDs?)
- Program does not scale to take into account all of the new technology that Microsoft is developing
- Program does not scale to take into account new job roles in the industry (or redefinition of existing job roles)
As you should be able to see, the biggest problem with the MCP program is simply that it does not scale. And it is the issue of scaling that is, in my opinion, the single most valuable component of the new generation program. The new generation program functions more as a framework than as a brand and hence has a much greater probability of remaining relevant despite changes to both the technology and job landscapes. Of course, no major change comes without problems of its own. Therefore, let's look at the strengths and weaknesses of the new generation program in its current form.
Strengths
- Practically limitless scalability, both horizontally (technological breadth) and vertically (job role definition)
- Deeper coverage of all development concepts
- Better differentiation within a pool of certified developers
Weaknesses
- Brand does not have the strength of the MCP program in the market
- Large transcripts due to a higher number of more granular certifications can cause confusion with hiring managers
- Lack of hierarchy among PRO exams coupled with the fact that there was a hierarchy between MCAD and MCSD makes for a confusing upgrade story
The MCP program tried to address the inherent lack of scalability by adding electives. The problem here is with this approach, you get maybe 2 additional points of differentiation before you a) confuse anyone trying to differentiate between 2 people holding that certification and b) completely change the meaning of the certification. At that point, you would end up coming right back to the new generation program.
As an example, let's look at a case where a company wants to hire an individual to write a Windows-based application that, among other things, will need to run reports against a SSAS cube using SSRS. Given the MCP program, the best that this company could do would be to search for an individual who held a MCAD/MCSD and a MCDBA. The company would then still be required to dig deeper during interviews to determine if the individual actually possessed some of the specific skills. Note that I used the word "determine" – interviews will always be necessary to "verify", but our credentials should be much more expressive about the specific skills that they assert. Under the new generation program, the customer would likely need to seek out a PRO Windows Developer, but unlike the MCP program, only add a TS credential in SQL BI to the list of requirements (as opposed to a full MCDBA). Ultimately, both employer and individual benefit as expectations are more accurately portrayed by both parties.
In conclusion, I hope this has given you a bit of insight into why we have made the decisions that we have in the new generation program. Obviously, I also hope that you agree with our reasoning – if you don't, please explain. We are also very aware of the weaknesses currently in the new generation program and committed to strengthening the program in these areas. Fundamentally, our primary concern is building a program that best highlights your skills in a job market where it is many times difficult to see through the static.
I am currently the Editor-in-Chief for MSDN Magazine. I joined Microsoft in 2006 as a product planner with the certification team at Microsoft Learning. Prior to that, I spent my career as a developer and later as an architect. My main technology passions include pretty much anything on language theory, agile development, and service-oriented architecture.
