[LINK] New Core Body Of Knowledge for the ICT Profession

[steve jenkin]

Janet Hawtin wrote on 1/7/07 11:20 AM:

Janets' comments for me raise the question:

"What's the *demonstrable* benefit of the current scheme of things?"

i.e. Have the Professional Bodies advanced the profession?
[Where are the databases of surveys on 'What Works' and 'What doesn't]
[Where are the case studies on 'High Performing Projects' and 'Project
Failures']

Does the current training adequately train future practitioners?
[The rate of failed projects redeveloping 'legacy systems' is worrisome.]

What are the demonstrable Public Benefits of the Professional Bodies??
[Who's heard of them? What impact have they had on normal business
managers? IT managers?]


The mid-term outcome of the the CBOK should be normal managers, CIO's
and CEO's saying:
"We will *only* hire CBOK accredited IT staff".

I don't see what's currently in there supporting that...
Which is my synopsis of Janet's comments.

s

> On 7/1/07, steve jenkin <sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
>> Once talked to Glen B Alleman <http://www.niwotridge.com/> about what
>> they do at NASA.
>> It takes a decade or two before they'll let someone work on code without
>> "adult supervision".
>> They're serious about Cost, Time, Quality, Reliability/Survivability,
>> Function and Performance - and they do it.
>>
>> I'd rather have a Uni grad than most "self-taught" experts, very few
>> understand the complexity and problems. The worst have the magic triplet
>> "arrogance, ignorance and incompetence" in spades.  Even worse are these
>> ppl with a chip on their shoulders...
>
> Which gives us the perspective that working through a known program to
> develop a starter kit of habits and skills is useful. So is
> contextually relevant experience of producing work which is a good fit
> for purpose. Some of these skills will be about the non IT work of the
> client/employer/project and where the critical pressures are, on
> speed, on reliability, on maintainability, on its match with other
> projects in a family of work, the characteristics of the community of
> use for the project.
> Being able to hear or compare alternative approaches and understand
> where the strengths and costs lie and to be able to negotiate in a
> mixed perspective context in order to find the best outcomes. ie the
> Social literacies of community practice are useful.
>
> My underlying concern is that it sounds as though Australia is setting
> itself up for another round of siphoning off our domestic capacity
> into compulsory insurance which costs us in people's ability to
> participate freely.
>
> For many years the Wagga Wagga Carmelite nuns made the best coconut
> ice in the country. I would post haighs chocolate to a friend there as
> barter for it, and it was a fair trade, it was really lovely stuff.
>
> Australia implemented public liability insurance and the nuns were no
> longer able to make coconut ice as a fund raiser. The cost of
> insurance meant they could not do it anymore. There have been similar
> impacts on CWA and other grassroots community infrastructure projects
> where a toll or tax on participation must be found in order for people
> to book a room and meet.
>
> Applying the same kind of blanket tax to participation in technology
> projects feels again like a huge swathe of local capacity which must
> be paid to an offshore interest before local value can be generated.
> Again this kind of toll or tax will have local costs on projects of
> value which are developed by smaller teams and companies.
>
> I feel our nation needs to step back from adopting these blanket
> suggestions regarding how we operate and to look at their overall
> costs for Australia's domestic capacity. Blanket insurance is one way
> to tackle risk, good project practice is another, the first is a block
> of money which goes offshore, the second is a way of working and a
> skillset which is applied locally. The skills and process approach is
> a one time investment which returns consistent value locally over
> time. The toll approach is a subscription which would mediate the
> right to participate and imho has a tenuous connection to contextual
> risk and quality of work.
>
> I feel the proposal is one of a family of ideas around risk including
> content blocking, policy around user data for ISPs, broadcast treaty,
> RIAA copyright proposals etc, which are being posited in order to
> secure a value around a broadcast model in a world where distributed
> value is growing and becoming recognised as a useful component of our
> economy.
>
> I do think it is timely for us to be thinking about these ideas in the
> public interest but my first thoughts are about a whole community
> participation foundation with strategies for risk and safety which do
> not cost those freedoms and local capacity. What kinds of approaches
> are good for local economy encourage and orient new entrants, are
> sound balance of trade ideas and good for the project itself.
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>


-- 
Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist.
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sjenkin