The editor of SQL Server Central, Steve Jones, picked up on one of my previous posts on the MCA costs and posted an editorial - inviting comment from the SQL Sever community.

The full thread can be viewed here, but for readers of my MCA category, I thought I would distil some of the comments made, particularly those by Andy Ruth, the head of the MCA programme.

While bearing in mind that most of the SQL Server community are highly technical engineering types it seems that those against the MCA fall into one or more of the following groups:

• Those against certification in general – possibly because they put a lot of effort into existing technical certifications that did not make a difference to their own careers or they have had certified techies on their projects that have been unable to deliver.
• Microsoft Bashers – You find them everywhere, even on a Microsoft biased technology site
• Those that as individuals feel that US$10,000 is too expensive

The more 'official' line of response can be found in Andy's comments and Miha's blog post that he posted in response (at some strange hour in New Zealand).  Some of the things that I gleaned from these responses:

• Microsoft is working on the credibility of the MCA certification by monitoring existing MCA-led projects for success.  Over time these successes will be used in the marketing of the value of MCA's.
• Effort went into the development of the programme, not just in terms of the definition of what makes an IT Architect but also the approach followed in existing experiential acknowledgement processes such as with a PhD (although the MCA is not trying to gain academic acceptance)
• From a cost recovery point of view, US$10,000 is not high – try and book five architects into a hotel for a week and review thirteen candidates – you start to run out of money fast.
• The value of MCA's is being pitched at corporates and consulting companies rather than individual techies that want to further their career.

I find this type of discussion interesting and important to participate in as it is clear that the MCA message is not particularly clear to a wider audience and these types of forums will start asking the questions.  In the past Microsoft's certifications have been more technical than professional and in public discussion groups the questions are going to be asked by the technical communities, such as SQL Server Central, before they proliferate to a wider audience – I doubt that process owners, project managers other members of the business end of IT have similar places to raise questions and awareness about the MCA programme.

While it is probably more important for Microsoft to focus their marketing efforts on the ISV's and corporate buyers of architectural skills, they still need to keep an eye on what the more technical types are saying – a negative mention on a top rated technical blog can undo a lot of boardroom marketing as the same people will head over to Google after the meeting and search for Microsoft certified architect.  If the search result renders a whole lot of whinging by techies the targeted business person may not be particularly impressed.  Personally I am curious to know what the marketing and product positioning approach is for the MCA programme.

A general Microsoft Learning problem is getting various people to understand the certifications that apply to their skills. For the SQL community there are far more relevant technical certifications (and probably more to come) and I assume a plan for certification that would apply to more senior skills, such as 'Datacentre Architect' or something.  If the various role players within a Microsoft shop understood their skills and certification and how it fitted in with everybody else's, then maybe there would be less complaining and derogatory references to one another.

Currently, outside of certification, there is a tussle between engineers and architects – where architects have little credibility with technical people and are actually the underdogs in the perception management game.  Continuing this dick measuring competition (apologies Ruth, I couldn't come up with a gender neutral alternative) when discussing the value of certification does not make things any easier for architects.

People who have an interest in IT architecture and IT architecture in a professional sense need to be aware of how they are perceived and positioned with all stakeholders, not just the SQL techies.  I also believe that existing MCA's and MCA wannabe's need to make sure that they at least monitor, or participate in, these kinds of discussions so that at the very least you begin to know what people think about you so that you can get your arguments in order.

Simon Munro