I should not be connected to the Internet this week - being away on honeymoon in Mozambique for a few days.  It is strange that while on a beach in one of the poorest countries in the world that you can check your MCA status on your phone.

Since many people have been sending emails and asking questions (which I have been unable to answer) over the last few weeks I feel that I have to break my rule of 'beach bum and not mouse potato' and post a short entry on my status.

I received an email last night informing me that I have 'been invited to continue into the MCA program' - an invitation that I am bound to accept before the 9 October deadline.

I don't know what took so long - maybe the 'stack ranking' algorithm was a bit tough, maybe it took a long time to herd the cats.  Maybe Andy Ruth can provide me with some of *his* experiences which would provide some interesting insights.

Congratulations to Carlos Goncalves, a fellow South African who was also accepted and, like me, has also been checking his email frequently.  I'd like to hear from anyone else who has made it into the programme (and even those who have not).  Let me know what your thoughts are and whether or not I can share them on this blog.

It seems that a tough part of the process is already over yet I know that there is still a way to go - at the very least I have to rustle up the US$10,000 (more about that in a future post).  Stats have shown that there is a lot of interest in these postings and I intend to share as much as I can, for those in the programme and those wishing to join.

For now though, I must return my attention to my wife and soak up the African sun...

Simon Munro

There were obviously a few people that missed the deadline to register for the first batch of candidates for the MCA programme and it did the rounds on some blogs and IT news sites.  Amongst the news circulating were statements that only one in five of the candidates applying were going to make it past the initial screening.  Although I don’t consider myself in the bottom eighty percent of anything, it was enough to make me nervous.  Obviously I have no idea of the kinds of people that have been applying – are they really hot architects, PowerPoint Architects or just hopeful developers?

More than a month after I submitted my written application I received an email scheduling the phone screen for the next week.  A month  is plenty of time to work up doubts, concerns and second thoughts, but I did use the time constructively.  Although a clear theme within the MCA programme is that you cannot study for it – you are either an architect or not – only experience will change it; but I didn’t think there would be much harm in brushing up on some of the latest trends, jargon and such.  I suppose that this was beneficial in some respects, but did also raise concerns that although I believe that I know my architectural niche backwards, there are whole heaps of architectural ‘stuff’ that I only have cursory knowledge – plenty of space for trick questions and ‘I don’t know’ answers.  In those few weeks I found myself asking a lot of questions and verbalising some of my thoughts on this blog.

The email that I received proposed two time slots that my 30 to 60 minute phone screen could be scheduled in.  After a response and a confirmation I had my interview scheduled.  The supporting documentation was quite interesting and useful – one provided a useful guide which I assume was the reference sheet that the interviewer would use. In the content of one of the emails the author went to great pains to explain the process and the necessity for personal interaction with the screeners/mentors and noted that there was limited capacity and that candidates would be ‘invited to continue in the program based on the stack ranking until all slots are filled’ – another (formal) reminder of the bottom eighty percent threat.

I tried to schedule my interview for when I was home from work and not during my commute and had it pegged for 7pm.  I wish the Americans would understand that Pacific Standard Time is much easier expressed as GMT-7 for the rest of the world – it was something that I had to look up; I even tried to confirm the time expressed as GMT something, but failed to elicit a response.  I made sure I was available in plenty of time and began a long, nervous wait where I read over my submissions as a reminder of what the interviewer had in front of him.  When my scheduled time was long overdue I started to think about what my waiting threshold would be – a phone call at 1 am wouldn’t be the best time for a difficult interview.  Fortunately my interviewer sent me a ‘I’m running late email’ and phoned a bit later – enough time for me to Google him which, although didn’t help me much, at least indicated that we would not be totally misaligned.

Eventually the phone rang, starting off disjointed during the first few seconds until we adjusted to the two second time lag.  I quickly dropped a disclaimer that the time difference would render me blunter than usual due to the lateness of the hour which was quickly answered with “Don’t worry, it’s not that kind of interview’ – setting up for a more relaxed environment.  The interview started with my interviewer, Charles, going over the objectives of the MCA programme and even though I have been following it closely, some additional insights were provided that were not in the official documentation.  I realised that he had already had a tough morning, some really difficult conversations and even some careful letting down of candidates that began to realise that they were not up to the grade.  Before we got into the swing of the interview he was interrupted and had to disappear for a few minutes – already running late, I could picture email and meeting requests building up while he took up a huge chunk of his day on something that was not related to his usual job functions.

Charles pointed out that he liked what he saw in my submission documents (good, he read them properly) and wouldn’t go through every single detail in each competency area.  He started off by asking me to introduce myself, which I tried to answer as briefly as possible while still trying to impress.  He then asked me why I chose the particular case study, which I answered differently from my submission which he had in front of him.  He then said he would ask me some random questions to asses my knowledge and abilities, but asked only one – about the testing process on the project which applied to my case study which I answered in a lot of detail (probably too much) – the completeness with which I addressed this in the project and the two second lag, which prevented any ‘Please Stop!’ interjections, meant that I covered all bases and probably waffled a bit.  By the end I am sure he thought that he was speaking to the same person who wrote the submission documents and probably decided not to give me another chance to bore him with another exhaustive answer to a random question.

He gave me some positive feedback and mentioned that I would be a good candidate to put forward.  I was grateful and positive about the feedback but could still picture the ‘stack ranking’ of other candidates that could push me off the acceptance list.  Before closing off the interview he asked if I had any other questions – never having spoken directly to someone who has been through the programme I jumped at the chance, while trying to be considerate that he had other stuff to do and other candidates to screen.  Although I have architected big, complex systems my case study was not one of those and I raised my concern that possibly the suitability of the architect was measured by the number of interfaces or the size of the database (as total budget is used by project managers for dick measuring) – he quickly put those concerns at ease.

I wrapped up the phone call by thanking Charles for his time and his input and left him to get back to other nervous candidates who were waiting for his call.

The schedule promised a result of the screening process by 1 September 2006, and on the day I received an email announcing a delay in the screening process.  I was not surprised as things ran a bit over when I was scheduled but was disappointed that I would have to wait for two more weeks.

I don’t know the final outcome of the screening, hopefully I’ll let you know this Friday.

Simon Munro

As mentioned in my previous post, that I wasn't paying daily attention to the MCA website on when and where registrations would finally open up to the rest of us and nearly missed the application deadline.  Luckily someone blogged (I can't remember where), that there were only a few days left and so I headed over to the MCA site.

Instructions on the site stated that registrations would be open to the first 250 applicants or the closing date of 14 July 2006, whichever occurred first. I didn't procrastinate for too long, just a brief reflection on how I would rustle up the US$10,000 that I was about to commit to.  The registration process seemed straightforward - go to Thompson Prometic, use the provided registration code and hand over your credit card details.  It made sense really - Microsoft already has Prometric as a registration/booking channel and the money would ultimately land up in the right place.  Being call centre phobic I tried to register on the website, but always reached a dead end and had to resort to speaking to a real live person.  Upon reflection this was not too bad either as I was able to speak to a local office, which would be a great help if you are not English speaking.

The same day I received my confirmation from Promteric, all clear and computer generated with necessary reference numbers, order numbers and notification of a 15 minute exam at some non-existent location.  I had a vague idea what to expect from the process and focused on more pressing things at work – pushing the MCA to the back of my mind until I had to do whatever came next.  I also kept an eye on my spam filter in case the important mail was rejected.

I don’t know whether it was because I only applied at the end of the application window or if it was just how the schedule worked, but the next day I received an email requesting:

• A copy of my CV
• A description of how I have displayed each of the program competencies
• An abstract of the case study that I intend submitting
• A completed InfoPath form
  

Not too much of a problem, but it had to be submitted by the next day!  A lot of stuff to get through if you only have one day to think about it and work on it. The ‘Application Package’ contained some helpful guides and enough instructions to negate the need for any clarification.  The email also explicitly stated that the documents must be submitted together and once only – corrections, changes or additional documents would be rejected.

The CV was easy, mine is always never more than one project out of date.  The abstract was not too tough – for a project that takes up most of my attention on a daily basis a one or two page document is no challenge. 

I hit a brick wall on the InfoPath form which insisted that Office XP SP1 had to be installed, and even though everything is fully licensed, it is a service pack that I struggle to install.  After much messing around I managed to get enough of the service pack installed to fill in the form, which is pretty straight forward and really just asks you to estimate your experience on various techniques and technologies that are relevant to architects.  The requirement was to save my InfoPath results as a .xsn file, which InfoPath whinged about so I saved it as .xml and sent it off as is.

Although I managed to find some time during the day to write about my competencies I really struggled to get it all together and sounding good.  The competencies cover such a broad range that it is actually quite difficult to jump from one subject to the next without having to really concentrate.  I can churn out a twenty page technical document or proposal in a day, but those seven diverse pages took a lot out of me.  The competency submissions had a lot of sentences that had 'I' in them - I did this and I do that - but I supposed that was not really narcissistic, rather a consequence of having to write in the first person.

Being in the GMT+2 time zone gave me about 9 hours grace, if the recipient was on the US west coast, but I’m not one of those people who think that same day is 23:59 in a time zone of your choice.  I wanted the documents to be in the inbox of the recipient promptly, completely and in order.  I even thought that it could have been some sort of test - those that submit just in time or begged for extensions may go to the bottom of the pile.  I was not taking any chances.  I managed to get everything sent off it time to arrive early in the morning on the desk of someone on the US west coast. 

I was happy with what I submitted but felt intellectually drained, wishing that I had a bit more time and had thought a bit more about my competencies in the preceding months.  About three hours later I received two emails simultaneously: one thanked me for my submitted application and the other announced a two week extension to the deadline. 

Aaaargh!

I put in a serious amount of effort in a single day only to be discredited by a bunch on whiners (probably in later time zones) who managed to coerce an extension out of the programme operators, who I’m sure needed the submissions to meet their own deadlines.  Never mind, I thought, my submission rocks and I wouldn’t have been able to write it much better if I had months.  At least I was done.

All that I had to do was wait for the next step, the telephone screening, which will be in my next post.

Some advice to future applicants- Get MS Office InfoPath installed and on the latest service pack and go through the competency areas that are clearly described and make sure that you have your thoughts in order up front.

Simon Munro

According to the MCA FAQ, there are currently 63 Certified MCA's worldwide.  These MCAs are quietly getting on with their work and are so buried on projects that they haven't really had much of a chance to make themselves known to us.  I have only come across Richard Godfrey and Mihak in the blogosphere that have announced their status.  Since the MCA programme requires that candidates are reviewed by existing MCAs, the obvious chicken-and-egg problem needed to be overcome and I suspect that the initial MCAs were selected by a combination of a knows-someone-who-knows-someone network and large vendor interest (Microsoft and HP).

Although information about the MCA Programme was up on Microsoft Learning last year, the rest of us had to wait and see what would happen when the MCA programme went live.  Not being a 'Pick me! Pick me!' donkey I resisted the urge to send such an email to Microsoft and monitored the website on an occasional basis to see if the process had evolved.  Not being on my daily to-do list, I nearly missed the quiet announcement but managed to apply before the 250 seats were filled.

Although I applied, I have not yet been accepted into the programme and am awaiting the results of my screening.  You will have to check in on my progress to see if this and subsequent posts should be filed under 'How to become an MCA' or 'How not to become an MCA' as I expose myself to the embarrassment of being turned down.  However, I have been urged to blog about my experiences with the MCA programme and, regardless of the outcome, it should be of some use to aspiring applicants.  Also, I think that although Microsoft has announced that the MCA programme is out of beta and is live, I think that there may be a service pack due (considering the audience, an allowable metaphor) as it is rolled out to the likes of me, in Africa, and other 'users' that the programme will have to accommodate.

While the existing MCAs were personally invited or coerced (and sponsored) into joining the programme, there are 250 people out there who actually hauled out their credit cards, picked up the phone and said 'Pick me!'.  The first part then that is relevant is figuring out for myself as to whether or not MCA is right for me and if I am up to standard.

There is not much information about the MCA programme other that what is on the official site and Mihak's MCA Blog.  I will endeavor not to reproduce that content by listing all of the competencies and how you measure up to them, rather expressing some of my thoughts and rationale.

Belief in the Certification

There is a lot of negativity towards certification, particularly Microsoft, and you have to be pursing this certification for reasons that you believe in.  If you believe that you are the best architect ever and no-one can tell you otherwise then good for you, I am sure you are a very happy person you can drive off in your Hummer with 'ARC1TECT' personalized plates - MCA is not for you.  If you believe that the US$10,000 is too much and the MCA certification will never have enough credibility to recoup your costs you are also not going to cut it.  If you believe that the peer certification process smacks of elitism then you will have to go elsewhere to find a computer based test.

If you believe, like myself, that such certification is good for the industry as a whole and being interviewed by a panel of rather good peers sounds like a good process, then you are at least starting at the right place.

Enough Experience

The first drafts of the MCA requirements stated (I think) at least three years of architecture experience and (I think) at least five or eight years of IT experience.  The current requirements seem to have dropped such specifics probably due to the many 'Aw duuuude, that's like a long time!' comments by many twenty-something senior developers.  Although the actual number of years may be irrelevant, by trying to understand the coverage that is required, I understood that the experience needed is quite high.  Not just ten years on the same project at one corporate, but constant, ever changing experience in many organizations.  Only by being exposed to the various types of organizations, users, implementers, project managers, vendors and technologies will you have gathered enough knowledge to form opinions on architecture that the review board is looking for. 

If, while sitting in the Ops room waiting for a backup to restore over four hours at 01:00am, you can entertain the operators with enthralling anecdotes of projects, technologies, successes and failures - you probably have enough experience.  If you think "I have seen this movie before and it has a sad ending" about once a week and stop the people around you making an avoidable mistake - you probably have enough experience.

Leadership

The MCA programme is heavy on leadership.  It probably stems from the fact that architects have very little title-induced power and have to rely heavily on influence, communication of their vision and so on to get things done.  Also, I think that the programme is looking for people who have mentoring and natural leadership capability as it not only part of their definition of an architect, but is also key to driving the programme forward. 

The leadership question was the toughest for me to assess my suitability- I have worked with some really great leaders in the past and don't consider myself to be in their league.  However I think that the leadership skills required are not the ability to build a multi-million dollar business in a few years starting with $5 in your pocket, but rather building a multi-million dollar system within an existing environment and (hopefully) a starting budget - I think there is a difference in terms of leadership skills.  Three key leadership aspects that I think are necessary are 1) to be able to get 'buy in' to your architecture to external stakeholders,  2) to get the implementers to believe the technical aspects of the architecture and 3) to mentor, train, delegate and generally uplift the skills and capabilities of your team.

Standard definition of 'Architect'

While the exact definition of what IT Architecture (and what an IT Architect is) is in flux, all the stakeholders are herding it in the same direction.  Your understanding of architecture is not good enough if you haven't read or participated in various debates about what architecture is.  The MCA programme is participating in this debate by attempting to put a peg in the ground as to defining an architect (the role, not the definition of architecture) and it is more or less aligned with current thinking. 

When sitting in front of the review board, they have the power to determine of you fit that role - by their definition, and as more architects are certified, so that definition will perpetuate.  I don't think that standing in front of the review board stamping your feet and trying to verbalise your different opinion will win you much support.  The review board has a standard and if you propose a different one then off you go and go and define it carefully, generate mass following and find financial and moral backing - but elsewhere please. 

However, you are since things are at an early stage (in terms of definition of the term 'Architect') you are welcome (and encouraged) to voice your opinion on the Internet before you get to the review board - by the time you get there your arguments would at least reflect or consider the current thinking.

Technology, Culture and Location

Although it is in the official documents, it warrants reinforcement - although the MCA programme is a Microsoft-driven certification, they are trying to be technology agnostic and architectural practice on the Microsoft platform is not a pre-requisite. 

I imagine that Blake Ross, the Firefox architect, is a pretty good architect (even by the MCA definition) but it is highly unlikely that he will apply for certification although I do understand that Java/Websphere architects have already been certified.  Don't let the stack of Microsoft technologies scare you, but from a communication point of view it will probably be easier if you are an architect using more mainstream technologies. 

Since the board review is conducted in person, it will probably necessitate a trip from the southern end of Africa to Europe for my particular board review unless some MCAs can motivate an African safari.  It seems that being international is what the programme is about and you should still apply if you don't speak English or live outside of the USA or Europe - after all, the more geographically and culturally dispersed the MCAs are, the better it is for the programme.

Get into the ring

The review board process does not sound like a relaxed couple of hours and you will get grilled by a bunch of skilled, intelligent architects that, depending when you are scheduled, may be a bit grumpy, hungry or irritated.  Handling one or two architects in a relaxed environment at my own office is a piece of cake, but I imagine that I will be under serious pressure during that board review.  While it is a daunting task I am confident that I can get into the ring and handle a round or two with the heavyweights... can you?

On my next post I will describe my experiences of registering for the MCA programme and doing the paperwork.

Simon Munro