Technoetic

Disclaimer: I’m not a CSM.

There’s been intense online discussion recently about ScrumMaster certification. The opponents claim it is damaging the agile community and they are pressuring the Scrum Alliance to eliminate it. Although the CSM certification is clearly described on the Scrum web site, some people believe the word ‘certification’ is misleading and will cause managers to make false assumptions about the significance of being a certified ScrumMaster. This is a reasonable concern. However, the certification opponents have not shown that this is actually a widespread problem. Certification has benefits and potential risks, but no one has shown any net damage to the agile community. The most evidence they have currently produced to support their position are a few anecdotal stories of busy, misinformed managers who thought ScrumMaster certification meant something different than it does.

As an outside observer, I see no reason why the Scrum Alliance would change their position on certification based on the unsubstantiated claims by certification opponents. Although some people confuse Scrum-specific certification with agile certification in general, these are quite distinct issues. Given the lack of evidence of any widespread problem, I believe the Scrum community should be able to make their own decisions about certification specific to their methodology. There are people who believe that Scrum is becoming synonymous with “Agile”, but I don’t believe this is true. However, I can see how this belief could cause some people to feel threatened by Scrum’s rapidly increasing adoption and associated certification programs. This could be especially true for potential competitors with their own Agile companies, services and products.

Some of the most intense discussion of this issue was in a long off topic thread on the Industrial XP mailing list. Joshua Kerievsky, founder of Industrial Logic, was one of the most outspoken opponents to ScrumMaster certification. Industrial Logic describes themselves as “XP leaders since 1999″. In 2003, Industrial Logic created a fork of the XP methodology called Industrial XP (IXP). Ironically, the creation and naming of IXP has been criticized by XP thought leaders as being deceptive, divisive, and damaging to the XP community. These are similar arguments to those being directed at the Scrum certification process. However, Industrial Logic continues to market the IXP brand. Obviously, they believe they are doing more good than harm, and they probably are. It’s surprising to me that Kerievsky doesn’t recognize that this could also be the perspective of the Scrum leadership and community.

Another example of this, typically unsuccessful, pattern of argumentation is the opposition to the word “extreme” in Extreme Programming. Although the meaning of the extreme nature of XP has been misleading and confusing for some managers, the name has never been changed. Some believe that the name slowed down early agile adoption because some managers were concerned about having “extreme”, undisciplined, anarchic, out of control programmers on their projects. Again, I think the XP community had the right to keep the name even if it caused some minor problems. In the long run, I believe that if the name is a significant problem, then XP will fade away (or be subsumed by a more acceptably packaged methodology). It will be an organic process rather than a forced change.

The thought leaders involved in this debate often present themselves as experts in change facilitation. I haven’t seen much demonstration of those skills in this debate. Instead, the discussion quickly degraded into a stream of unfounded accusations, negative characterizations and frequent sarcasm. It’s understandable human behavior, given the emotional intensity of the discussion, but I would have preferred a better demonstration of respect-oriented principles of the Agile Community.

Eventually the discussion on the IXP list spread to the Scrum Development mailing list. The purpose of the Scrum Development list is to support new ScrumMasters rather than debate certification. However, several people attempted to continue the off topic certification discussion and were subsequently banned from the list. This resulted in the creation of two new mailing lists within a few day period. One of these lists, Agile Tangents, is officially for respectfully discussing Agile topics that are off topic on other lists. It remains to be seen if this list will serve a long term purpose or will primary be a place for people banned from the Scrum Development list to vent their frustrations. As of the time of this writing, the list activity appears to be slowing down rapidly.

The discussion also has prompted the Agile Alliance to publish a position statement on agile certification. I thought it was a very fair and balanced position. It didn’t denounce the ScrumMaster certification or ask for it’s elimination, but provided objective information that can help people make their own decisions about the significance of the certification.

There will always be people who are confused and misinformed. That fact alone is not a compelling argument for change in this case. There was even significant confusion about the Agile Alliance position statement although it was written very clearly.

My recommendation is to allow the situation to evolve organically rather than attempting forceful change. If Scrum certification does not provide value it will fade away.