Certification Inconsistency
With the addition of a new certification this month (PSK I), it seems like a good time to talk about the current state of available certifications, and whether or not we need some kind of realignment so that these certifications are more consistently understood at-a-glance by both peers and employers.
The current non-trainer list of Scrum.org certifications seems a bit erratic:
- PSM I -> PSM II -> PSM III
- PSPO I -> PSPO II
- PSD
- PSK I
- SPS
As a competitor certification, the ScrumAlliance system is more cleanly organized into 3 tiers for each of the 3 roles:
- CSM -> A-CSM -> CSP-SM
- CSPO -> A-CSPO -> CSP-PO
- CSD -> A-CSD -> CSP-D
There are certainly reasons to choose a Scrum.org certification over a ScrumAlliance certification. However, on our side of the fence it's much more confusing to know exactly what a certification represents, and how it compares to other certifications both here and elsewhere. For someone new to or unfamiliar with Scrum.org's unique take on certifications, I see 3 clear pain points.
- The PSPO II and PSM III are listed at different tier levels, but reflect similar role competency and exam difficulty.
- The PSD does not have a "tier" like other Scrum Roles, making it hard to distinguish which other certifications it's most closely aligned with.
- The PSK I denotes it's a level 1 certification, but no level 2 certification exists.
While we don't need to mirror ScrumAlliance one-to-one, I'd like to propose the following changes that bring a bit more consistency to the list. Namely, replacing the numbering system with something more flexible, and then applying that system consistently.
- PSM (Foundation) -> PSM (Advanced) -> PSM (Mastery)
- PSPO (Foundation) -> PSPO (Mastery)
- PSD (Foundation)
- PSK
- SPS
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! Are these legitimate pain points of the current system, or are they non-issues? Would this suggested naming convention work better or worse for you? Do you have additional or alternative changes you'd like to see? And are there any additional pain points you've experienced that I haven't listed here?
Generally speaking I agree with your post. Especially that there are good reasons to choose Scrum.org's certifications over others.
The suggested naming convention makes more sense to me than the current, especially because the assessments and certifications clearly distinguished between levels.
Specifically, though, I have some doubts about Scrum.org changing this any time soon.
Let me elaborate:
I will indulge in one of my bad habits and choose to make assumptions based on insufficient data.
The line PSM I -> PSM II -> PSM III was established at some time in the past. The reasons are unknown to me but I think it was a reasonable and logical change.
We might assume that PSPO I -> PSPO II -> PSPO III could be a reasonable change as well.
I wouldn't call PSPO I and PSM I/II overly difficult, but from what I have read about the PSM III / PSPO II, those probably are a significant leap up the tree.
But, and that is the point I shall argue, it seems that there is a pattern in Scrum.org's choice of assessments.
The provided guides are, intentional, shallow. For instance in the Scrum Guide: Definition of Scrum we could read
“... Specific tactics for using the Scrum framework vary and are described elsewhere. ”
This is in line with the notion of “barely sufficient framework” and, as I understand it, the current state of assessments.
That is, while the PSM II ventures further down the path of application of skills, practices and knowledge and PSM III probably will go even further than that, it is never the less more on a general management level of things.
The PSD on the other hand should, if taken to PSD II and PSD III, be more specific. If we follow this though, we might arrive at e.g. eXtrem Programming. If I'm not mistaken, in the very beginning Scrum did have XP (at least in part) embedded in it. So, what else, in general, could PSD II and III be about? After all, PSD II/III should be about applying knowledge … to specific development situations. As far as Scrum is concerned, those are covered, from a different perspective of course, in the PSM and PSO. On the other hand, though, I'm no overly fond of the Scrum role model. It is mindful for the practical application, of course. Still, strictly speaking, the subjects of the “job” of Scrum Master and Product Owner are to important to be left only to them. It's everyone's business, at the least that of the whole Scrum Team. That said, the specifics of the PSD II/III would be development as such – not exactly the angle of Scrum.
As for SPS – I would argue that it is possible to expand this, on a general level. I would expect this to be in line with PSM II/III. But Nexus is (in reality) likely to be more complex than single Scrum and I have no knowledge of how widespread or relevant this framework really is. So, I would guess, that expanding this does not have a high priority.
The PSK I and PAL I are interesting. I have not taken any of the two but I choose to argue that this supports the pattern I'm able to see. The guides are in line with the Scrum and Nexus Guide – general, barely sufficient.
I could call Scrum&Kanban surprising because it goes a bit further than usually – it offers a more specific technique or concept, etc. to be used/applied inside of Scrum. But I still see both as an expansion on a general level.
One could understand this as an indication that, at some future date, there might be a “Scrum with XP Guide”, or maybe even PSD II/III.
But I suppose one reasonable next step would be PSPO I -> PSPO II -> PSPO III.