Good Morning Waithaka,
As I respond, I will repeat that we need to wait to see the actual bill
that the CS will propose. Let us at least give him the level of good faith
and trust that he has earned through his record, most of which is in the
public domain for everyone to see.
Secondly, yes I am very cautious of government regulation. Maybe I can
trust CS Mucheru and his team, but I do not know who will be in-charge
tomorrow. If this regulation will have to happen, and I can tell you that
if the CS says it is going to happen just start preparing yourself for the
qualification interview, then I am willing to engage the ministry in a
constructive manner while the window to do so is still open. Let us come up
with the best possible balance that serves all.
Now, what you are proposing is short-circuiting that process and
> pre-qualifying people. Why would you want to repeat what the industry has
> already done? Cisco, Juniper, Huawei, Nokia, Siemens have each their own
> certifications of Advanced Network Engineering. Why would you want to
> duplicate that? Would such an organization even have the skills to
> interrogate every possible certification in the market?
I am not proposing any such thing. First of all who is Cisco, Juniper,
Huawei? These are vendors who in this context provide training and
certification for their specific products. This is good. Take these
certifications to the institute, answer a few relevant questions and earn
yet another certificate of approval.
On the other hand, are the exams of these vendors strictly administered in
such a manner that you would have complete faith in anybody holding any of
their certifications? Not really unless you are talking about someone who
has sat for their lab examinations. As for these other levels, google “exam
dumps, actual tests, brain dumps” to have an idea of what I am talking
about. I know of people whose CVs and LinkedIN profiles have certifications
that exhaust the entire alphabet yet they can deliver very little.
Aside from that, what if I cannot afford these foreign certifications or do
not want to undertake them for one reason or the other. Who says we cannot
build our own mechanism of certifying ourselves and we do it so well such
that all other Africans will aspire to our standards. Or maybe even the
whole world.
If you are not up to the challenge of the work that would need to be put
in, then let others try to do so. I am so fired up about this one to the
point that if for one reason or the other the Ministry decides to cancel
this bill, I will lobby in any way that I can to compel them to deliver on
this institute.
Regards,
Kevin
On 19 December 2017 at 02:55, Ngigi Waithaka <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Let us separate this into two:
> 1. Products
> 2. Services
>
> Reviewing products is a lot easier, as you got the final product, can try
> the trial version and despite whoever has built it, you can then come up
> with a conclusion of whether its fit for purpose.
>
> Now, how do you review Services? You asked how would I tell you are an
> advanced Network Engineer? I’d ask for your qualifications, certifications,
> experience, referrals would also shoot you questions around what I need you
> to do.
>
> Now, what you are proposing is short-circuiting that process and
> pre-qualifying people. Why would you want to repeat what the industry has
> already done? Cisco, Juniper, Huawei, Nokia, Siemens have each their own
> certifications of Advanced Network Engineering. Why would you want to
> duplicate that? Would such an organization even have the skills to
> interrogate every possible certification in the market?
>
> And that is just Networks… Extrapolate that to Software products which
> are in their thousands (Oracle, SAP, A1, MS, IBM, SAS, Redhat, HP etc) each
> with its own Certifications and Requirements and you want to pre-qualify
> people for that as well?
>
> Add Software Development, more than 30 possible languages we develop in,
> each with more than 30 levels of different knowledge levels / permutations
> and you want to pre-qualify that as well?
>
> Unless this is where our projected 1million jobs will come from, I really
> don’t see anyone in Kenya and even globally with such resources and time to
> undertake such an exercise and one that wouldn’t add any value beyond whats
> currently generally available in the market.
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Kevin Kamonye <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Waithaka,
>>
>> Perhaps let us not judge that the proposed bill by the CS to be a duck
>> before we have even seen or heard from it. Also, the only reason why I am
>> entertaining this bill is that unlike the previous one, is that we are
>> being invited to put forward constructive proposals.
>>
>> Now, what are some of the professions we have in the software industry?
>>> 1. Programmers / developers
>>> 2. System Administrators
>>> 3. Database Administrators
>>> 4. Enterprise Architects
>>> 5. UX Designers
>>> Now, try making a common regulation for those 5 out of a possible
>>> hundreds…
>>
>>
>> If we are talking about a peer reviewed process by committees of
>> technologists from varied backgrounds then establishing whether a person is
>> qualified to undertake the tasks that they claim proficiency in would be a
>> walk in the park.
>>
>> For instance, if you came to me and claimed to be a network engineer /
>> system admin I would be able to ask you a few pertinent questions that
>> would settle the matter very quickly.
>>
>> If beyond that you wanted to claim that you are advanced/expert/arch
>> level, then that would be between you and your prospective employer
>> (broadly used to cover contract/consultancy services). You would need to
>> provide them with the relevant certifications from the various vendors.
>>
>> In lieu of this, it will either be up to you to do some social networking
>> and get the recommendation of a certified person at that level or even
>> better and as happens currently, you will have to be individually
>> interviewed by the client’s trusted technologist who would ask you for your
>> portfolio and recommendations from other related work. They could further
>> protect themselves by withholding your payment until you have delivered on
>> their requirements, with the the further option of lodging a complaint
>> against you from this body that will be established.
>>
>> For new concepts that would be cutting edge, then the current principle
>> remains valid. Patent your idea then work towards demonstrating its
>> usefulness and the proposed applications and a well formed team of
>> technologists will give you the support and approval that you need.
>>
>> There could also be an appeals mechanism within the proposal where the
>> entire community could be lobbied for support. A Reddit type of system
>> could be used to upvote consensus.
>>
>> If all fails then take yourself to a jurisdiction/community that gets you
>> and let those that put you down burn in the glare of your success.
>>
>> AS FOR THOSE SAYING THAT THIS WILL STIFLE NEW TECHNOLOGY. HOW DO YOU
>> EXPECT SOMEONE TO DEVELOP CUTTING EDGE TECH IF THEY CANNOT EVEN DEMONSTRATE
>> BASIC ICT COMPETENCY FROM ANY OF THE MANY FIELDS THAT ALREADY EXIST?!
>>
>> You would never be able to code/develop that new thingamajig if you
>> cannot even show the ability to put something reasonable from what exists
>> currently. And remember that we are talking about those who do not have any
>> currently recognizable documentation to support your proficiency (this is
>> my assumption until I can see the final proposed bill).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> On 18 December 2017 at 17:58, Ngigi Waithaka via kictanet <
>>
