Here we go again.
Jon Reed, Dennis Howlett, Martin Gillet, Michael Koch, and Leonardo Di Araujo, collectively known as the Certification 5, have posted a 55-page, somewhat discoordinated white paper exploring the need to vastly upgrade the SAP consultant certification process. http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/18849
The article even got the attention of Larry Digby, Editor in Chief of ZDNet http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=33369&tag=col1;post-33369
Given the prominence of all of the above, it is certain that this work will be seriously scrutinized by SAP as there is still a perception that too many of the SAP consultants in the field are short on the requisite skills. As it happens, the whole subject was kicked back into high gear about a year ago when (then) CEO Leo Apotheker had this outburst in front of reporters and bloggers:
“I don’t give a s**t if it’s Accenture or IBM. I care about the customer. I find it shocking people are walking around talking to customers and have no experience on [SAP]. [Consultants] get hired of people and have no clue. It’s annoying but that’s a fact. Let’s start by certifying people,” said Apotheker. “If we believe [a project] takes 500 days and another partner says it’s 5,000 days I’ll do it for 500 and a fixed fee.”
While I would welcome tighter certification of individual consultants, even the Certification 5 tend to focus on technical skills (DiAraujo elaborately argues against the viability of testing "soft" consulting skills.) All the same, I remain convinced that it's the systems integration firms that require certification. We all know that even with a team of highly qualified consultants, a single crappy project manager can drive a project into the ground. This was my argument a year ago http://snipurl.com/vpb26 and it remains my argument today.
If certification is focused on SAP technical acumen alone (without business knowledge), the certified term should not be "consultant".
Engineers without business knowledge often build beautiful and efficient bridges to nowhere.
Thanks for that Michael. To your general point about business knowledge, you won't find any disagreement from me. It was something that we discussed BUT - if you look at what we're saying, consultant? Not so much - engineer - definitely. It should also be clear that we don't all agree on every aspect of the paper.
ReplyDeleteHowever I wonder if you're missing the more fundamental point. We see SAP Certification as failing to 'certify' an understanding of SAP technology upon which anyone can realistically rely. Some comments to the SDN post continue to reinforce that view. That's not great under any scenario.
Certifying the SI's is certainly a good thing to which I would subscribe but there's very little point in doing that if what you have to certify them against is perceived of poor value in the marketplace anyway. As you know, SIs will argue they have their own training and systems but I see precious little evidence of it making a sharp difference in the market.
Some of us (not necessarily this group) view a more meaningful technical certification as part of the pathway to getting a grip of the SAP SI ecosystem. It isn't the whole answer and we think it will require some tough decisions by SAP to make that work. But heh - we live in hope.
To your point about business knowledge, I see the greatest promise for that being articulated at the professional/masters level for BPX'ers but SAP seems to be a ways off considering that aspect in any real depth. We can only speculate.
Finally, I would rather put a stake in the ground - however flawed - in their own back yard than pretend the problems are somehow going to magically go away. As Mentors we are in that fortunate position.
Dennis, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment as well as with the heart of your group's quest. I am convinced, however, that if the goal is to better serve clients, we have to look at the firms that serve them, not just the foot soldiers who are sent into battle. The Accentures and the Deloittes of the world have untold certified SAP staff and still botch projects with the regularity of the sunset.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm missing something, but can't SAP certify BOTH the consultants (engineers) as well as the SI firms? Why not "And" instead of "Or?"
ReplyDeleteFrank is right (again). Now we flip a coin to see who goes first.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the info. It sounds pretty user friendly. I guess I’ll pick one up for fun. thank u
ReplyDeleteMeet Neil Chandran
As you know, SIs will argue they have their own training and systems but I see precious little evidence of it making a sharp difference Asif 16 in the market.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Hayden MD
It isn't the whole Face Doctor answer and we think it will require some tough decisions by SAP to make that work. But heh - we live in hope.
ReplyDeleteAs Mentors we are Jasso Tree Service in that fortunate position.
ReplyDeleteThe Accentures and the Cheetah Boat MFG Deloittes of the world have untold certified SAP staff and still botch projects with the regularity of the sunset.
ReplyDelete