Thanks, Nancy, for reviving this thread. It is an important one, and you
bring up some excellent points.
> LPI will need to make sure that they can prove there is tangible value to
>going through the review process.
This is key. Do we want to establish the bureaucracy required to review in
a meaningful way every vendor's program? If Microsoft has had difficulty
doing a credible job of this, can LPI hope to do better? Are we willing to
accept the delays required to accomplish this review process? It could
become a limiting factor in the growth of the Linux movement.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: Take a look at the model
used by the Project Management Institute (www.pmi.org) for Project
Management Professional certification. They have developed and published a
standard as contained in their Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)
available from their web site. PMI builds and administers the
certification process and provides materials to assist in the training
process, but they do not dictate the training curriculum or methods. The
marketplace screens the quality of the training. The word gets around.
Vendors who do a poor job of preparing people for the profession (not just
the exam!) do not get repeat business. How does someone locate a competent
training provider? They ask others who have been there -- exactly the kind
of interaction a professional network is supposed to encourage.
I have made contact with the PMI leadership and am looking for an
opportunity to sit down with them in a benchmarking session. I will share
the results of their experience with the group.
For those who would favor approving each vendor's program, what would LPI
do if a vendor who did not have an LPI-approved curriculum used the
following words in their marketing material: "We teach to the LPI
standard"?
Tom Pilsch
Continuing Education Program
Georgia Tech College of Computing
> Nancy Maragioglio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning, Chuck and Jared!
>> New Riders been very active with the ICV program at MS, and as Angie
>> pointed out, there are specific allocations of cost. The program has
>> changed slightly, however. For one thing, they've increased
> CONSIDERABLY the fee paid to the independent reviewer.
>> The reason I bring this up, is that when the price went up, so did
> the stringency of the review.
>> The problem is that MS didn't follow up the price increase with a push
>> to say "Hey! We've improved the process and now our approval really
>> *means* something with regard to quality of content!" And by now ---
>> several years into the program --- the audience has figured out that
>> the earlier approval meant nothing.
>> As a result, you'll notice that there are a LOT more companies NOT
>> certifying their products. The best selling book product out there --
> the Exam Cram series -- isn't "approved" which means they can publish
>> a book for $19.99 and they sell millions! The cost of the approval is
> not born out by increased sales numbers --- the audience doesn't care.
>> My point is that there will need to be balance between the cost of the
>> approval process, and what the vendors can expect that approval to
>> earn for them. Right now, with the potential market numbers somewhat
>> undefined, LPI will need to make sure that they can prove there is
>> tangible value to going through the review process... that the
>> audience will respond (or at least be made *very* aware of) the
>> importance of that LPI approved logo.
>> I do believe that there is value, and that an approval process can
>> carry significant weight in the marketplace --- what that approval
>> needs to convey (and which MS's approval lost when the audience
>> discovered that the original approval was basically a rubber-stamp) is
>> that this approval logo means the content has been reviewed by someone
>> who understands the product, the process, and the importance of
>> certification. The review MUST be done by Linux experts, and it must
>> be a technical review --- not just checking to see if there's a
>> section headline to match up to each of the objectives provided by
>> LPI.
>> Marketing to the audience is going to be very important in helping get
>> vendors on-board for an approval process. If we, as vendors, know
>> that LPI is pushing the value of the approval to the people who will
>> be taking our courses and buying our products, (which MS does NOT),
>> then we'll be much more accepting of the fee structures.
>> I apologize for the length of this email. If you have any questions,
>> please do let me know --- I'll continue to lurk and hopefully not miss
>> the next thread! :)
>> Best,
>> Nancy Maragioglio
>> New Riders Publishing
>
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-corprel mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
