Tag Archives: certification

Certification Comfort Food

Posted on by
Reply

I’m a big fan of comfort food. Maybe more than I should be. The idea of something simple and tasty just hits the right spot a lot of time, especially when I’m stressed or don’t have time to do something more involved. I know I really need to be better about cooking but you can’t beat a quick meal that uses something simple and gets the job done, right?

Now, before you ask yourself what I’m on about this week, I want you to think about that analogy in terms of certifications and learning. When we’re starting out in the industry or we’re learning a new skill we have to pick up basic ideas. The more advanced or radical the technology the more we need the kinds of explanations that make the concepts simple to understand. We need the equivalent of learning comfort food. Simple, digestible, and easy to prepare.

Climbing the Ladder

As our skills improve we have the choice to continue on and develop our capabilities to greater depths. Perhaps we want to learn everything there is to know about BGP and policies. We could even parlay that networking knowledge into new adjacencies that build on our skill sets. We also have the option of staying in the basic level and honing those skills. Instead of learning VXLAN we could spend a thousand hours practicing all the ways that you can configure a VLAN.

Which way is right? Is there a need to make a choice? People are going to feel more comfortable doing one thing over the other in almost every case. If you’re like me you want to get to the bottom of every mystery and explore every nuance of something. Once you figure it out you’re going to want to move on to the next hard problem to solve. You become a voracious reader and consumer of knowledge and before you know it you’ve run out of things to consume. It’s partially the reason why I’ve been such a prolific writer for the past twelve years. I’ve been creating the content that I wanted to consume so others can benefit.

The other side of the choice is being content with the skills you have. This is in no way a negative thing. Not everyone that cooks needs to be a four star chef that makes perfect risotto and Beef Wellington every time. There is a place for everyone that learns enough to accomplish their goals and decides that is enough for them. If the above option is the “pull” model where one is trying to pull in new knowledge as fast as possible then this is the “push” version where people must be pushed to learn additional things. Your company might move to cloud and that would facilitate a need to pick up cloud operations skills to complement the ones you have for the network or the virtualization cluster. You’re not actively seeking the knowledge until it’s needed.

Boiling the Mudpuddle

It’s all well and good when you can recognize which type of learner you are. It’s also important to know where your resources are aimed. If your top destinations for content are part of the “push” model and aim at a lower level when you’re someone that wants to grow and investigate new areas you’re going to hit a wall eventually and sour on them.

A personal story for me comes when I was racing through my certification journey in the early part of my career. Once I started with Cisco I was consuming books left and right. Every time I went into the book store I picked up a new tome to teach me more about routing or remote access networks or even firewalls. I would consume that content whenever I could and apply those lessons to my job or my certification process. Eventually I knew I was reaching a limit because there were fewer and fewer books in the bookstore that taught me things I wanted to know. It made me realize there is a target market for these resources.

Things like certification guides are aimed at a wide market. They want to teach skills to the widest possible audience. Not everyone needs to know the ins and outs of EVPN but most everyone in networking needs to know how a switch forwards frames. If you want to sell the most books which would you write about? You’d write the one that covers the most people. It’s a reality of the market. Content for the entry level and the broadest group sells the best. In today’s world the book has been replaced by the blog and the YouTube channel.

As mentioned, I started my blogging career because of the above bookstore issue. Once I started learning things that weren’t in every book I wanted to share those ideas. That got me to Tech Field Day and eventually to different things. It also made me realize that while my content may never have hundreds of thousands of readers for every post it would serve people that needed to find those lessons or understand those topics in a depth that was beyond a paragraph or two in a 400-page encyclopedia of terminology.

To me, the certification comfort food is that entry-level content. It’s always going to be there. It’s simple to write about, especially when you have good analogies to frame new concepts for people. It’s tasty when you’re starving. And you can make a very good living doing it. But if you’re the kind of person that wants to try new tastes and break away from the comfort and ease you’re going to need to figure out your own path. You need to experiment and make mistakes and struggle to conceptualize what you’re talking about. You need to expand your horizons and do new things and then tell the world how you did it. Like a recipe blog or TikTok channel for cooking you’re going to need to put your crazy ideas out there and see how it goes.

Tom’s Take

There are a lot of great creators out there that have made a very good place for themselves teaching newcomers the basics of how things work. I applaud them and wish them nothing but success. I also know that’s not for me. I started writing about my CCIE studies and the challenges I was solving the real world. Now I write about the state of the market or the changing of tech or how to build and lead teams. It’s very representative of my journey as well as the journeys of those in the community that I talk to. My very nature won’t let me stay in a little bubble and create the same things in new ways. I’m going to push the envelope and explore new things. It means I might not land in everyone’s top list but it also means I won’t be bored. Why be mac-n-cheese when I really need to be risotto?

VARs See You As Technical Debt

Posted on by
1

I’ve worked for a Value Added Reseller (VAR) in the past and it was a good run of my career before I started working at Tech Field Day. The market was already changing eight years ago when I got out of the game. With the advent of the pandemic that’s especially true today. Quite a few of my friends say they’re feeling the pressure from their VAR employer to stretch beyond what they’re accustomed to doing or outright being treated in such a way as to be forced out or leaving on their own. They tell me they can’t quite understand why that’s happening. After some thought on the matter I think I know. Because you represent debt they need to retire.

Skill Up

We don’t start our careers knowing everything we need to know to make it. The industry spends a lot of time talking about careers and skill paths and getting your legs under you. Networking people need to learn Cisco or Juniper or whatever configuration language makes the most sense for them. Wireless people need to learn how to do site surveys and configure access points. Server people need to learn operating systems and hypervisors. We start accumulating skills to land jobs to earn money and hopefully learn more important skills to benefit our careers.

Who benefits from that learning though? You certainly do because you gain new ways to further your career. But your VAR gains value as well because they’re selling your skills. The “value added” part is you. When you configure a device or deploy a network or design a system you’re adding value through your skills. That’s what the VAR is charging for. Your skills are their business model. No VAR stays in business just reselling hardware.

Accumulating skills is the name of the game. Those skills lead to new roles and more responsibility. Those new roles lead to more money. Perhaps that means moving on to new companies looking to hire someone that has your particular expertise in an area. That’s a part of the game too, especially for VARs. And that’s where the whole debt mess starts.

Double Down on Debt

Your skills are valuable. They’re also debt. They represent a cost in time, money, and resources. The investment that your VAR makes in you is a calculated return on that debt. If your company primarily deploys Cisco networks then the training you get to install and configure Cisco switches is a return on your VAR being able to hire you out to do that skill. Being able to install and configure Juniper switches isn’t a valuable skill set for them unless they move into a new line of business.

People are no different. We acquire skills that suit us for a time that we may or may not use forever. It’s like riding a bike. We use it a lot when we’re young. We stop using it when we start to drive. We may start again when we need to use a bike for college or for living in a large city or if we pick up cycling or mountain biking as a sport. However, the bike riding skill is always there. It is a sunk cost for us because we acquired it and keep it with us.

For a VAR, your skill is not a sunk cost. It’s a graph of keeping the amount of billable hours you contribute above the line of debt that you create to the company. If you spend 85% of your time installing Cisco switches you are well above the debt line to the company. But if your company stops installing so many switches your value starts to fall as well. It could be that the technology is old and no one is buying it. It could be that companies have shifted the way they do business and need different resources and technology. It could be that a new partnership has created competition inside your organization.

No one wants to the be a last buggy whip manufacturer. VARs thrive on attacking markets that are hot with huge potential for profits. When a skill set becomes a commodity VARs are competing on pricing they can’t always win. That drives them to investigate new markets to offer to the customer base. In order to deliver those new technologies and solutions they need skilled people to install and configure them. The easiest solution is to acquire talent to make that happen. As above, VARs are always willing to pay top dollar to professionals with the specific skill sets they need. Bringing someone in to do that new line of business means they’re producing from Day One and keeping their value above the debt line of their salary.

The other way that VARs compete in these new markets is by training existing professionals on the new technology. Everyone that has ever worked in a VAR knows of the people that get tasked with learning how to deploy new storage systems, new network equipment, and even entirely new solutions that customers are asking for. I know I was that person at my old VAR. If it needed to be learned I was the one to do it first. I jumped in to deploying iSCSI storage, wireless access points, and even VoIP phone systems. Each time I had to spend time learning those new skills and adding them to my existing set. It was a cheaper method in the short term than bringing entirely new talent on board.

Get Out of Town

The friction in the training approach comes when it’s time to value your employees and their skill sets. If I’m getting paid to deploy Cisco switches and now my company wants me to learn how to install Palo Alto firewalls then I’m going to eventually get a raise or a new role to cover this expanded skill set. And rarely, if ever, do employee salaries get adjusted downward to compensate for old skills that are no longer relevant being supplanted by new marketable skills. Suddenly all those technologies I spent so much time learning are technical debt my VAR is paying for.

VARs need to be able to jump into new lines of business in order to survive. And that sometimes means shedding technical debt. If you’re a highly paid employee that earns twice as much as someone that has the specific skill set your VAR needs for a new project then your value to the at this current moment is likely much closer to the negative line of skills versus debt. You may have more experience or more familiarity with the process but that doesn’t translate as well into real value. If it did contractors wouldn’t be as well compensated as they are.

Now your VAR has a choice: keep paying you a lot and investing in their technical debt or bring on someone new that moves more closely with their new lines of business and start the escalator ride all over again. Unless you’re an exceptional employee or you are moved into a management role that usually means you’re let go or encourage to find another role somewhere. Maybe you get lucky and another VAR needs exactly what you offer and they’re willing to pay to get it. No matter what, the VAR is ridding themselves of technical debt. It should be no different than retiring an old laptop or installing new software to do help desk ticketing. But because it’s a person with a life and a family it feels wrong.

Rise Above

Is there an answer to this problem? If there is I don’t think we’ve found it yet. Obviously the solution would be to keep people on staff and pay them what their skill set is worth to the company. But that could entail retraining or readjustment in compensation that people aren’t always willing to do. VARs aren’t going to pay hefty salaries for skills that aren’t making them money. Other VARs may want to pay you for your skills but that’s not always a guarantee, especially if your skill set is extremely specific.

The other possibility is more akin to the contractor system, where you’re only hired for your skills for the period of time that they are needed. In theory that works very well. In practice the challenges of capital asset acquisition and personal benefits make contracting full-time almost as much of a hassle as changing jobs every few years chasing a bigger paycheck or a company that values your skills. There isn’t a clear-cut answer. Part of that reasoning is because the system works just fine the way it is. Why fix it if it’s not broken? It would take a massive shift in IT toward a new paradigm to force the kind of soul searching necessary to change the way VARs handle their staff. Cloud is close. So too is DevOps and programmatic IT. But for the kind of change we’re talking about it’s going to take something even bigger than those two things combined.

Tom’s Take

After reading this I’m sure half of you are scared to death and swear you will never work for a VAR. That’s a bit short-sighted. Remember that they’re a great source of training and experience. Customer networks stay fairly static and only require specific kinds of maintenance from time to time outside of deployments. If you want to hone your skills on a variety of technologies and get very good at troubleshooting then VAR life is absolutely where you need to be. Just remember that you are a resource with a value and a burden. Despite the mantra of being a “family” or other feel-good nonsense you will eventually reach the point of being the uncle that constantly incurs debt for very little return. Every family shuns those kinds of members. Make sure you know your value and how you can contribute. If that’s not possible where you are now then make sure it is wherever you land with whatever skills you need.

Iron Chef: Certification Edition

Posted on by
6

My friend Joshua Williams (@802DotMe) texted me today with a great quote that I wanted to share with you that made me think about certifications:

You’ve probably already thought through this extensively, and maybe even written about it, but after sitting through another 8 hour practical exam yesterday I’m more convinced than ever that expert level exams from technical companies are more analogous to a gimmicky Food Network TV show than real world application of technical acumen. They don’t care so much about my skill level as they do about what kind of meal I can prepare in 30 minutes using Tialapia, grapes, and Dr. Pepper syrup with my salt shaker taken away halfway through.

I laughed because it’s true. And then I thought about it more and realized he’s way more than right. We know for a fact that companies love to increase the level of challenge in their exams from novice to expert. It’s a way to weed out the people that aren’t committed to learning about something. However, as the questions and tasks get harder it becomes much more difficult to get a good sense of how candidates are going to perform.

Boiling Water Isn’t Hard?

When you look at something like the CCNA, they’re trying to make sure you know how networks actually work. The simulations and lab exercises are pretty basic. Can you configure RIP correctly? Do you know the command to enable a switch port? There isn’t a need to get crazy with it. Using Joshua’s analogy from above, it’s not unlike a show like Worst Cooks in America, where the basics are the challenge that needs to be overcome. Not everyone is a superstar chef. Sometimes getting the building blocks right is more than half the battle.

As you move up the ladder, the learning gets harder. You dive deep into protocols and see how technologies build on each other. You need to configure BGP, but you also need to have some kind of other IGP running to distribute the routes. You need to remember that this spice goes in while the dish is cooking and this other goes on at the end so the flavor isn’t destroyed. I would liken this to a “fun” challenge cooking show, where the expert Food Network Chef faces off against someone that isn’t in the food business at a high professional level. Maybe they run a diner or are a short-order cook in a hotel restaurant. They aren’t looking to create their own signature dish. They know enough to cook what tastes good. But ask them to make hollandaise sauce or make pufferfish sashimi and they’re out.

Which brings us to the highest level of learning. The expert certification tracks. These are the crowing achievements of a career. They are the level that you have to be at to prove you know the technology inside and out. How do you test that, exactly? Microsoft had a great way of doing it back in the day with some of the mastery programs. You went to Redmond and you spent a couple of months learning the technology with the people that wrote it. It was very similar to a doctor’s internship in a hospital. You did the work with people that knew what you needed to know. They corrected you and helped you grown your knowledge. Even though you were an expert you understood what needed to be done and how to get there. At the end you took an exam to cover what you had learned and you earned your mastery.

Other certification programs don’t do that. Instead, they try to trip you up with tricky scenarios and make you make mistakes if you’re not paying attention. This is the Iron Chef round. You know your stuff, eh? Face off against this hard challenge. And by the way, here’s your curveball: You have to use this crazy extra ingredient. A show like Chopped does this a lot too. You need to make a meal using chicken, soy sauce, and candy corn. Are they testing your ability to prepare food? Or trying to figure out how creative you can be with a set of constraints that don’t make sense?

Ala Config!

The theory behind this kind of challenge is sound on paper. You never know what you’re going to walk into and what you’ll be forced to fix. I’ve had some real interesting problems that I’ve needed to solve over my career. But in every crazy case I never had to deal with the kinds of constrained setups that you get in lab-based exams. Configure this protocol, but don’t use these options. Make this connection work this way using one of these options but know that picking the wrong one will wreck your configuration in about two hours. Make trout-flavored ice cream. You name it and it’s a huge challenge for no good reason.

In theory, this is a great way to challenge your experts. In practice, it’s silly because you’re putting up barriers they will never see. Worse yet, you force them to start looking for the crazy constraints that don’t exist. One of my favorites is the overarching constraint in the CCIE lab that you are not allowed to use a static route to anything unless explicitly allowed in the question. Why? Because static routes don’t scale? Because they create administrative overhead? Or is it because a single static route fixes the problem and doesn’t require you to spend an hour tagging routes when redistribution happens? Static routes cut the Gordian Knot in the lab. So they can’t be allowed. Because that would make things too easy.

Tom’s Take

We need to move away from trivia and Iron Chef-style certifications. Instead of making our people dependent on silly tricks or restricting them from specific tools in their kit, we need to ensure their knowledge is at the right level. You would never ask a chef to cook an entire meal and not be able to use a saucepan. Why would you take away things like static routes or access lists from a network engineer’s arsenal? Instead of crafting the perfect tricky scenario to trap your candidates, spend the time instead teaching them what they need to know. Because once someone learns that trout is a horrible ice cream flavor we all win.

Thanks to Josh Williams for this great post idea!

The CCIE Times Are A Changing

Posted on by
6

Today is the day that the CCIE changes. A little, at least. The news hit just a little while ago that there are some changes to the way the CCIE certification and recertification process happens. Some of these are positive. Some of these are going to cause some insightful discussion. Let’s take a quick look at what’s changing and how it affects you. Note that these changes are not taking effect until February 24, 2020, which is in about 8 months.

Starting Your Engines

The first big change comes from the test that you take to get yourself ready for the lab. Historically, this has been a CCIE written exam. It’s a test of knowledge designed to make sure you’re ready to take the big lab. It’s also the test that has been used to recertify your CCIE status.

With the new change on Feb. 24th, the old CCIE written will go away. The test that is going to be used to qualify candidates to take the CCIE lab exam is the Core Technology exam from the CCNP track. The Core Technology exam in each CCNP track serves a dual purpose in the new Cisco certification program. If you’re going for your CCNP you need the Core Technology exam and one other exam from a specific list. That Core Technology exam also qualifies you to schedule a CCIE lab attempt within 18 months.

This means that the CCNP is going to get just a little harder now. Instead of taking multiple tests over routing, switching, or voice you’re going to have all those technologies lumped together into one long exam. There’s also going to be more practical questions on the Core Technologies exam. That’s great if you’re good at configuring devices. But the amount of content on the individual exam is going to increase.

Keeping The Home Fires Burning

Now that we’ve talked about qualification to take the lab exam, let’s discuss the changes to recertification. The really good news is that the Continuing Education program is expanding and giving more options for recertification.

The CCIE has always required you to recertify every two years. But if you miss your recertification date you have a one year “grace period”. Your CCIE status is suspended but you don’t lose your number until the end of the one-year period. This grace period has informally been called the “penalty box” by several people in the industry. Think of it like a time out to focus on getting your certification current.

Starting February 24, 2020, this grace period is now formalized as an extra year of certification. The CCIE will now be valid for 3 years instead of just 2. However, if you do not recertified by the end of the 3rd year, you lose your number. There is no grace period any longer. This means you need to recertify within the 3-year period.

As far as how to recertify, you now have some additional options. You can still recertify using CE credits. The amount has gone up from 100 to 120 credits to reflect the additional year that CCIEs get to recertify now. There is also a new way to recertify using a combination of CE credits and tests. You can take the Core Technologies exam and use 40 CE credits to recertify. You can also pass two Specialist exams and use 40 CE credits to recertify. This is a great way to pick up skills in a new discipline and learn new technologies. You can choose to pass a single Specialist exam and use 80 CE credits to recertify within the three-year period. This change is huge for those of us that need to recertify. It’s a great option that we don’t have today. They hybrid model offers great flexibility for those that are taking tests but also taking e-learning or classroom training.

The biggest change, however, is in the test-only option. Historically, all you needed to do is pass the CCIE written every two years to recertify. With the changes to the written exam used to qualify you to take the lab, that is no longer an option. As listed above, simply taking the Core Technologies exam is not enough. You must also take 40 CE credits.

So, what tests will recertify you? The first is the CCIE lab. If you take and pass a lab exam within the recertification period you’ll be recertified. You can also take three Specialist exams. The combination of three will qualify you for recertification. You can also take the Core Technologies exam and another professional exam to recertify. This means that passing the test required for the CCNP will recertify your CCIE. There is still one Expert-level exam that will work to recertify your CCIE – the CCDE written. Because no changes were made to the CCDE program in this project, the CCDE written exam will still recertify your CCIE.

Also, your recertification date is no longer dependent on your lab date. Historically your recert date was based on the date you took your lab. Now, it’s going to be whatever date you pass your exam or submit your CEs. The good news is this means that all your certifications are going to line up. Because your CCNA and CCNP dates have always been 3 years as well, recertifying your CCIE will sync up all your certifications to the date you recertify your CCIE. It’s a very welcome quality of life change.

Another welcome change is that there will no longer be a program fee when submitting your CE credits. As soon as you have amassed the right combination you just submit them and you’re good to go. No $300 fee. There’s also a great change for anyone that has been a CCIE for 20 years or more. If you choose to “retire” to Emeritus status you no longer have to pay the program fee. You will be a CCIE forever. Even if you are an active CCIE and you choose not to recertify after 20 years you will be automatically enrolled in the Emeritus program.

Managing Change

So, this is a big change. A single test will no longer recertify your number. You’re going to have to expand your horizons by investing in continuing education. You’re going to have to take a class or do some outside study on a new topic like wireless or security. That’s the encouragement from Cisco going forward. You’re not going to be able to just keep learning the same BGP and OSPF-related topics over and over again and hope to keep your certification relevant.

This is going to work out in favor of the people that complain the CCIE isn’t relevant to the IT world of today. Because you can learn about things like network automation and programmability and such from Cisco DevNet and have it count for CCIE recertification, you have no excuse not to bring yourself current to modern network architecture. You also have every opportunity to learn about new technologies like SD-WAN, ACI, and many other things. Increasing your knowledge takes care of keeping your CCIE status current.

Yes, you’re going to lose the ability to panic after two and a half years and cram to take a single test one or two times to reset for the next three years. You also need to be on top of your CCIE CE credits and your recert date. This means you can’t be lazy any longer and just assume you need to recertify every odd or even year. It means that your life will be easier without tons of cramming. But it means that the way things used to be aren’t going to be like that any longer.

Tom’s Take

Change is hard. But it’s inevitable. The CCIE is the most venerable certification in the networking world and one of the longest-lived certifications in the IT space. But that doesn’t mean it’s carved in stone as only being a certain way forever. The CCIE must change to stay relevant. And that means forcing CCIEs to stay relevant. The addition of the continuing education piece a couple of years ago is the biggest and best thing to happen in years. Expanding the ability for us to learn new technologies and making them eligible for us to recertify is a huge gift. What we need to do is embrace it and keep the CCIE relevant. We need to keep the people who hold those certifications relevant. Because the fastest way to fade into obscurity is to keep things the way they’ve always been.

You can find more information about all the changes in the Cisco Certification Program at http://Cisco.com/nextlevel

Certifications Are About Support

Posted on by
Reply

You may have seen this week that VMware has announced they are removing the mandatory recertification requirement for their certification program. This is a huge step from VMware. The VCP, VCAP, and VCDX are huge certifications in the virtualization and server industry. VMware has always wanted their partners and support personnel to be up-to-date on the latest and greatest software. But, as I will explain, the move to remove the mandatory recertification requirement says more about the fact that certifications are less about selling and more about supporting.

The Paper Escalator

Recertification is a big money maker for companies. Sure, you’re spending a lot money on things like tests and books. But those aren’t usually tied to the company offering the certification. Instead, the testing fees are given to the testing center, like Pearson, and the book fees go to the publisher.

The real money maker for companies is the first-party training. If the company developing the certification is also offering the training courses you can bet they’re raking in the cash. VMware has done this for years with the classroom requirement for the VCP. Cisco has also started doing in with their first-party CCIE training. Cisco’s example also shows how quality first-party content can drive out the third parties in the industry by not even suggesting to prospective candidates that this is another option to get their classroom materials.

I’ve railed against the VCP classroom requirement before. I think forcing your candidates to take an in-person class as a requirement for certification is silly and feels like it’s designed to make money and not make good engineers. Thankfully, VMware seems to agree with me in the latest release of info. They’re allowing the upgrade path to be used for their recertification process, which doesn’t necessarily require attendance in a classroom offering. I’d argue that it’s important to do so, especially if you’re really out of date with the training. But not needing it for certification is a really nice touch.

Keeping the Lights On

The other big shift with this certification change from VMware is the tacit acknowledgement that people aren’t in any kind of rush to upgrade their software right after the newest version is released. Ask any system administrator out there and they’ll tell you to wait for a service pack before you upgrade anything. System admins for VMware are as cautious as anyone, if not moreso. Too often, new software updates break existing functionality or cause issues that can’t be fixed without a huge time investment.

How is this affected by certification? Well, if I spent all my time learning VMware 5.x and I got my VCP on it because my company was using it you can better believe that my skill set is based around VCP5. If my company doesn’t decide to upgrade to 6.x or even 7.x for several years, my VCP is still based on 5.x technology. It shouldn’t expire just because I never upgraded to 6.x. The skills that I have are focused on what I do, not what I’m studying. If my company finally does decide to move to 6.x, then I can study for and receive my VCP on that version. Not before.

Companies love to make sure their evangelists and resellers are all on the latest version of their certifications because they see certifications as a sales tool. People certified in a technology will pick that solution over any others because they are familiar with it. Likewise, the sales process benefits from knowledgable sales people that understand the details behind your solution. It’s a win-win for both sides.

What this picture really ignores is the fact that a larger number of non-reseller professionals are actually using the certification as a study guide to support their organization. Perhaps they get certified as a way to get better support terms or a quicker response to support calls. Maybe they just learned so much about the product along the way that they want to show off what they’ve been doing. No matter what the reason, it’s very true that these folks are not in a sales role. They’re the support team keeping the lights on.

Support doesn’t care about upgrading at the drop of a hat. Instead, they are focused on keeping the existing stuff running as long as possible. Keeping users happy. Keeping executives happy. Keeping people from asking questions about availability or services. That’s not something that looks good on a bill of materials. But it’s what we all expect. Likewise, support isn’t focused on new things if the old things keep running. Certification, for them, is more about proving you know something instead of proving you can sell something.

Tom’s Take

I’ve had so many certifications that I don’t even remember them all. I got some of them because we needed it to sell a solution to a customer. I got others to prove I knew some esoteric command in a forgotten platform. But, no matter what else came up, I was certified on that platform. Windows 2000, NetWare 6.x, you name it. I was certified on that collection of software. I never rushed to get my certification upgraded because I knew what the reality of things really was. I got certified to keep the lights on for my customers. I got certified to help the people that believed in my skills. That’s the real value of a certification to me. Not sales. Just keeping things running another month.

Fixing The CCIE Written – A Follow Up

Posted on by
22

955951_28854808

I stirred up quite the hornet’s nest last week, didn’t I? I posted about how I thought the CCIE Routing and Switching Written Exam needed to be fixed. I got 75 favorites on Twitter and 40 retweets of my post, not to mention the countless people that shared it on a variety of forums and other sites. Since I was at Cisco Live, I had a lot of people coming up to me saying that they agreed with my views. I also had quite a few people that weren’t thrilled with my perspective. Thankfully, I had the chance to sit down with Yusuf Bhaiji, head of the CCIE program, and chat about things. I wanted to share some thoughts here.

Clarity Of Purpose

One of the biggest complaints that I’ve heard is that I was being “malicious” in my post with regards to the CCIE. I was also told that it was a case of “sour grapes” and even that the exam was as hard as it was on purpose because the CCIE is supposed to be hard. Mostly, I felt upset that people were under the impression that my post was designed to destroy, harm, or otherwise defame the CCIE in the eyes of the community. Let me state for the record what my position is:

I still believe the CCIE is the premier certification in networking. I’m happy to be a CCIE and love the program.

Why did I write the post? Not because I couldn’t pass the written. Not because I wanted people to tell me that I was wrong and being mean to them. I wrote the post because I saw a problem and wanted to address it. I felt that the comments being made by so many people that had recently taken the test needed to be collected and discussed. Sure, making light of these kinds of issues in a public forum won’t make people happy. But, as I said to the CCIE team, would you rather know about it or let it fester quietly?

Yusuf assured me that the CCIE program holds itself to the highest standards. All questions are evaluated by three subject matter experts (SMEs) for relevance and correctness before being included in the exam. If those three experts don’t sign off, the question doesn’t go in. There are also quite a few metrics built into the testing software that give the CCIE team feedback on questions and answer choices. Those programs can index all manner of statistics to figure out if questions are creating problems for candidates. Any given test can produce pages worth of valuable information for the people creating the test and trying to keep it relevant.

Another point that was brought up was the comment section on the exam. If you have any problem with a question, you need to fill out the comment form. Yes, I know that taking time out of the test to provide feedback can cause issues. It also interrupts your flow of answering questions. But if you even think for an instant that the question is unfair or misleading or incorrect, you have to leave a detailed comment to make sure the question is flagged properly for review. Which of the following comments means more to you?

  • Trivia question

or

  • This question tests on an obscure command and isn’t valid for a CCIE-level test.

I can promise I know which one is going to be evaluated more closely. And yes, every comment that has purpose is reviewed. The exam creators can print off every comment ever left on a question. The more detailed the comment, the more likely to trigger a review. So please make sure to leave a comment if you think there is a problem with the question.

Clarity Of Vision

Some of the conversations that I had during Cisco Live revolved around the relevance of the questions on the test to a CCIE candidate. Most of the people that I talked to were CCIEs already and using the test for recertification. A few came to me to talk about the relevance of the test questions to candidates that are qualifying for the lab.

While I’m not able to discuss any of the specific plans for the future of the program, I will say that there are ideas in place that could make this distinction matter less. Yusuf told me that the team will be releasing more details as soon as they are confirmed.

The most important point is that the issues that I have with the CCIE Written exam are fixable. I also believe that criticism without a suggestion solution is little more than whining. So I decided to put my money where my mouth is with regard to the CCIE written exam.

I volunteered to fix it.

I stepped up and offered my time as an SME to review the questions on the written exam for relevance, correctness, and grammar. That’s not a light undertaking. There are a ton of questions in the pool that need to be examined. So for every person that agreed with my post or told me that they thought the exam needed to be fixed, I’m putting you all on the spot as well.

It’s time for us as a community of CCIEs to do our part for the exam. Yusuf told me the easiest way to take part in the program is to visit the following URL:

http://www.cisco.com/go/certsme

Sign up for the SME program. Tell them that you want to help fix the CCIE. Maybe you only have to look at 5-10 questions. If the hundred or so people that agreed with me volunteered today, the entire test question pool could be analyzed in a matter of weeks. We could do our part to ensure that people taking the exam have the best possible test in front of them.

But I also challenge you to do more. Don’t just correct grammar or tell them they spelled “electricity” wrong in the question. Challenge them. Ask yourself if this is a question a CCIE candidate should know the answer to. There’s a chance that you could make a difference there. But you can’t do that unless you step up the plate.

Tom’s Take

I had at least ten people tell me that they would do whatever it took to fix the CCIE test last week after I talked to the CCIE cert team. They were excited and hopeful that the issues they saw with the test could be sorted out. I’ll admit that I stepped out on a pretty big limb here by doing this in public as opposed to over email or through official channels. And I do admit that I didn’t clarify my intent to build the program up as opposed to casting the whole exam team and process in a bad light.

Mea culpa.

But, my motivation succeed in getting people to talk about the CCIE written. There are many of you that are ready to do your part to help. Please, go sign up at the link above to join the SME program. Maybe you’ll never look at a single question, Maybe you’ll look at fifty. The point is that you step up and tell Cisco that you’re willing. If even fifteen people come forward and agree to help then that message will sound loud and clear that each and every one of us is proud of being a CCIE and want the program to continue long past the time when we’re retired and telling our grandchildren about the good old days of hard but fair tests.

If you have any questions about participating in the program or you want to reach out to me with your thoughts, don’t hesitate to contact me. Let’s put the power of community behind this!

Poaching CCIEs

Posted on by
11

CCIEIce

During the CCIE Netvet Reception at Cisco Live 2013, a curious question came up during our Q&A session with CEO John Chambers. Paul Borghese asked if it was time for the partner restriction on CCIE tenure to be lifted in order to increase the value of a CCIE in the larger market. For those not familiar, when a CCIE is hired by a Cisco partner, they need to attach their number to the company in order for the company to receive the benefits of having hired a CCIE. Right now, that means counting toward the CCIE threshold for Silver and Gold status. When a CCIE leaves the the first company and moves to another partner their number stays associated with the original company for one year and cannot be counted with the new company until the expiration of that year.

There are a multitude of reasons why that might be the case. It encourages companies to pay for CCIE training and certification if the company knows that the newly-minted CCIE will be sticking around for at least a year past their departure. It also provides a lifeline to a Cisco partner in the event a CCIE decides to move on. By keeping the number attached to the company for a specific time period, the original company has the time necessary to hire or train new resources to take over for the departed CCIE’s job role. If the original partner is up for any contracts or RFPs that require a CCIE on staff, that grace period could be the difference between picking up or losing that contract.

As indicated above, Paul asked if maybe that policy needed to change. In his mind, the restriction of the CCIE number was causing CCIEs to stay at their current companies because their inability to move their number to the new company in a timely manner made them less valuable. I know now that the question came on behalf of Eman Conde, the CCIE Agent, who is very active in making sure the rights and privileges of CCIEs everywhere are well represented. I remember meeting Eman for the first time back at Cisco Live 2008 at an IPExpert party, long before I was a CCIE. In that time, Eman has worked very hard to make sure that CCIEs are well represented in the job market.  It is also in Eman’s best interests to ensure that CCIEs can move freely between companies without restriction.

My biggest fear is that removing the one-year association restriction for Cisco Partners will cause partners to stop funding CCIE development.  I was very fortunate to have my employer pay the entire cost of my CCIE from beginning to end.  In return, I agreed in principle to stay with them for a period of time and not seek employment from anyone else.  There was no agreement in place.  There was no contract.  Just a handshake.  Even after I left to go work with Gestalt IT, my number is locked to them for the next year.  This doesn’t really bother me.  It does make them feel better about moving to a competitor.  What would happen if I could move my number freely to the next business without penalty?

Could you imagine a world where CCIEs were being paid top dollar to work at a company not for their knowledge but because it was cheaper to buy CCIEs that it was to build them?  Think of a sports team that doesn’t have a good minor league system but instead buys their talent for absurd amounts of money.  If you had pictures of the New York Yankees in your head, you probably aren’t far removed from my line of thinking.  When the only value of a CCIE is associating the number to your company then you’ve missed the whole point of the program.

CCIEs are more valuable than their number.  With the exception of the Gold/Silver partner status their number is virtually useless.  What is more important is the partner specializations they can bring it.  My CCIE was pointless to my old employer since I was the only one.  What was a greater boon was all the partner certifications that I brought for unified communications, UCS implementation, and even project management.  Those certifications aren’t bound to a company.  In fact, I would probably be more marketable by going to a small partner with one CCIE or going to a silver partner with 3 CCIEs and telling them that I can bring in new lines of partner business while they are waiting for my number to clear escrow.  The smart partners will realize the advantage and hire me on and wait.  Only an impatient partner that wants to build a gold-level practice today would want to avoid number lock-in.

I don’t think we need to worry about removing the CCIE association restriction right now.  It serves to entice partners to fund CCIEs without worrying about them moving on as soon as they get certified.  Termination results in the number being freed up upon mutual agreement.  Most CCIEs that I’ve heard of that left their jobs soon after certification did it because their company told them they can’t afford to pay a CCIE.  Forcing small employers to let CCIEs walk away to bigger competitors with no penalty will prevent them from funding any more CCIE training.  They’ll say, “If the big partners want CCIEs so badly that they’ll pay bounties then let the big partners do all the training too.”  I don’t even think an employer non-compete would fix the issue as those aren’t enforceable in many states.  I think the program exists the way it does for a reason.  With all due deference to Eman and Paul, I don’t think we’ve reached the point where CCIE free agency is ready for prime time.

Devaluing Experts – A Response

Posted on by
4

I was recently reading a blog post from Chris Jones (@IPv6Freely) about the certification process from the perspective of Juniper and Cisco. He talks about his view of the value of a certification that allows you to recertify from a dissimilar track, such as the CCIE, as opposed to a certification program that requires you to use the same recertification test to maintain your credentials, such as the JNCIE. I figured that any comment I had would run much longer than the allowed length, so I decided to write it down here.

I do understand where Chris is coming from when he talks about the potential loss of knowledge in allowing CCIEs to recert from a dissimilar certification track. At the time of this writing, there are six distinct tracks, not to mention the retired tracks, such as Voice, Storage, and many others. Chris’s contention is that allowing a Routing and Switching CCIE to continue to recertify from the Data Center or Wireless track causes them to lose their edge when it comes to R&S knowledge. The counterpoint to that argument is that the method of using the same (or updated) test in the certified track as the singular recertification option is superior because it ensures the engineer is always up on current knowledge in their field.

My counter argument to that post is two fold. The first point that I would debate is that the world of IT doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When I started in IT, I was a desktop repair technician. As I gradually migrated my skill set to server-based skills and then to networking, I found that my previous knowledge was important to continue forward but that not all of it was necessary. There are core concepts that are critical to any IT person, such as the operation of a CPU or the function of RAM. But beyond the requirement to answer a test question is it really crucial that I remember the hex address of COM4 in DOS 5.0? My skill set grew and changed as a VAR engineer to include topics such as storage, voice, security, and even returning to servers by way of virtualization. I was spending my time working with new technology while still utilizing my old skills. Does that mean that I needed stop what I was working on every 1.5 years to start studying the old CCIE R&S curriculum to ensure that I remembered what OSPF LSA types are present in a totally stubby area? Or is it more important to understand how SDN is impacting the future of networking while not having any significant concrete configuration examples from which to generate test questions?

I would argue that giving an engineer an option to maintain existing knowledge badges by allowing new technology to refresh those badges is a great idea for vendors that want to keep fresh technology flowing into their organization. The risk of forcing your engineers into a track without an incentive to stay current comes in when you have a really smart engineer that is not capable of thinking beyond their certification area. Think about the old telecommunications engineers that have spent years upon years in their wiring closets working with SS7 or 66-blocks. They didn’t have an incentive or need to learn how voice over IP (VoIP) worked. Now that their job function has been replaced by something they don’t understand many of them are scrambling to retrain or face being left behind in the market. As Steven Tyler once sang, “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

Continuous Learning

The second part of my counterpoint is that the only true way to maintain the level of knowledge required for certification shouldn’t rely on 50-100 multiple choice questions. Any expert-level program should allow for the use of continuing education to recertify the credential on a yearly basis. This is how the legal bar system works. It’s also how (ISC)2’s CISSP program works. By demonstrating that you are acquiring new knowledge continually and contributing to the greater knowledge base you are automatically put into a position that allows you to continue to hold your certification. It’s a smart concept that creates information and ensures that the holders of those certifications stay current on new knowledge. Think for moment about changing the topics of an exam. If the exam is changed every two years there is a potential for a gap in knowledge to occur. If someone were recertified on the last day of the CCIE version 3 exam, it would have been almost two years before they had to take an exam that required any knowledge of MPLS, which is becoming an increasingly common enterprise core protocol. Is it fair that the person that took the written exam the next day was required to know about MPLS? What happens if that CCIEv3 gets a job working with MPLS a few months later. According to the current version 4 curriculum they CCIE should know about MPLS. Within the confines of the certification program the user has failed to demonstrate familiarity with the topic.

Instead, if we ensure that the current certification holders are studying new topics such as MPLS or SDN or any manner of networking-related discussions we can be reasonably sure they are conversant with what the current state of the industry looks like. There is no knowledge gap because new topics can be introduced quickly as they become relevant. There is no fear that someone following the letter of the certification law and recertifying on the same material will run into something they haven’t seen before because of a timing issue. Continuous improvement is a much better method in my mind.

Tom’s Take

Recertification is going to be a sticky topic no matter how it’s sliced. Some will favor allowing engineers to spread their wings and become conversant in many enterprise and service provider topics. Still others will insist that the only way to truly be an expert in a field is to study those topics exclusively. Still others will say that a melding of the two approaches is needed, either through continuous improvement or true lab recertification. I think the end result is the same no matter the case. What’s needed is an agile group of engineers that is capable of not only being an expert at their field but is also encouraged to do things outside their comfort zone without fear of losing that which they have worked so hard to accomplish. That’s valuable no matter how you frame it.

Note that this post was not intended to be an attack against any person or any company listed herein. It is intended as a counterpoint discussion of the topics.

CCIE Loses Its Voice

Posted on by
8

ccievThe world we live in is constantly adapting and changing to new communications methods.  I can still remember having a party line telephone when I was a kid.  I’ve graduated to using landlines, cellular phones, email, instant messaging, text messaging, and even the occasional video call.  There are more methods to contact people than I can count on both hands.  This change is also being reflected in the workforce as well.  People who just a few years ago felt comfortable having a desk phone and simple voice mail are now embracing instant messaging with presence integration and unified voice mail as well as single number reach to their mobile devices.  It’s a brave new world that a voice engineer is going to need to understand in depth.

To that end, Cisco has decided to retire the CCIE Voice in favor of an updated track that will be christened the CCIE Collaboration.  Note that they aren’t merely changing the blueprint like they have in the past with the CCIE SP or the CCIE R&S.  This is like the CCIE Storage being moved aside for the CCIE Data Center.  The radical shift in content of the exam should be a tip-off to the candidates that this isn’t going to be the same old voice stuff with a few new bells and whistles.

Name That Tune

The lab equipment and software list (CCO account required) includes a bump to CUCM 9.1 for the call processor, as well as various 9.x versions of Unity Connection, Presence, and CUCME.  There’s also a UCS C460, which isn’t too surprising with CUCM being a virtualized product now.  The hardware is rounded out with 2921 and 3925 routers as well as a 3750-X switch.  The most curious inclusion is the Cisco Jabber Video for Telepresence.  That right there is the key to the whole “collaboration” focus on this exam.  There is a 9971 phone listed as an item.  I can almost guarantee you’re going to have to make a video call from the 9971 to the video soft client in Cisco Jabber.  That’s all made possible thanks to Cisco’s integration of video in CUCM in 9.1.  This has been their strategy all along.

The CCIE Voice is considered one of the hardest certifications to get, even among the CCIE family.  It’s not that there is any one specific task to configure that just wrecks candidates.  The real issue is the amount of tasks that must be configured.  Especially when you consider that a simple 3-point task to get the remote site dial plan up and running could take a couple of hours of configuration.  Add in the integrated troubleshooting section that requires you to find a problem after you’ve already configured it incorrectly and you can see why this monster is such a hard test.  One has to wonder what adding video and other advanced topics like presence integration into the lab is going to do to the amount of time the candidate has to configure things.  It was already hard to get done in 8 hours.  I’m going to guess it’s downright impossible to do it in the CCIE Collaboration.  My best guess is that you are going to see versions of the test that are video-centric as well as ones that are voice-centric.  There’s going to be a lot of overlap between the two, but you can’t go into the lab thinking you’re guaranteed to get a video lab.

Hitting the Wrong Notes

There also seems to have been a lot of discussion about the retirement of the CCIE Voice track as opposed to creating a CCIE Voice version 4 track with added video.  In fact, there are some documents out there related to the CCIE Collaboration that reference a CCIE Voice v4.  The majority of discussion seems to be around the CCIE Voice folks getting “grandfathered” into a CCIE Collaboration title.  While I realize that the change in the name was mostly driven about the marketing of the greater collaboration story, I still don’t think that there should be any automatic granting of the Collaboration title.

The CCIE Collaboration is a different test.  While the blueprint may be 75% the same, there’s still the added video component to take into account (as well as cluster configuration for multiple CUCM servers).  People want an upgrade test to let the CCIE Voice become a CCIE Collaboration.  They have one already: the CCIE Collaboration lab exam.  If the title is that important, you should take that lab exam and pass it to earn your new credential.  The fact that there is precedent for this with the migration of the Storage track to Data Center shows that Cisco wants to keep the certifications current and fresh.  While Routing & Switching and Security see content refreshes, they are still largely the same at the core.  I would argue that the CCIE Collaboration will be a different exam in feel, even if not in blueprint or technology.  The focus on IM, presence and video means that there’s going to be an entirely different tone.  Cisco wants to be sure that the folks displaying the credential are really certified to work on it according to the test objectives.  I can tell you that there was serious consideration around allowing Storage candidates to take some sort of upgrade exam to get to the CCIE Data Center, but it looks like that was ultimately dropped in favor of making everyone go through the curriculum.  The retirement of the CCIE Voice doesn’t make you any less of a CCIE.  Like it or not, it looks like the only way to earn the CCIE Collaboration is going to be in the trenches.

It Ain’t Over Until…

The sunsetting officially starts on November 20th, 2013.  That’s the last day to take the CCIE Voice written.  Starting the next day (the 21st) you can only take the Collaboration written exam.  Thankfully, you can use either the Voice written or the Collaboration written exam to qualify for either lab.  That’s good until February 13, 2014.  That’s the last day to take the CCIE Voice lab.  Starting the next day (Valentine’s Day 2014), you will only be able to take the Collaboration lab exam.  If you want to get an idea of what is going to be tested on the lab exam, check out the document on the Cisco Learning Network (CCO account required).

If you’d like to read more about the changes from professional CCIE trainers, check out Vik  Malhi (@vikmalhi) on IPExpert’s blog.  You can also read Mark Snow’s (@highspeedsnow) take on things at INE’s blog.

Tom’s Take

Nothing lasts forever, especially in the technology world.  New gadgets and methods come out all the time to supplant the old guard.  In the world of communications and collaboration, Cisco is trying to blaze a trail towards business video as well as showing the industry that collaboration is more than just a desk phone and a voice mailbox.  That vision has seen some bumps along the way but Cisco seems to have finally decided on a course.  That means that the CCIE Voice has reached the apex of potential.  It is high time for something new and different to come along and push the collaboration agenda to the logical end.  Cisco has already created a new CCIE to support their data center ambitions.  I’m surprised it took them this long to bring business video and non-voice communications to the forefront.  While I am sad to see the CCIE Voice fade away, I’m sure the CCIE Collaboration is going to be a whole new barrel of fun.

CCIE Data Center – The Waiting Is The Hardest Part

Posted on by
5

By now, you’ve probably read the posts from Jeff Fry and Tony Bourke letting the cat out of the CCIE bag for the oft-rumored CCIE Data Center (DC) certification.  As was the case last year, a PDF posted to the Cisco Live Virtual website spoiled all the speculation.  Contained within the slide deck for BRKCRT-1612 Evolution of Data Centre Certification and Training is a wealth of confirmation starting around slide 18.  It spells out in bold letters the CCIE DC 1.0 program.  It seems to be focused around three major technology pillars: Unified Computing, Unified Fabric, and Unified Network Services.  As people who have read my blog since last year have probably surmised, this wasn’t really a surprise to me after Cisco Live 2011.

As I surmised eight months ago, it encompasses the Nexus product line top to bottom, with the 7009, 5548, 2232, and 1000v switches all being represented.  Also included just for you storage folks is a 9222i MDS SAN switch.  There’s even a Catalyst 3750 thrown in for good measure.  Maybe they’re using it to fill an air gap in the rack or something.  From the UCS server side of the house, you’ll likely get to see a UCS 6248 fabric interconnect and a 5148 blade chassis.  And because no CCIE lab would exist without a head scratcher on the blueprint there is also an ACE 4710 module.  I’m sure that this has to do with the requirement that almost every data center needs some kind of load balancer or application delivery controller.  As I mentioned before and Tony mentioned in his blog post, don’t be surprised to see an ACE GSS module in there as well.  Might be worth a two point question.

Is the CCIE SAN Dead?

If you’re currently studying for your SAN CCIE, don’t give up just yet.  While there hasn’t been any official announcement just yet, that also doesn’t mean the SAN program is being retired any time soon.  There will be more than enough time for you SAN jockeys to finish up this CCIE just in time to start studying for a new one.  If you figure that the announcement will be made by Cisco Live Melbourne near the end of March, it will likely be three months for the written beta.  That puts the wide release of the written exam at Cisco Live San Diego in June.  The lab will be in beta from that point forward, so it will be the tail end of the year before the first non-guinea pigs are sitting the CCIE DC lab.  Since you SAN folks are buried in your own track right now, keep heading down that path.  I’m sure that all the SAN-OS configs and FCoE experience will serve you well on the new exam, as UCS relies heavily on storage networking.  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some sort of bridge program run concurrently with the CCIE SAN / CCIE DC candidates for the first 6-8 months where SAN CCIEs can sit the DC lab as an opportunity and incentive to upgrade.  After all, the first DC CCIEs are likely to be SAN folks anyway.  Why not try to certify all you can?

Expect the formal announcement of the program to happen sometime between March 6th and March 20th.  It will likely come with a few new additions to the UCS line and be promoted as a way to prove to the world that Cisco is very serious about servers now.  Shortly after that, expect an announcement for signups for the beta written exam.  I’d bank on 150-200 questions of all kinds, from FCoE to UCS Manager.  It’ll take some time to get all those graded, so while you’re waiting to see if you’ve hit the cut score, head over to the Data Center Supplemental Learning page and start refreshing things.  Maybe you’ll have a chance to head to San Jose and sit in my favorite building on Tasman Drive to try and break a brand new lab.  Then, you’ll just be waiting for your score report.  That’s the hardest part.