IT: no history, no authority

IT has a history that spans a century or more, depending how much we want to go back in time. There is no official birth date though. IT has a vast body of knowledge and many specialties that come and go as technologies evolve. There are many professionals practicing IT. There are many IT professional organizations. IT is pervasive. And yet there is no overarching professional IT governing authority at national or provincial level, like it exists for other professions such as physicians, accountants, engineers. Why is that?

Probably the most important cause is that the IT arena has always been dominated by a number of very large and powerful companies. What professional organization could make a point that someone like Google, or Microsoft or IBM would accept and apply, when these behemoths have their own practices, certifications and product market share? They are worlds onto themselves.

Unlike the other professions where there is much more responsibility placed on the individual practitioner, the liability in IT stays with these big companies. If a doctor can lose his licence if disciplined by the Ontario College of Doctors, a profesional sanction imposed by CIPS is unlikely and toothless. What is CIPS? Well, the Canadian Information Processing Society, a 60 years old body that had the lofty and merituos ambition to set and uphold the ethics and professionalism in IT but failed to get traction.

And this gets us to the second cause: the IT profession is still porous, in that anyone who gets training in a programming language or platform - and that can be done in just a few months by taking courses or self learning - has a good chance at employment. Certifications are not a must have and experience is valued more that formal certification by employers - especially demonstrable experience via tests. But lower skill entry points such as testing or coding are within reach.

Another reason is that software - languages, platforms, methodologies - are in constant evolution and their number is growing. However, experts seem to grow overnight. Massive tomes and endless courses are produced by young people who could not possibly have had the time to practice for more than just a few years. There is a paradox here: employers want experience - and very specific to the platforms and software they use, down to version - while the longevity of these products and languages tends to shrink.

The effort and expense of training is placed on to the practitioner in most cases. Employers still fear that training someone will make them more valuable and they will jump elsewhere in no time. The overarching thinking that training employees ultimately elevates the IT play field is missing. Would it not be practical to negotiate a commitment with the employee (or contractor), a sort of barter: I spend x dollars to train you and you stay with meat least  x years (or months) or else you reimburse me? Sounds reasonable to me!

But I digressed, and in doing so maybe the point is that there is a link between valuing history and becoming a solid profession. In a world where quarterly results make and unmake companies, and professional experience quickly becomes a liability rather than an asset, history has little place and so does professional governance.

2020 Jun 19
Last update:
https://pixabay.com/illustrations/a-buy-me-a-coffee-ad-advert-990314/