Report 0048 Actions

---

Problem Report Number	0048
Submitter's Classification	Certification System problem
State	SA Review Inconclusive
Resolution	No Resolution Given
Problem Resolution ID	No Resolution ID Given
Raised	2012-07-23 15:47
Updated	2012-10-02 12:34
Requirements	Open CA Certification Conformance Requirements
Certification Program	Open CA Certification Program
Problem Summary	Lack of an agreed and documented procedure for the granting of Level 1 certification to candidates who have applied at Level 2.
Problem Text	The following statement occurs on page 52 of the Open CA Board Member Handbook (Version 1.3) published on The Open Group's website. When dealing with the subject of the post interview consensus meeting, it says there is an option:? If you are evaluating a candidate who has applied for certification at Level 2, Master Certified Architect, then * If the Candidate is agreed not to meet the requirements for Level 2 * But there is a majority agreement by the Board that the Candidate DOES meet the requirements for Level 1 Note this on the Board Report form and inform the CA This appears to be the only place in the published documentation of the Open CA program where this procedure is mentioned. Concern has often been expressed that such a procedure, if regularly followed, could encourage candidates to always apply for Level 2 in the knowledge that if they do not get Level 2 they can fall back to Level 1. This then imposes additional decisions on the Certification Board Members and is contrary to the philosophy that the candidates decide which level would apply to them and then provide the relevant information for the Board to validate this. As this option is now sometimes being applied, the situation needs to be clarified and the information recorded in the relevant places in the general documentation. The first question to be resolved is, should the option for rejected Level 2 candidates to be simultaneously assessed for Level 1 compliance be applied: (A) always; (B) in exceptional circumstances; (C) never. If the answer is (A), then:- 1. Board Member's review forms and the Board Synopsis form will need to be modified to provide for three possible answers rather than just Yes/No responses. 2. All Board Members in the pool will need to be alerted that this option exists. 3. Candidate's documentation will need to be modified to make them aware of this option. 4. It is possible that Accreditation documentation may also need to be modified. If the answer is (B), then the four actions listed above will have to be undertaken, plus criteria and authorization will need to be resolved for identifying what are exceptional circumstances. If the answer is (C), then page 52 will have to be removed from the Open CA Board Member Handbook. Also, Board Members and Certification Authority staff will need to be informed that this option is no longer available.

Review Information

Review Type	CA Review
Start Date	2012-07-23 23:47
Last Updated	2012-10-02 12:33
Completed	2012-10-02 12:33
Status	Complete
Review Recommendation	Evaluation Process Deficiency (EPD)
Review Response	Option A as agreed by the SA




Review Type	SA Review
Start Date	2012-10-02 20:33
Last Updated	2012-10-02 12:34
Completed	2012-10-02 12:34
Status	Complete
Review Resolution	Evaluation Process Deficiency (EPD)
Review Conclusion	Option A as agreed by the SA

---

Problem Reporting System Options:

• View Report 0048
• List All PRs
• Search Reports
• Submit a new Report
• Copy from Existing Report
• Email the System Administrator
• View the Open CA Problem Reporting and Interpretations System User Manual