|
Problem Report 0017 Details
Show help for this page
Click here to view your privileges
This page provides all information on Problem Report 0017 and all reviews you are authorized to see.
Report 0017 Actions
| Problem Report Number |
0017 |
|---|
| Submitter's Classification |
Evaluation Process problem |
|---|
| State |
Resolved |
|---|
| Resolution |
Interpretation (INT) |
|---|
| Problem Resolution ID |
INT.ITSC.0008 |
|---|
| Raised |
2010-09-30 19:51 |
|---|
| Updated |
2011-03-29 19:36 |
|---|
| Published |
2011-03-29 19:36 |
|---|
| Documents |
Conformance Requirements |
|---|
| Certification Program |
Open CITS Certification Program |
|---|
| Problem Summary |
Level 1 template leads to over stringent interpretation of Level 1 |
|---|
| Problem Text |
There is a risk that boards are interpreting the level 1 criteria too
stringently because of the guidance given in the Level 1 templates relative
to the "Applied" skill level required for most skill criteria.
"Applied" is defined as "Performs with supervision or mentoring" yet the
wording in the template goes on to say in CF03 for example:
"Provide three instances where you set the technical direction and
constraints of a project or engagement and monitored compliance.
Only provide examples where your role in the effort was as the lead
Specialist for your Stream in the project"
I think this confuses the boards: we are asking for performance with
support r mentoring, yet we are also asking for evidence only as a lead
specialist - it's the same text as for level 2.
As a comparison, the ITAC level 1 template uses the same text for the
criterion as ITAC level 2, but provides more guidance to the applicant and
the board, e.g.:
CFS02: "Provide three instances where you provided leadership to a team
(or lead a team with support/mentoring) to perform a specific work effort.
Describe the project or major activity. Provide a short description of the
leadership skills that you used to accomplish your task"
and CFS06: "Document 3 ? 5 instances where you created or helped
create the structures of a solution represented as architectural artifacts
(for example with UML or with another modeling notation) that satisfied the
functional and non-functional[1] business requirements. The architectural
solution was communicated to the development team and
reviewed/validated by the client."
The point being that the idea of "did or helped to do" includes the possibility
of doing with support and mentoring as a contributor, which is what Level 1
is supposed to be about
The Level 1 template should be amended |
|---|
Review Information
| Review Type |
CA Review |
|---|
| Start Date |
2010-09-30 19:51 |
|---|
| Last Updated |
2010-09-30 11:54 |
|---|
| Completed |
2010-09-30 11:54 |
|---|
| Status |
Complete |
|---|
| Review Recommendation |
Certification System Deficiency (CSD) |
|---|
| Review Response |
The Level 1 template should be updated as suggested |
|---|
| Review Type |
SA Review |
|---|
| Start Date |
2010-09-30 19:54 |
|---|
| Last Updated |
2010-10-18 08:24 |
|---|
| Completed |
2010-10-18 08:24 |
|---|
| Status |
Complete |
|---|
| Review Resolution |
Interpretation (INT) |
|---|
| Review Conclusion |
Agreed by ITSC Working Group. Changes should be made to the template
for Level 1, and released after review and approval by the WG |
|---|
Problem Reporting System Options:
|
|
|
|
