As a matter of interest – let’s look at networking for example. Even the vendor certifications right at the upper level (CCIE/JNCIE etc) are lagging wayyyyy behind, never mind university curriculum. The CCIE/JNCIE exams (for which by the way, there are no real “courses”, more just boot camps to prep for the exams, because you’re kind of expected to study that stuff yourself) don’t scratch the surface of the newer technologies. As an example: Segment routing – probably the biggest advancement on MPLS since MPLS was born – it’s in production and it’s in use – but you won’t find it any vendor certification. The use of BGP Labelled Unicast – every vendor has a completely different method of handling this (iBGP/Single ASN vs eBGP/Multi-ASN etc) – and the certifications barely scratch the surface of that either. IPv6 – there are only 6 places in the world that currently certify people in IPv6 to my knowledge – though that’s expanding with multiple MoU’s that AfriNIC is working on. Now, let’s look also at the difference between degrees and certifications. The way I understand this from speaking to people who have done both, University degrees impart a lot of theoretical knowledge, they don’t necessarily impart practical knowledge and the ability to diagnose and think outside of the box. Vendor certifications on the other hand teach you vendor specifics – they avoid the theory and you learn by wrote. Neither teach networking from the base level – the understanding of the specifications. It is only through a lot of reading and study and research that a network engineer truly becomes great at what he does, because as I have said to every engineer I have ever trained myself – the difference between a network engineer and a person who has a bunch of certifications is this – a network engineer who is truly good should be able to get onto *any* vendor hardware and through his underlying knowledge of protocol be able to operate the equipment within a few hours – because it’s all syntax. Understanding network technology is something that simply isn’t taught – it’s learnt through passion and dedication and thoughtful study of the RFC’s behind the protocols. RFC’s that are constantly changing, developing and evolving at a rate that standard educational forms cannot keep up with. Look at the number of RFC’s that have been written and depreciated in the last few years with regards to IPv6 for example – a technology that is critical to our future. Regulating certification and degrees in an environment evolving this fast is therefore, in my opinion, senseless, because if people are relying entirely on what they were taught in some course – they are relying on technologies that are years behind the curve and are going to find themselves overtaken by those who are on the ground and constantly evolving their own knowledge based on what is being churned out of the massive engine we know as the IETF. Andrew From: kictanet <kictanet-bounces+andrew.alston=liquidtelecom.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke> on behalf of JImmy Gitonga via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Reply-To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, 2 December 2016 at 22:01 To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> Cc: JImmy Gitonga <jimmygitts@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Regulation of ICT Industry or Practice? Dear Grace, Thank you for working with my rope analogy and by qualifying that what I was talking about is the “knowledge of machines”. As you can see, we now have two ropes to weave and untangle here. The rope I alluded to, the ‘Knowledge of machines’,starts somewhere in the 19th century with analogue computers, through the silicon revolution, the Mainframe, the Minicomputer, the PC, the mobile phone and the tablet. As for the networks, we have come from wired electrical networks to digital signals of Ethernet, wired as well as wireless communications all combining into an amorphous “Cloud” where everything is defined in software and can be offered as a service. This rope is ever so quickly building on what came before that the “software engineer” has to continuously update his/her skills or else … The rope you are alluding to is where ICT meets established structures, especially in education. The Internet in particular has unlocked learning in such a grand scale that ivy league universities can only sell their brand and the alumni network to attract top minds. A lot of that knowledge is in ICT, both software and hardware. Anyone can now challenge an industry by unleashing ICT on it. Finance especially banking and payments, transportation, hospitality, medical diagnosis and practice, law; all these “industries” are suffering since the scarcity, a lot of it artificial, is being done away with, lowering the cost of doing that particular business. It is interesting that my rope, “practice” is extremely hard if not impossible at the moment to regulate with examination and certification. Cloud computing courses are barely 2 years old at Masters level and they are building on Distributed Systems knowledge. These have yet to trickle down to Undergrad, though I see PaaS, IaaS and SaaS are being introduced at this level. However I stand to be corrected on this. And all these are behind the cutting edge that revolves around passion and self-learning. No one can regulate that. Your rope, “industry” is completely in flux especially as you noted, with the rise of Artificial Intelligence. The innovation is in bringing ICT in most part, to disrupt established modes of business by bringing speed, accuracy and efficiency to bear. And there is iteration on the disruption as the ICT practice itself evolves and is replaced by newer technology. the “home” as well as the “shared economy” are changing lifestyles as we watch, with the collapse of malls begins in the US of A and is bound to spread across the world as online consumerism takes over. Who can regulate that? Whew! With the best regards, Jimmy Gitonga On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Grace Mutung'u <nmutungu@gmail.com<mailto:nmutungu@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear James, A few responses inline
There is no contention on the need for hard working, innovative "ICT practitioners" passionate about their craft.
What is in contention is whether this is the right time to bring in regulation to the industry, not regulation of the practice. What we don't have, because the ingredients forming the industry are still changing rapidly is an ICT profession. Will there ever be an all-round ICT "professional"?
This is not the premise. There is a whole new world where we do not even have questions about " the profession ". Because these barriers are being eliminated everyday by alternative thinking.
Looking at human medicine, the human body is not changing, so one can standardise the medical profession, with known practices and various specialisations once the basic learning is done.
It that it?
But even old professions are being affected by disruption. Let me give an example of the law. The protectionism around it is decaying. Because people have realized that you do not need seven years to "know" the law. The long study is about prestige, rites etc. You can learn it by yourself and use it, case in point, Omtatah. And Kenyans are now questioning these things, what is the intent, who will benefit most? And it is the thing about children born in the digital period. They question tradition and form their own supercultures.
We need to accept that ICT is in everything now. And it is entering mission-critical, life dependant places. And for a doctor who wants to carry out a remote surgical operation, the ICT professional helping him set up the equipment on local and remote site better be qualified in something beyond passion and innovation. Those don’t cut it at that point.
And the important qualifications in your example is knowledge of machines. Never mind whether someone stepped into a tertiary class and obtained papers. They could be self taught with a bit of apprenticeship etc But leave alone ICT, AI is coming.....who will need regulation then... Man or machine?
The Wright brothers had no flying license. The pilots today do.
And today, planes can fly without pilots.
I liken it to weaving a rope. At some points all the strands have to come together and form the rope. Are we looking at the quality of the strand or the strength of the rope? If it is both, then there are two different mechanisms at play.
We could be in the era of unweaving the rope. Deconstruction of ideas that have protected certain quarters in society. At some point strands have to separate. Depends on how well woven the rope was. Regards, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------