If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

New CSP Process

Page history last edited by Joe Little 11 years, 3 months ago

Below are some pages created to discuss and define the new CSP Process. Please add others.

Scrum Alliance has the ultimate authority to define the CSP certification, since it is a Scrum Alliance certification.

We all have the responsibility to influence 'them', since Scrum (and the results from Scrum) are far more important than the Scrum Alliance.

These pages are for the community to INFLUENCE the Scrum Alliance toward a better version of the CSP. (Not likely to be a perfect solution -- as in all things.)

Why the new CSP is urgent

CSP: Constraints-Issues discussion

Proposal 0: Outline of a new CSP

Proposal 1: The simplest proposal

Comments (5)

Why only CST training? There are other good training options, user groups, etc.
Why do only full days of training count?
Is this really an education problem or an implementation problem? Wouldn't more help from CSC's potentially be in order?

Hi David,
First, one mis-understanding. No one, AFAIK, is suggesting that to get a CSP, one must be restricted to CST-only training. If something says that, please tell me off-line (if I wrote it, I will correct it).
Full-days: Umm. Well, a practical reason, which is that anything less than a full day is hard to track. And a thoughtful reason: It is, IMO, doubtful, whether anyone learn anything substantive in less than a day. Certainly to have the occasionally 'bolt of lightening'... but is that a certifiable event? Still, some are proposing what you suggest. Aside from coaching with a coach I well trust, I would advocate full-days.
Coaching: Coaching is a good idea. No doubt about that. There is some question how one tracks that in an economical way. There is some question, also, how well the coach does it. And some question as to how 'transferable' the learning is. And some question about whether each person in the room was being coached with the same attention. Perhaps all of these are addressable.
Education vs ??: Well, umm. It was always only a question of having all the right ingredients to 'make it happen'. That was true before the first CSM course. It was never about explicit knowledge only (the knowledge that it is easy to take a written test on). So, I should hope that all courses address this 'non-explicit knowledge' stuff as well. I worry that coaching can be great in one situation, but leaves one flat when trying to apply it in another situation. They (we) are often overwhelmed by the present. A good coach would try to address that.
I do think that everyone forgets a substantial portion of what they learn the first two days. I think there is plenty to do to re-learn the initial stuff. And to un-learn lots of bad habits that have creeped in. Or so I find in my tennis playing.
Your comments raise some great questions about the purpose of all this...
Thanks, Joe

On the partial day vs full day topic. I think in a 2 hour workshop someone can learn a lot on a specific topic. It surely wouldn't be broad understanding or meet a specific curriculum, but I could imagine a session just on writing user stories, or estimation that could be highly effective. What I am proposing is that if someone has attended many different short sessions then they receive education credits. For CSP we are talking about getting someone from beginner to more intermediate. Sometimes short focused sessions on more advanced topics may prove more beneficial. They also will probably be easier for someone to fit into their schedule.

#3 in the Proposal 1: The simplest proposal states " Must take a 'core' CSP course from a CST." This is where I got the idea that it was CST-only training. If I interpreted that wrong then maybe we should clarify that bit.

I definitely agree measuring effectiveness of learning from coaching is tough. Brainstorming out loud: What if a CSC had a criteria that they were able to assess someone on that they have worked with to certify they have demonstrated the knowledge and correct behaviors? I don't think it scales for this to be the only way someone could achieve a CSP, but it could be one way. This way for clients the CSC is engaged with, or after doing some assessment, then someone could be certified. Observation would be much higher quality then just teaching or testing.

If we are trying to help identify folks who have more advanced knowledge and capabilities I would think we would want to be able to assess the following: knowledge, experience and behavior.

And more specifically on knowledge I would want to not only know that they have achieved a higher knowledge level then they achieved with the CSM, but they are pursuing a continued knowledge. This knowledge may not be a standardized curriculum as at this level people may be more specialized in areas of focus. I think having some kind of continuing education program that includes standardized training (CST or CSC) or relevant training (local user group sessions or conference) could be sufficient.

Experience is currently "proven" through an application, however if we aren't auditing how can we validate? So are we trying to prove experience through knowledge?

Behavior is most easily proven through observation. Not sure how this could be done at scale.

Hi David,

Very good points you make.
Yes, we do want them to be somewhat 'advanced'. Maybe 'intermediate' is more reasonable to say.
But let's take it step by step....

You have raised many of the core issues, I think.

So, we know from experience that everyone forgets a large share of the CSM (or CSPO) course.
But you are quite right that we also want them more 'advanced' than 'just' all the knowledge in a CSM/CSPO.
We know that people MUST add things to Scrum to make it work. I call some of these things: XP, Lean, ability to get people to change, agile leadership, business value engineering, etc, etc. So, I would want the CSP to mean that someone has actually studied at least a few of the 'things to add'. (Again, to me CSP is only intermediate.)

I have to go back: No core course (core knowledge) is EVER absorbed enough the first time. In any discipline. I think one key to success is, honestly, some repetition of the basics. So that more people are 'sound' (never perfect) on the basics. Until they are sound in the basics (imagine tennis, for example), adding advanced stuff is, well, interesting, but kind of a waste.

So, what is certification trying to prove or indicate or improve? I think this (although it is definitely debatable): I want more CSPs out there to mean -- to result in less 'sub-par Scrum' and more 'hyperproductive' Teams. (One then wants to think about -- how do we measure this??)

You are right that a (higher?) level of 'certification' might be: 'show me what you have done with Scrum and how well you have succeeded (to at least level X)....in multiple different environments... -- and let's see if you can prove with that that you can likely replicate this success'. Clearly hiring managers would pay for real results that are likely to be repeated.

Yes, many think this would be very costly to certify. Maybe. Maybe not.... But it does not seem the way the Scrum Alliance will go with the CSP in the next version.

Thanks, Joe