The eighth of July 1989 was quite a proud day for me. On that day I was handed a certificate to mark my participation in the national finals of the British Computer Society (BCS) Schools Computing Quiz. Our team had demonstrated a knowledge of technology (which is now probably in museums) that was almost on a par with the team that won. It was also the last time I remember having any contact with the BCS, despite the fact I work in IT full time and have done for quite a while. This is not due to any bad feeling, I remember everybody I met from the BCS as being very nice, it's just that somehow over the years the BCS faded into the background. Now I read that the BCS is “in crisis”.
In the early 2000s I did toy with the idea of joining the BCS, I was new to working in IT and thought it might help. I even got as far as talking to my boss about it too, he thought it was a nice idea, but I got the impression it did not hold much sway. I saw that quite a lot was involved in getting membership and not having a Computer Science degree (I have a Law degree) seemed to be a handicap. So I forgot about the idea, and in fact it has never come up since. Despite changing employers I've only rarely heard people talking about it. I sometimes wonder if I had done all of that work and proved myself to the BCS, would it have made any difference?
As I am not a member of the BCS and don't know anybody who is an active member, I can only comment as an outsider looking in. The starting point for doing this is to look at the “Why join?” page on their website. They have now started referring to themselves as “The Chartered Institute of IT” and claim to be “enabling the information society” all very charming, but not immediately obvious what that means. It then goes on to say that joining can “enhance your professionalism” and mentions a large sounding network of members, hard to fault, but quickly the text goes on to talking about qualifications and letters after your name.
I read a lot of material each day, links that people post on Twitter, material from Google Reader, occasionally press releases and so on. Here I have read an entire web page and not really found a compelling reason to join up and I am running out of reasons to spend any more time on this site. I'm not really bothered about extra getting letters at the end of my name, I'm double barrelled to that is pretentious enough and while I am sure that having “Chartered IT professional status” would be wonderful they haven't really sold it. After all, it isn't like we are short of the opportunities to do exams in IT, there are more certifications than you can shake a stick at, why not do one that demonstrates you are competent in a specific (marketable) skill instead?
Delve deeper into “Membership Services & Benefits” and maybe the problems start to become apparent with “Networking” shown as an opportunity. This is interesting as I find Twitter very useful for networking. It has enabled me to talk to people from all over the world and exchange ideas. I didn't have to pass an exam to join Twitter. Of course there is also LinkedIn too for the added professional feel. Perhaps this is the problem with the idea of professional associations? If the people you want to network with, the people you learn from and are inspired by, aren't behind an exam-wall it is natural to take the easiest route to speak to them.
In the absence of compelling evidence it is hard to justify the time in becoming involved with such an organisation. Perhaps this is not entirely the fault of the BCS, IT is after all a very young profession, still being formed and coping with an incredible rate of technological progress. We cope with new ideas and technologies regularly moving between jobs that didn't even exist only a few years ago. This is not like the legal profession or the medical profession both of which have existed for hundred of years and have defined themselves very clearly. Our profession is very different and will be for many years to cope and may even become harder to define. Perhaps the BCS should be applauded for trying to give IT a professional identity, but this should never mean that people outside the BCS are looked upon in a less favourable light or seen as necessarily less “professional”.
On 1st July 2010 the BCS will have an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss its future. I don't know enough about the viewpoints of those concerned to be able to comment on specifics, but I would urge BCS members to discuss, argue and debate ideas about how they should shape their future. They should think less about exams and maybe think about the contribution they can make to the world. Despite my criticisms I feel that the BCS can make a very positive contribution, getting young people interested in careers in IT is one area of urgent concern where they could help. Encouraging professional standards and conduct in an emerging industry is beneficial too. I genuinely wish the BCS well and hope it prospers, but I fear that their direction may lead to rejection. The BCS will probably never be the defining professional body of the IT industry, but that doesn't mean it can't play an important role. It just may have to stop thinking about status quite so much.
Links:
BCS In Crisis Vote of No Confidence, Simon Phipps, ComputerWorld UK Blogs
About the EGM, BCS Website
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
When I worked for Nominet and after that in I.T and I.P mediation, I'd see BCS members used by the courts and parties as expert witnesses. In the court I worked at most often (City of London C.C) there was a definite preference for BCS membership in E.Ws.
I'm not unfaily generalising when I say that these were always people with a thorough grasp of sorting algorithms and the rest of Knuth, and very little knowledge of the current workplace or technology beyond 1999.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
10 years ago(!), when I was at university, we had a talk from the BCS. The number one question we all had was "What are the benefits?" Never mind the long, illustrious history - do I get discounts like my NUS card, or something better.
We never got a straight answer. There were vague mumblings about being part of a wider community, being able to represnt our views to government, etc. Nothing tangible. Nothing useful.
I can't think of anything that the BCS do. I've barely heard of them in the news for the last decade. I've been working in the high-tech sector my whole adult life - I don't think I ever came across a CV which mentioned them.
So, to echo your question - what do they do? If whatever it happens to be is going well, they shouldn't change and leave me in my ignorance. Considering how they're currently perceived, I think they do need urgent change.
Perhaps they could start by sponsoring a BarCamp!
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
I had forgotten about their existence, but when I did look at them briefly, I found it odd that their barriers to membership didn't give any guarantee about the person (from interviewing people, I know that having worked in the IT industry for n years is no guarantee of anything!) yet were also quite hard to overcome for those of us with computing degrees by doing anything other than just waiting.
I guess what might have encouraged me to get involved was if they held sufficiently enticing talks. Computing is also such a broad subject too. I know for me, there are parts of it I have absolutely zero interest in.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
I'm not an IT professional, have no formal IT qualifications and am not a member of the BCS.
However, each month the Isle of Man branch of the BCS organises talks for its members, and also invites interested members of the public.
I have been to several of these talks now, and always been very impressed by the quality of the speakers. Talks have covered a range of topics, and there is always the opportunity to ask questions at the end.
In addition, as an 'outsider' I have always been made to feel very welcome. I have been fed and watered (for free!) and introduced to other people.
I can't comment generally about the BCS, but the Isle of Man branch is certainly contributing to the professional development of IT folk here on the island, as well as raising the profile of IT amongst the public too.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
Along with Dan, I also attend the Isle of Man Branch of the BCS, which is a very active and engaging branch. The committee are accessible, the delegates (members and non-members) friendly and open to discussion on a wide variety of topics. I became a Member and subsequently a CITP on the basis of the Isle of Man Group, which seems to be one of the better branches of the society.
I do believe in the professional status of the CITP (which the Society is currently promoting as its main objective) and wholly subscribe to the idea that having Chartered Status endorses you as a professional as (it was, at least) it's granted by peer review and experience. The dangers of misuse of IT hardware and data are significant and it is scary how many times I have seen developments by people who don't necessarily have a code of conduct. (We have an example of this occurring today.)
The BCS isn't "in crisis", so to speak. There are a bunch of people who are invoking an old rule granting them the ability to create an EGM based on principles that they held 30 years ago. Like you said, IT moves fast, the BCS must move with it. I do not agree with how they implement this programme in all its aspects, but I agree with the general direction. The BCS needs to be more engaging, authoritative (as an industry body and expert witness) and promote professionalism. If you value your profession and you aren't a member, then I can't understand why you would argue about the meaning of membership being weak. Maybe it needs that critical mass to get to where we want it to be. Become a member, and drive change from the inside.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
Nathan:
It's worth reading the EGM requestors own views on the matter; the way you describe it picks up the "Luddite" frame the current BCS leadership has been trying to draw. You'll find it at bcsreform.wikispaces.com since they have been largely denied equal access to BCS resources to make their case.
I'm an FBCS on a Branch committee too (Hampshire) and the local scene, while lacking in new blood, remains "where it's at" for the BCS. I've not been persuaded by the name change and the mission rewrite that goes with it and when I have engaged HQ people about it have got the same feeling I've had talking to corporate VPs at my employers about HR policies.
Thus, while I agree that the EGM contains no answers, I am very concerned that instead of listening to and channeling the (very senior, active and reasonable) people who called for it, the HQ staff have instead sought to expensively squash them. I am abstaining from most of the motions, but voting firmly against the rule change that realistically eliminates the EGM as a viable path for member action since there is also no proposal to replace it with anything binding and transparent that ordinary members could use.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
Thanks for your thoughts, Simon. Sorry I didn't get back sooner, had the site emailed me your reply I'd have known to do so!
I understand what you're saying. I don't "buy in" to the BCS leadership's material, and it is very clear that you are correct in their aggressive marketing of their agenda with the exclusion of others or provision of access to similar resources. Where would you go for both sides of the story, if not bcs.org.uk?
I find the whole process quite undemocratic and am very disappointed with the leadership. Like I said, I endorse the redirection of the society and membership, but I cannot say I am happy with the questions that are being asked and how they are being answered. (Along with the quality of the work coming out of the organisation, particularly the web-site - which at times is just plain sloppy) To my mind, a protest vote for the EGM wouldn't pass, but a sizable vote may pass a message - assuming the leadership aren't so arrogant as to ignore it.
And I still don't know which way to go. This is harder than voting in the General Election!
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
Let's cut to the chase - what value does membership of the BCS give to individuals or employers?
I have been a member of the BCS for almost 20 years. I've been an MBCS, CEng and CITP for many of those. Has an employer, prospective employer or recruitment agent ever asked about or remarked upon this? No. Not once.
I now regularly interview job candidates. I don't think I've ever encountered an applicant who was a BCS member. However, I have encountered many applicants with ten or twenty years experience who simply weren't any good. For BCS qualifications to add any value they must be based on real competency, not years served and dubious references.
The BCS leadership were correct to instigate a programme of change but they seem to have turned it into a business which does little more than sell post-nominal letters and is less relevant to the IT industry than it was before.
Hopefully the EGM will go ahead and spark real debate about what the BCS can really achieve.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
Totally echo your sentiment here
"For BCS qualifications to add any value they must be based on real competency, not years served and dubious references.
The BCS leadership were correct to instigate a programme of change but they seem to have turned it into a business which does little more than sell post-nominal letters and is less relevant to the IT industry than it was before."
It would be fascinating to understand how many applicants are rejected by BCS - surely that is an essential metric in determining the value of achieving any form of BCS status.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
Some nice comments about the Isle of Man section of the BCS - thank you folks!
I'm on the BCS IoM committee, the committee of BCS ELITE, and I've just been appointed to the BCS Membership Board (a new body, reporting to the trustees, created to facilitate and unite the activities of the member groups, special interest groups and international sections), so I'm an insider and activist. What follows is my personal view:
As other commentators have observed, the BCS has been less relevant to the world at large. While the member groups have (with variable quality and results) provided some value to members, the external role of the BCS as a charity and possessor of a royal charter to educate, inform and raise standards in computing hasn't been particularly obvious or effective - BCS has been more of an inwardly focused club.
BCS is trying to change this, stepping up to its external responsibilities, creating a new Academy of Computing, running campaigns to improve public understanding of and confidence in IT, providing resources to help "ordinary users" to use IT and the Internet more effectively and safely etc. etc. It is also trying to raise the profile of IT practitioners as "professionals", and providing qualifications that allow the non-IT specialist to identify professional practitioners - in the same way that you might seek a Chartered Surveyor to look over your house instead of just "Bob the Builder".
This change to a more externally facing organisation is disruptive - change is always disruptive, and expensive. Some members don't see the point, they were happy with the club. Other members think that the BCS' money should be spent on more member activities. Yet more feel that the internal reorganisations have affected their interface with BCS, particularly the member group committee members who are having to deal with different people and new procedures at BCS.
A coalition of those unhappy with the changes - the "Transformation" - have called the EGM for a variety of reasons. Perhaps this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it has encouraged plenty of worthwhile debate and communication about what the BCS is and where it's going.
So where is BCS going? It's turning from a member club into a public-facing organisation that reflects the impact which computing and IT has on the day to day lives not only of IT practitioners, but on the lives of the world at large, whether they're getting cash from an ATM, doing their shopping online, or being data subjects in the massive databases of government. In short, the BCS is becoming externally relevant addressing precisely the shortcomings voiced in the original post and some of the comments.
BCS Isle of Man reflects this - our events are almost all open to the public, and widely publicised, so that people impacted by IT in their everyday lives can come, learn, discuss, question etc., and generally participate in our collective understanding of IT. As a consequence we get company bosses, lawyers, accountants, political activists and more coming along to our "computing" events (and meeting and engaging with computing professionals). I think it's the way forward. BCS has some difficulties in the execution, change isn't easy, but it's going in the right direction and is more relevant today than it has been for decades.
To other "activists" - committee members and others who make the member side of the BCS happen; I'd just like to say that the Membership Board is new, it has been created explicitly to address the problems that we volunteers on committees have in engaging with our employed staff in Swindon etc. I'm a volunteer, and on that board. I think we will improve things and enable committees to get on with the business of delivering value to member groups. I know we will try. Bear with us!
HTH, Steve
A footnote about qualifications - how do we measure technical / professional competence? Qualifications. The BCS is mandated to award qualifications, through the whole spectrum of IT from using a word processing package to building a corporate ecosystem. It operates thousands of exams and makes money doing so, that's where most of the money comes from to fund the charitable and external activities.
Re: Thoughts on the BCS
Thanks to everyone for your comments! They have all been very interesting to read. I can tell from reading the comments of those involved with the BCS Isle of Man branch that they are involved with a branch that sounds like it is doing a very good job. I am lucky enough to work for a university, so I get the chance to attend many interesting talks related to IT. When I worked for a smaller organisation I did not get these opportunities so I can appreciate the value of having a branch that arranges these events.
I get the impression though that there is a gulf between how the BCS views itself and how others view it. The comments of Juliette, Terence and Andrew above show a frustration with the BCS that it should not ignore.
To be honest I feel that the idea of a body that most of us have nothing to do with deciding who is and who is not a "professional" is deeply offensive and will earn it few friends. I am sure that the certificates the BCS issue do prove a level of professionalism, but when the BCS is in a position where many have forgotten about its existence it cannot hope to have the authority to make these qualifications a "must have". The BCS allowed itself to fall behind, if an IT professional falls behind it can result in them losing their job.
As I said in my original post I think there is a role for the BCS. There is important work to be done such as encouraging young people to enter the profession, working with educational institutions to make the right courses available, encouraging professional standards and trust. Community building, knowledge sharing and maybe even mentoring are also vital roles to help us all maximise the potential of the technology we work with. I am interested in the idea of an "Academy of Computing" and this sounds very positive.
In this post I wanted to give honest feedback on how the BCS looks as an outsider as I care about my profession and feel that the BCS can make a positive contribution, but only if it starts being realistic about its role. It's been very interesting reading other people's opinions and I hope the discussion continues.