|
|
|
|
|
|
by austincheney
1608 days ago
|
|
|
The software industry is young, if not in a literal sense then certainly in a figurative sense. Other crafts define their professionalism according to a standard baseline defined by governance and credentials. Examples of credentials are licenses and certifications. Examples of other crafts that require credentials: medicine, law, engineering, flying, driving, real estate, information security, networking, food preparation, education, public securities, and many more. When this is brought up in software the result is excuses and whining, hardly an indication of maturity. The problems with the industries exaggerated immaturity result in profuse subjectivity. There is always a perception, at hiring, that software developers are rare. Perhaps poorly trained or developed less than desired expectations but software developers are not rare. Nonetheless the problem is exaggerated in a cycle of attempts to increase availability among an undesirable candidate pool by abstracting away many challenges inherent to the practice. This is cyclical because instead of bridging a training or development gap it instead breeds entitlement and insecurity that is paid forward. Since there are no industry standards of acceptable practice this cycle becomes a race to the bottom. This is the very essence of young. |
|
|
Software has a deliverable that can be tested prior to delivery. And there are domains where software has to be developed within a QMS, those domains have quietly built elaborate process and systems dedicated to quality of their software.
Using licensing to ensure quality results is an easier sell in scenarios where such a system can't exist, like when the practitioner doesn't get (m)any retries.
Are we worried something is falling through the cracks of the quality system approach? Are there properties of a deliverable that those systems can't ensure?
Some product domains are so inconsequential to life that it would be a laughable non-starter to write bars for their quality into law. Is a blanket licensing requirement a way to get at practitioners operating in those fields anyway? Because the individuals will be more of a pushover and easier to wage a public campaign against than the company they hypothetically work for?