Best Practice

By Graham Jones

I firmly believe that given a free choice most of us strive to do our very best. But is our best good enough? We are all inevitably “limited” by our personal knowledge and experience. Constantly seeking help from others is one of the smartest things that we can do. I have always had the attitude “I will take help from whomever and wherever I can get it”. Not only will you learn and be better equipped for the future but you gain the respect of other people by showing that you value them. Sometimes people are motivated to write down their accumulated knowledge and experience, perhaps in the form of a book, a published article or a procedure in a company. This is “Best Practice” [BP] for a particular technology or subject according to that individual. Unfortunately, documenting what we “know” is somewhat compromised by our “opinion”.  I have yet to meet anybody who doesn’t have an “opinion” on something. “Opinion” is based upon knowledge, experience and beliefs. Even though as individuals we may have similar knowledge and experience our beliefs can lead to different interpretations, and thus create “differences of opinion”. It isn’t that differences of opinion are necessarily wrong, for they can promote constructive debate, but they are counterintuitive when it comes to developing an accepted BP. Further there can be no “absolute” BP because it can only ever be based upon current knowledge and experience. It should be described as “current BP”.

To arrive at a usable result “collective” input from a wide range of “trusted” sources is required. The word “trusted” is very important if we are to use the BP with confidence. Web technologies and more recently Web 2.0 have greatly facilitated “collective” input via blogging, microblogging, social networking and wikis both in public and within companies. Wikipedia for example has become one of the more well known public knowledge bases. However, we should exercise care with all such tools since they have no independent “authoritative” standing. In many industries what started out as BP, perhaps within a company, has progressed to “standards” backed by national or international bodies and possibly eventually to legally enforced “regulations”. I mention this because such things are often closely aligned with “Professional Practice”. A knowledge of such “standards” and “regulations” and how they should be applied may be required to obtain and maintain Professional Certification. In relative terms the ICT industry is quite young and much of today’s working practices may have only progressed to the BP stage and in some cases to “standards”. In other industries people accept, as part of their daily routine, that they will be REQUIRED to follow “standards” and “regulations” which have evolved often over long periods of time with input from perhaps thousands of people.

I doubt that the typical ICT person today would take kindly to being “told” EXACTLY how to do certain things. We need “freedom” to express ourselves, right? Or is it freedom to make mistakes? The reason that things have progressed as they have in other industries is very simple; “too many disastrous outcomes” when there is inadequate control over the scope of judgment of the individual. Does this mean that we have driven out “ingenuity” and “creativity”? At first I am quite sure that is how some people may have felt but in time it was realized that well crafted “standards” and “regulations” provide a solid base from which to work and that there is still lots of scope for personal “satisfaction”. Why do I mention this? Well, there have been plenty of “less than satisfactory” outcomes in the ICT industry, either financial  or societal. So the ICT industry must prepare itself for more “regulation” in the future if it is to be trusted both by the public and within companies. However, “regulation” is no panacea. It is only useful if documents are kept up to date with the latest knowledge and practices and readily available.

I started by saying that “most of us strive to do our very best”. So “enforcement” is unfortunately necessary for those who don’t see fit to follow or don’t believe in the “rules”. A very obvious example is driving. We are tested on the basis of a driving BP and then, sadly, few of us actually maintain those high standards. We have the Police to try and correct us when we get caught transgressing. Regrettably that is a reflection upon human nature. Ethics is an important component of Professional Practice and adherence to “standards” and “regulations” is closely associated. The parallels in the established “Professions” are clear. There are bodies which oversee “certification” and bodies which act as the “police”, the two often being the same organization. Such bodies do exist in the ICT industry but tend, at this time, to be viewed as either only for a certain sector of the ICT population or as participation being purely optional. That may well have been the case initially in other Professions but now Professional Certification is closely aligned with career.

Driving presents an interesting “model” for comparison with Professional Practice. Does anybody think that the quality of driving would not improve if annual re-testing was required? It would not be a stretch to assume that there might be much fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities, all of which are very costly to both individuals and society. I have to wonder if the “savings” would more than cover the cost of annual re-testing allowing for a re-testing fee. At the moment driving is basically a de-merit system, ie. get caught enough times and you get punished. Annual re-testing would move towards a merit system. Professional Certification must be a merit system based upon BP to be most effective, which means that the equivalent of “re-testing” must be present. For the PMP designation the PMI requires the accumulation of so many “merits” which can take the form of education, attendance at seminars, conferences, etc.. Similar requirements now exist in most Professional Engineering jurisdictions. A well run Professional Certification system needs elements of both a “merit” system to retain Certification and “de-merit” to deal with transgressors who no longer deserve the “privilege”. Obviously we hope that the latter is few and far between.

BP doesn’t mean that one size fits all. There must be scope for differences in approach to problem solving but within different approaches we must strive to reach and document BP. One example might be different software development methodologies. I am absolutely sure that the proponents of different methodologies are all equally passionate about their belief that a particular approach is the “best”.  What matters is that the best current guidance on how the methodologies should be applied is documented and available. It is up to the “users” to decide which is appropriate for them. If, over time, one particular methodology proves to be superior then that may evolve into a “standard”. That raises the question of who owns a “standard”. Typically “standards” bodies are born from within and funded by an industry for the common good of the industry and ultimately the consumers of the “products” of the industry. One example for the ICT industry would be W3C. “Regulations” are quite different. “Standards” are essentially guidelines which you can either choose to use or ignore [perhaps at your peril].  “Regulations” usually have the force of law which means that jurisdiction is relevant. A “standard” in one place may be a “regulation” in another. I can think of several examples in the engineering industry where that is the case and doing business internationally means being aware of such things.

In a perfect world the “playing field” would be the same everywhere and Professional Certification would be recognized across jurisdictions. Regrettably that is not the case in most Professions. At least in the case of Professional Certification through a body accredited by IP3 we are assured that it is accepted internationally which is a fundamental improvement over other industries. Professional Certification bodies may have input to national and international standards and regulatory bodies but they are independent and must be so. Their role is to determine what “standards” and “regulations” are pertinent to attaining and maintaining Professional Status. As an individual if I can’t find BP for a particular subject or technology what can I do? The answer is simple; write one and get input from others. Don’t sit around and wait for somebody else to do it. If you think your “opinion” counts then let the world know. Who knows it may form the basis of something much more one day! Everything that we have for reference today started from exactly that.

Add Comment

Name

Email (will not be published)

Personal Web site/Blog URL

Subject

Comment

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Enter the letters you see in the image.

Click to get a new image.