It's A Standard, That's Why.

Organizations write codes to protect people. Organizations write standards to ensure quality. Codes have the strength of law. Standards do not.

I’ve attended a number of construction meetings over the years where I wished that standards had more bite. I wished I could point at my printouts and demand people follow the rules.

Now, I’m not so sure. When I’m training my staff I try to convey not only the standards applicable to the topic but the logic behind those standards. Bodies create standards to serve specific purposes and solve specific problems. When a standard does not serve that purpose, we should set it aside. There is a time to not follow a standard.

That statement alone has gotten me more than my fair share of bad looks. But, standards do not arise in a vacuum. There is always context.

At UF, our Telecommunications Standard once required three cable drops at every outlet location. The standard was written down and delivered to every contractor that did work on UF campus. A number of smart people put their heads together to come up with that number. Their work should be respected.

When challenged on that requirement, we have a number of options. Those that don’t truly understand the standard or feel like discussing it rely on the document itself. The requirement itself cannot be challenged because it is a component of a University standards document. Everyone should respect the document. After all, a standard is a standard.

Unfortunately, work is rarely that simple. Most work, when done according to standard, costs more. Project managers are always under pressure to cut costs. And a cabling consultant rarely gets the last word in any project. Notes are lost. Requested changes somehow don’t make it to the next set of drawings.

But, when we understand the reasoning behind a standard, we can change the adversarial nature of a planning meeting into one of mutual understanding.

We need three cables for network, phone, and one spare.

What about an outlet for a network HVAC connection located above the ceiling. Can we only install two cables for that outlet?

Sure. Or, maybe not.

At this point a cabling consultant can discuss the topic with the project manager from a common point of reference. Maybe the project manager is making a reasonable request. If so, a consultant should feel confident enough to step away from the standard. If the request is unreasonable, the cabling consultant should be ready to explain why the request is being rejected. The project manager is not there to destroy the telecommunications plan – the manager needs the plan to work. They are operating under other constraints. The IT consultant should always bear this in mind.

As a consulting professional, we need to be able to explain the logic behind any standard we are trying to enforce. In a meeting with project managers, owners, and tenants, it is always in our best interests to convince others that standards exist for their benefit.

As a contractor I always tried to convince customers to place two cables at each outlet location. I would explain the reasons why. Sometimes I was successful and sometimes I wasn’t. In those instances where I installed fewer than the standard number of cables, I was often called back.

Each time I was called back to install additional cables for these customers, there was no malice. Each customer knew that I was looking out for their best interests and more work followed.

I’m sure I’ve said it in earlier blog posts, but we have a responsibility to treat others as the professionals we often claim to be. Stomping our feet and pointing to a piece of paper to justify our requirements does a disservice to our role in the industry.

Our credentials do not grant us any magical insight and the information we have means nothing if we do not share it.

On Certifications

In my few years of management, I’ve done my fair share of interviewing and hiring. Even before the current troubles with the economy, there have always been a number of applicants for the positions in our department. The University’s movement toward a centralized network support model has always drawn a love/hate relationship from the IT professionals that currently work on campus. A number of them worry about Computing and Networking Services (CNS) moving in and taking over their duties. At the same time, others are looking to sign on with us to improve their careers. The two groups are not mutually exclusive.

When passing through dozens of resumes are crossing my desk, I’m usually looking for reasons to exclude someone from the interview process instead of bringing them in. A piece of paper is a poor report of someone’s skills and there isn’t anywhere near enough time to interview them all. On that topic, it is hard enough to judge an applicant given a fifteen minute interview – but that’s for another time.

The easiest ways to exclude people include setting up minimum educational/certification requirements. We’ve done this for architectural firms that apply to do work on campus. They are required to have an RCDD on staff in order to be eligible to design buildings for the University of Florida. We required it in an attempt to ensure that architects understood the issues surrounding low-voltage cabling requirements. It has paid some dividends but the results have highlighted the flaws in establishing certification requirements for staff.

Not everyone that holds a certification holds an equal amount of skill, expertise, or commendable work ethic.

Certification/education requirements are easy ways to establish a minimum criterion but, once established, often act as a defining requirement. If someone needs to have a CCNA to be considered for employment, holding a CCNA requirement often becomes a justification for holding the job after the fact. CCNA certification becomes the established proof that the employee holds the skills necessary for the job.

Unfortunately, this is often not the case. Certifications and educational requirements do not communicate effectiveness in job duties. Those with higher educational degrees have known this for years. Holding a college degree usually signifies that the individual is capable of learning, not that what they learned in college is truly applicable to the employment. For years, programming firms have snatched up graduates with engineering degrees thinking that an engineering degree proves that the staff member is capable of the ordered reasoning necessary for programming.

Certifications have often seemed to be more applicable to the tasks performed. Different organizations that offer certifications target their tests more to the individual job requirements of the fields they serve. One would think that the certifications would have more applicability to the actual tasks at hand. In general, I don’t really think so.

I personally hold a number of certifications. I have an RCDD from BICSI, accompanied by their NTS and OSP specialty. For three years, I held a CCNA from Cisco. Just to be complete, I also have a BS in Psychology and a BA in Criminal Justice. Yes, I’ve been at UF a long time.

I had to study a long time for every certification exam listed above but I think it’s important to understand what these tests truly reflect. Each Bicsi certification exam represented an ability to memorize an incredible number of facts. Truly understanding the principles of low-voltage transmission can make this feat much more manageable but the test itself truly concerns memorization skills. Those who hold an RCDD should be able to communicate amongst themselves using a shared language that they all understand. But, the certification itself does not guarantee understanding.

I found the CCNA more demanding in regard to working skills. The questions on the exam seemed less concerned with my ability to memorize facts than my ability to use those facts to solve the networking problems that they presented. But even then, after passing the exam I would say that I had an introductory level of knowledge. I was ready to learn how to work on a network.

I think the important thing to learn from my experience is this: certification does not imply professionalism or expertise. When a professional is asked to defend their claims, they should be ready and willing to do so. Anyone who claims that they should be believed because they have a degree/certification is only admitting that they cannot truly defend their claims.

A true professional is ready to explain their understanding to all. In fact, as people, we have a responsibility to do so.