Pages: pp. 5-7
The need for continuing education and training is well accepted in virtually every occupation. Today, things change far too quickly for the knowledge in any profession to remain static. New tools, technologies, regulations, and laws continually appear and evolve. Nowhere is this more evident than within the software development industry. New languages, methodologies, and computing platforms continually appear that weren't even dreamt about when many developers received their undergraduate degrees.
Most software professionals are interested in learning new things, and companies often use a promise of support for continuing education through tuition reimbursements as a hiring incentive. Of course, employers fully recognize that after six months of working 60-hour weeks, few employees will want to take advantage of the opportunity, since it usually means spending another eight to ten hours away from their family each week.
Despite what many employers say publicly, they actually have little incentive to encourage employees to take advanced degrees or otherwise get involved in continuing education. If a company wants employees to learn a particular review technique or programming language, it will make sure they learn exactly what they need, exactly when they need it. This is called "just in time" training. However, far fewer companies are interested in "just in case" training.
Some professions have decided that having their members maintain currency is in society's best interest. So, they compel currency through continuing-education requirements. For example, the American Institute for Certified Public Accounting requires its members to obtain 120 hours of training or continuing education every three years. And in Oregon, my home state,
In every one of these cases, practitioners must be licensed or certified by a government or quasi-governmental board to do business, and mechanisms are in place to certify courses and track individuals' training. Because their employees must have this licensing or certification to perform their jobs, it's clearly in the employer's best interest to support these continuing-education requirements not only by providing tuition reimbursements but also by making time available to take the courses.
The IEEE Computer Society has organized a professional designation called the Certified Software Development Professional ( www.computer.org/certification). The CSDP program requires 30 professional-development units every three years. PDUs are drawn from several sources:
So, the CSDP requirement translates into about 20 hours of continuing education each year.
Nevertheless, the concept of licensing or certification among software developers hasn't caught on. For the vast majority of the world, software development is still basically an unregulated profession.
These 20 hours work out to about 23 minutes a week, or 100 minutes a month. However, even with this modest amount of time, most software employers seem to have difficulty sustaining this level of professional development for their employees.
I recently came across an online poll that asked programmers about the annual number of training days they receive ( www.programmersheaven.com/c/userpoll/Poll_archive.htm?PollID=136). Here are the results:
Although it's very likely unscientific, I have no reason to believe that the poll is particularly inaccurate (the percentages don't sum to 100% because of rounding errors). In short, it suggests that over half the programmers in the field today get two or fewer days of training annually—and most get none at all.
Computerworld ranked their 2003 list of the "top 100 places to work" by the annual number of training days per IT employee. Wal-Mart came out on top with 26 training days (impressive!), whereas the bottom eight companies provided two or fewer. Remember, these were the 100 best places to work. The annual training budget for these 100 companies ranged from US$152 to $6,648 per employee. I don't even want to think about what the companies that aren't considered the top places to work invest (or rather, don't invest) in training.
The results, while not particularly surprising, raise serious issues for us in the software development industry, which changes as quickly as it does. Especially in light of the continuing-education requirements of many other professions that likely have a lower level of knowledge volatility than software development, the weak showing by software developers' employers is unsettling.
Two issues are at the heart of our field's lack of support for continuing education. The first is general reluctance among many software developers to invest in additional training. Software professionals need to understand that to stay competitive, lifelong learning is a fact of life. Of course, if you're reading this, I'm preaching to the choir. You've already decided to keep up with the field, and you probably put your money where your mouth is by being a member of the Computer Society.
The other issue that affects training and continuing education is companies' reluctance to invest in it. I've heard it said that as the software economy has shrunk over the years, less money is available for training and education. This brings to mind an oft-quoted observation you'll hear among advertising types: "When times are good, you can afford to advertise—and when times are bad, you can't afford not to advertise." Clearly we can say the same about training our workforce. As the economy worsens, training and skill enhancement become that much more important.
One approach taken by many organizations whose employees must maintain continuing education is based on the model of scheduled in-service training delivered by peers. This is usually much more cost efficient and more effective than the approach software companies usually take—sending employees to a distant city to sit through a one-day tutorial held at a hotel.
For example, peer-based in-service training is a common model used by small and moderate-sized police departments that can afford neither a fully staffed training division nor the cost of sending each officer to centralized training facilities. In this model, field officers become "experts" in a particular skill—first aid, defensive tactics, emergency-vehicle operations, firearms, and so on—by attending a certified instructor's course. The rest of the department rotates through courses taught by these experts on a monthly basis. For example, one month everyone in the department might have to take an eight-hour course on defensive tactics from the in-house expert on that skill. The next month they might take a four-hour CPR refresher course from the in-house first aid expert. These courses are used to introduce new techniques and practice previously learned ones. When not occupied teaching their courses, the experts are back out on the streets with their students.
The vast bulk of software development businesses are much like these police departments. They can't justify the cost of a complete training department or afford to send every employee to a commercial course.
You'd start peer-based in-service training by sending 10 percent of your senior programmers for intensive study in a particular aspect of programming. When they return, each would be responsible for training their colleagues in their respective specialty. This might entail having scheduled training times every month, so over a period of a year every programmer in the company will have had an opportunity to have courses in up to a dozen different topics.
This model has three advantages:
Of course, whether they're being trained in-house or at a conference center in a remote city, developers undergoing training must divert some time from work in order to participate. With regular in-service training, availability is more predictable and can be worked into project budgets and time lines.
This model has significant implications. The first and most significant is that you'd have to replace courses in various technology topics with courses for trainers of those topics. Learning how to do something is much different than learning how to teach it.
You'd also need standardized course material. For example, in the case of in-service law enforcement training, instructors are given training materials and tips on how to teach the material. The last thing you want is to have your instructors spending time to develop original training material that might be inconsistent with approved training materials.
I value your feedback. How much training does the average developer in your company receive on the company's nickel (including the time necessary to participate in the training)? I'd also like to hear from those of you who already practice peer-based in-service training. Please write me at firstname.lastname@example.org.