What STC can learn about certification from the FAA

There has been a recent flare-up of discussion about certification for technical communicators and the forthcoming certification program from the Society for Technical Communication (STC).

Over the course of 100+ messages (I stopped counting at 100:-), the discussion has ranged from serious (does certification help or hurt job seekers) to off-the-wall (is the STC an evil organization bent on world (or at least tech comm world) domination).

However, to me, two critical questions have gotten short shrift: what can any certification program reliably say about the competence of an individual in a particular role, and how can participating in a certification program improve an individual’s skills as a technical communicator?

In short, can certification perform a useful function for both participants and hiring managers? I think it can, and I would suggest that STC look towards the FAA pilot certification program for insight into both the strengths and limitations of certification.

Pilot certification has the following critical components:

1. Well-defined and limited scope: Your first pilot certificate is for small, single engine aircraft. To pilot more complex or larger aircraft, to work for hire, or to fly in the clouds, you need to complete additional training and testing.
2. Appropriate subject matter: The FAA tests knowledge of regulations and practical flying skills. They recognize that they cannot reliably measure judgment, even though they recognize that good judgment is critical to flying safely.
3. Clear standards for proficiency: The standards for passing both the knowledge exam and the practical test are clearly defined and documented. If you have ever taken a flight test, I have no doubt that you knew whether you passed or failed the test before being told. The standards and the acceptable variance are well understood and clear.
4. Direct evaluation: While there is a multiple choice written test, the critical test is a check-ride, where you fly with an examiner who evaluates your performance against the standards. The examiner will also orally quiz you on your knowledge.
5. Recurrent training and evaluation: To maintain your pilot certificate, you must pass a flight review at least every two years. In addition, various ratings have specific requirements for what it takes to remain current.
6. A recognition that certification isn’t everything: Regardless of your certificates or experience, no one will rent you an airplane without a check-out with an instructor, and no airline will hire you as a pilot solely on the basis of your certificates. The certificate only says that at a particular point the holder was able to pass an exam and demonstrate a minimum set of skills. It says nothing definitive about whether someone is competent to perform in any particular capacity.

I’d argue that these characteristics are critical to any certification program. That said, there are aspects of the FAA program that do not apply to a certification program like the STC. These include the following:

1. The FAA is empowered by law to make and enforce regulations: The FAA is the sole authority for granting and taking away flying privileges. This is clearly not what anyone would want the STC to do (including the STC itself).
2. A pilot certificate is a requirement to participate: Without a certificate, it is illegal to fly an airplane. Clearly that is neither true nor desirable for technical communication.
3. Public safety: The primary purpose of the FAA pilot certification program is to help ensure public safety by imposing standards on the people who fly aircraft. While the safety of the people who use technical documentation is important, it certainly isn’t, and shouldn’t be, the primary concern of an STC certification program.

We can set these aspects of pilot certification aside, except to the extent that they color our perceptions of certification. In the case of STC certification, the biggest danger is that certification will be seen as a “requirement to participate.” More on that below.

Let’s take a look at how the STC program stacks up against the FAA model. The announcement for the STC certification program provides some important clues as to how the program is shaping up, but the program is still under development, so what follows is based only on what is public at this time.

1. Well-defined and limited scope: This is, maybe understandably, still hard to judge. However, to be successful, there will need to be a clear definition of what each of the core competencies comprises. I suspect that over time, the STC will need to turn each core competency into a “track” that contains a selection of topics.
2. Appropriate subject matter: I think this is one of the most dangerous areas for the STC. There are aspects of any field that are not amenable to certification. I don’t see how you can certify that someone possesses good judgment or the personal skills needed to work with a Subject Matter Expert (SME). It may also be difficult (or at least open to a fair amount of subjectivity) to certify the ability to select the right material for a particular deliverable and organize it correctly. Does that limit certification to purely mechanical skills like the ability to perform a set of tasks in FrameMaker? I hope not, but it will take experimentation and careful observation to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate subject matter.
3. Clear standards for proficiency: Here is where STC can judge how well it has defined the scope and appropriateness of its topics. If you can’t define what it means to be proficient at a topic, then either it’s not amenable to certification, or the topic is too broad.
4. Direct evaluation: Evaluating a portfolio seems to me to be a useful and necessary, but not sufficient, step in this direction. I would add an oral exam and more direct interaction with the student as part of the evaluation.
5. Recurrent training and evaluation: The three year duration of a certificate makes a lot of sense. It might be good to expand this into a recurrent training program that would allow people to maintain a certificate by taking and passing evaluations over that three-year period. It would also be useful to integrate the program with college and university technical communication programs.
6. A recognition that certification isn’t everything: This is clearly another contentious issue, especially for technical communication. With pilot certification, an appropriate certificate is necessary, but not sufficient. With technical communication, it is neither necessary nor sufficient, but there is a valid concern that hiring managers will only look at candidates who are certified, or assume that possessing a certificate makes someone qualified. I’m not worried about the latter; any manager who persists in making that assumption won’t be a manager for long, but a manager who will not consider candidates without a certificate may never realize that there are competent people who don’t have one.

To go back to the questions I asked at the top:

• What can a certification program reliably say about the competence of an individual in a particular role?

  About the best it can do is say that at time T, person A demonstrated the ability to convince the examiner that he or she met the requirements to earn the certificate. It says nothing about the ability of that person to perform any particular job, and it says nothing about whether that person has retained any knowledge or skills beyond the date of the test.

• Can participating in a certification program improve an individual’s skills as a technical communicator?

  For a well-designed program, yes. Even for an experienced pilot, reviewing the knowledge and skills required of a new pilot are valuable. That’s why a flight review will always include skills, like stalls or short-field landings, that are required of a new pilot. It’s also why even the most experienced and skillful writers can benefit from re-reading Strunk and White or having their work edited by a skillful editor.

I find it hard to sum up my thoughts on this. I think there is a place for certification, but only if that certification provides a way for people to acquire or reinforce useful skills, and if that certification helps hiring managers. That said, I have concerns:

1. Will the program reach too far and try to certify knowledge and skills that are not amenable to certification?
2. Will the program provide well-defined, appropriate levels of achievement?
3. Will the standards for earning a certificate be high enough to mean something?
4. Will the program integrate well with college and university technical communication degrees?
5. Will hiring managers and HR departments turn certification into a hard requirement?

The STC has direct control over the first four of these, and I hope they address them as part of the program.

The fifth issue highlights a tension inherent in the program. For certification to become widely accepted, it has to have value for hiring managers, and if it has value for hiring managers, they will want to see certification on résumés. That’s good for participants and good for the STC, but not good for qualified non-participants.

I don’t think you can avoid this in a successful program, but there are a few things that might help tamp down this effect:

1. Make certification selective (i.e., rare) enough that it can’t become a common job requirement.
2. Make certification specific enough that it doesn’t ever appear to apply to the totality of a technical communicator’s job.
3. Make certification affordable, so money is not a barrier.
4. Make certification valuable enough that members see it as worth their effort to participate.

Beyond this, I’d say let the chips fall where they may and let the program prove itself.