These are in fact two very different things. Randomness does not equate to fairness. I have just applied for the PMI-ACP exam and have been selected for an audit. To date, I have been audited two times, for two exams. That's a 100% batting average. My issue is not related to the necessity of an audit; in that regard I totally agree. My issue is not with the randomness of the audit; how else to select a section of exam aspirants without exhibiting bias. My issue is however with the fact that some people can get multiple audits and others can get zero audits for several exams. This in my view is the definition of unfair. If PMI "must ensure that practitioners who obtain the certifications have met requirements that reflect the evolving profession" in order to "maintain the integrity of its certifications", then all well and good. But why not alter the algorithm to at least audit someone who has never been audited, rather than audit someone twice, or worse, two for two? How far can "randomness" go? Perhaps audit three out of three exam applications for the same individual, while someone else sits multiple exams with zero audits? With around 1 million PMI certified professionals, what are the statistical odds of getting audited three out of three times? I guess I will find out if I ever brave a third certification! Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
As you pointed out, it is not the random nature of the audit, but what is done with the data. If no flag is set on those who have been audited, the algorithm will treat them as just another data point in the loop. Or could it be that for each new certification, it's a clean start, treated as a newbie? Is that a true non-bias :)
Or, maybe, you simply need more letters after your name :D
...
1 reply by Amir Hamzah Dazalan
Mar 10, 2018 11:26 PM
Amir Hamzah Dazalan
...
I agree. they check for unfilled area in the application.
Sante, I am keeping my fingers crossed it's two certifications without audit and I am planning to apply for the third.
Although it will not matter if they audit my application, one out of three. But I agree that they should flag those who have been audited once and completed the audit requirements successfully, should have lesser chances of being audited again and again.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Mar 10, 2018 4:21 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Thanks Najam, the audit process is not too much of a hassle, although this time it is as the PMI-ACP exam ends in 2 weeks and after that a new version will kick in.
It would be ideal if PMI pulled aside the curtain and shared their algorithm for determining audits. It definitely feels unfair that someone who has been previously audited would win the "prize" with another credential application.
Perhaps the MOST fair approach is to audit all applications - that would address concerns that I and many others have raised about the potential for gaming the system with resulting dilution of credential value. Of course, that would not be easily scalable but perhaps PMI could adopt the model of jury duty where part of maintaining your credential is to audit a certain number of applications...
Kiron
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Mar 10, 2018 4:24 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Kiron that isn't a bad idea, but agreed that implementing seems pretty difficult. Even with people doing jury duty, it's hard to policing the police. I think the easiest and fairest way is to flag someone who has had a previous audit, and if they pop up again, bypass it and allocate it to someone who has not been audited before.
More clarity on the randomness of audit could be provided.
I was also audited on one certification, that really didn't need auditing in my view.
Full audit might be too much, I would certainly increase the percentage of audit.
Audit is necessary but not fair in my view, good case audit and some that should are not!
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Mar 10, 2018 4:38 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Agreed Vincent. PMI has its processes and these should be respected, but as the beneficiaries of their certifications that effect our daily and working lives, we also have the right to highlight inconsistencies, errors in process and unfair practices.
PMI published the Agile practice guide recently. The very first value of the Agile Manifesto is "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools". Perhaps they should take a page out of their own book and the Manifesto and look closely at their own tools and processes when it comes to audits.
Sante, I am keeping my fingers crossed it's two certifications without audit and I am planning to apply for the third.
Although it will not matter if they audit my application, one out of three. But I agree that they should flag those who have been audited once and completed the audit requirements successfully, should have lesser chances of being audited again and again.
Thanks Najam, the audit process is not too much of a hassle, although this time it is as the PMI-ACP exam ends in 2 weeks and after that a new version will kick in. Saving Changes...
It would be ideal if PMI pulled aside the curtain and shared their algorithm for determining audits. It definitely feels unfair that someone who has been previously audited would win the "prize" with another credential application.
Perhaps the MOST fair approach is to audit all applications - that would address concerns that I and many others have raised about the potential for gaming the system with resulting dilution of credential value. Of course, that would not be easily scalable but perhaps PMI could adopt the model of jury duty where part of maintaining your credential is to audit a certain number of applications...
Kiron
Kiron that isn't a bad idea, but agreed that implementing seems pretty difficult. Even with people doing jury duty, it's hard to policing the police. I think the easiest and fairest way is to flag someone who has had a previous audit, and if they pop up again, bypass it and allocate it to someone who has not been audited before. Saving Changes...
More clarity on the randomness of audit could be provided.
I was also audited on one certification, that really didn't need auditing in my view.
Full audit might be too much, I would certainly increase the percentage of audit.
Audit is necessary but not fair in my view, good case audit and some that should are not!
Agreed Vincent. PMI has its processes and these should be respected, but as the beneficiaries of their certifications that effect our daily and working lives, we also have the right to highlight inconsistencies, errors in process and unfair practices.
PMI published the Agile practice guide recently. The very first value of the Agile Manifesto is "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools". Perhaps they should take a page out of their own book and the Manifesto and look closely at their own tools and processes when it comes to audits. Saving Changes...
And I forgot another interesting thing. Before I even applied for the PMI-ACP exam, I submitted the course I completed with a PMI REP in order to get the 21 PDU's and the required 21 contact hours needed to qualify for the exam. The system accepted this training course and allocated my 21 PDU's which completed my PMP cycle until 2023. Then after I applied for the PMI-ACP exam, aside from being popped for an audit again, they not only asked to verify my Agile experience, but also verification of the PMI-ACP course I already completed and they already approved. Now there's a big process error right there. Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
Hey, no one ever said that they are a modern organization run by hipsters :) It's likely, as with, many other organizations, they are struggling with legacy, disparate systems. It's, unfortunately, the nature of the beast. I'm sure you are well equipped to handle the audit with a quickness. Don't let it get to you (maybe I'm too late). You do your thing, while they do theirs.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Mar 10, 2018 7:23 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Thanks Andrew, as Serendipity would have it, I anticipated Murphy's Law and verified that my references were available just in case, and as soon as I got pinged for an audit, I downloaded the papers and sent it to them within an hour to get their signatures, and will receive their signed forms inside 48 hours priority express, fingers crossed. Then I have to send that whole package to the US because PMI doesn't like the references to mail them directly, which in fact would save a lot of time. Another process flaw related to speed even if it is more efficient for them. One day I will write at more length about this experience, especially since I am seriously thinking of applying for a third certification (which I also qualify for) just for the hell of it. If I get popped three out of three times, then I may just swing from advocate to antagonist, and a damning blog will be just the beginning lol. Time will tell on that one...
