Okay, so there are lots of complaints about SCRUM MASTER certifications being handed out like expensive candy. But is that really what the complaint is about?
Or, is it something else?
- Scrum, being primarily about simple techniques for managing a project, maybe really does only take two days to master? (Which I think is believable.)
- Quite possibly, most of the dissent and gnashing of teeth could be around *assuming* mastering scrum means that developing a working software application naturally follows?
#2 does, quite frankly, involve a whole (heck of a) lot more than the world’s best scrum master.
Other than the awful name “Scrum Masters” which has prompted visions of “Scrum Mistresses” or, worse yet, “Scrum Slaves”, I think there is an issue about being “ceritified” for anything simply by doing what might be equivalent to reading a book.
Two days in a class, like reading one or more books on Scrum, might be enough to understand the ideas well enough to implement Scrum or to be a “Scrum Master” but it is not sufficient to be certified in anything significant, it seems to me.
So, unless we want a profession where certifications are meaningless (uh, I might be too late on this point, eh?) this certification, compared to a simple certificate of completion, seems at the very least unfortunate.