FWIW, we've never prevented anyone, including OEMs and End-Users, from taking our classes. They're great learning opportunities.
The discounts you're referring to are part of the integrator program, which isn't going away. So those groups would not be able to obtain the discounts unless they're registered as integrators with us.
So, basically..., before the certification was free, now, we must pay for it. 
In short, yes. Although, there was always a fee for anyone that wasn't an integrator.
And on top of that, we must pay for it every three years...
You missed the before before.
Before before it was paid, then it was free, now it's paid again, only this time it's probably a lot dearer
A post was split to a new topic: In-Person Perspective Training
We have been using the IA tests as a benchmark for our new hires. If they can complete the certification tests, then we can be reasonably sure that they are ready to start on real projects (supervised, of course).
With this change, we will basically have to do our own internal "certification" to replace IA's certification.
I think this is the main point of frustration behind this thread. A certification that was previously "skill-based" (in intent, debatable in reality) is now becoming basically purchasable.
So while I totally understand IA wanting to grow/incentivize their training programming, I think there is still room for a "skill-based" certification.
Core -> Gold -> "skill-based level here"?
Core -> Gold -> Chad
(@kgamble I'm gonna proudly beat your dead horse)
This announcement kinda took me by surprise... I just received my Gold certification a few weeks ago (not that I care about it very much), but it seems like being automatically certified after attending training will de-value the Core and Gold cert. Or strip it of any value it had.
I could see why IA might want to make the change. Even grading and sending feedback for the tests is probably a full time job for at least one person - it might make sense to make the training/certification process leaner. I'm hoping if that was the case, IA would tell us that instead of hiding behind the reasons they listed in the email.
Actually, reading this changed a part of my opinion. I was thinking âhmm, this could make the certifications more valuable because they show some kind of proof of educationâ. But I donât know if that really adds value the same way as a true cert
If we look at the Microsoft MCSA as an example, you have instructor led or online training (same here), and you can show youâve done those things (level of credentialed here), but there are some âdifficultâ and fail-able proctored tests to actually prove capability.
It provides everything here, available training, instructor led training, but also a proof of capability in varying levels.
Almost makes me wonder if theres a way IA could just create a proctor-able test and have companies like Pearson-VUE proctor their tests remotely. It would require tests are relatively up to date, and more specific to where they donât require as much human validation, but just because the platform leaves room for creativity doesnât mean a test canât require specific functionality. Iâm sure when Microsoft defined the rules for their certification tests they had engineers think âWell this tool I developed is so generic and abstract, how can I test without eliminating the capability for a user to be creative!â, but they seemed to solve it so it canât be an unsolvable problem.
Iâm sure the training and cert team at IA thought about all of these things, and there are reasons for the current path. I think forum threads like this will help show IA what we really want and they can find a path that suits them just as well as their integrators and clients.
EDIT: Certified Ignition Chad should clearly be added while weâre at it⌠
We are offering the training in-person and online from Australia. Happy to help if you have any questions or need any support @seano
Hi everyone, it looks like this topic started with a bit of misinformation but there've been a lot of good responses with corrections through various contributors. Thank you! It was linked above but you can find details about the changes on our Certification Update page. We are also working on an FAQ (coming soon) that has a lot of direct answers to the questions posed in this thread.
If you have any questions that you'd like a direct response to, please feel free to email us at training@inductiveautomation.com.
As a former system integrator I've been trained in-person, and I've gotten certifications online like IA's former certification method. I found that I learned much less in a classroom setting, because as someone else said typically the in person classes are dumbed down so that a day 1 user can learn. Also, if homework is merely reviewed / commented on instead of graded it really makes it impossible to fail. In the real world, failures can kill people or cause very expensive damages. I believe a Core certified person should be able to develop complex control schemes, and a Gold certified person should be able to architect & troubleshoot almost any part of a big system.
An additional heartache is that as an SI, if I'm not billing to a project I'm just costing the company money. It was pretty tough to get approval to take a week long training in California for another software suite, and after the training class I still didn't have a great grasp on the software. But I did have a cert they printed me. It took several projects to become actually proficient with the software after I was certified. With Ignition however, I got the certification and immediately after I was working solo on a full project implementation and didn't have any issues because I actually had to know the software to pass the test.
5 / 10 days of spoon-fed training isn't enough experience to warrant a certification, and yet 5 / 10 continuous days is a very heavy time commitment.
This doesn't really answer the question of why or what precipitated this change. From the page
"Over time we have noticed that the tests are being used less for their original purpose and more as a way to learn Ignition. While we agree that our tests can be a great tool for learning, we feel that tying Certification levels to these tests is no longer appropriate."
Are these things really at odds with each other?
I can say, from the perspective of a medium sized company, that we do have ulterior motives in requiring this training. Its not just the cert (which obviously benefits our company profile) it is a good indication that an engineer can use the documentation to solve a problem not explicitly spelled out in the training videos. This is something that I think would be lost with instructor led training.
Letting people train and take the test on their own time is also beneficial. Occasionally we hire engineers who we want to get certified but they are also ready to start on projects, so they'll intersperse IU training with their billable work. Carving out an entire week straight for an experienced engineer is pretty tough right now.
The only added benefit I can see is that with instructor led training we might be able to get a better understanding of the why things are done certain ways or best practices. Its always fun coming on the forums looking for a solution like "How do I use for this?" only to find an engineer a few comments later go "Actually we don't recommend using that function, try this instead.."
Maybe my concerns are unfounded and the new training will be better, but Im kind of a 'if it ain't broke don't fix it type'.
That's the thing. It was broken.
We didn't want to call it out in the article, but staffing a team of folks to grade tests in a timely manner has been something we've struggled with for the past several years. Ever since the test became free for folks in the integrator program, there's been a flood of tests coming in, and a shortage of people to grade them.
For those unfamiliar, our test grading process has zero automation: we grade everything by hand. We could automate the written response portion to some degree, but the design/development portion is fairly open-ended, so being able to provide meaningful feedback on why an approach didn't work was likely always going to need a human.
To grade a test, we need people with some degree of Ignition familiarity. The issue is that folks with such knowledge generally don't want to grade tests 40 hours a week. We've lost a couple of amazing employees due to burnout, so we wanted to figure out a new approach. We have made some changes internally to mitigate this, but the whole system just doesn't scale well.
There was a couple of ideas we looked into, all of them with pros and cons. This one won out. All the same, I'm happy to see the discussion in this thread. It may not always seem like it, but we really do value feedback from our community, and that includes negative feedback.
Well...I stand corrected!
I'm with others here who have generally found instructor led training necessarily geared to the lowest common denominator to be a poor use of my time. I'm probably not the only one who'd rather pay to have a test graded like the old system rather than pay and sit through 5-10 days of classes. It sounds like the main pain point was grading a flood of free tests.
A couple possible solutions to the staffing problem for brainstorming (charging something for tests is probably a pre-requisite):
We've actually been using idea #1 internally. It has helped, but again scale is the concern. All the same, I appreciate the ideas!
I can add onto Paul's accurate assessment here and provide another perspective.
I graded the most certification tests in the last year. In addition to more coming in I have also seen a consistent change in who is submitting tests. Newer users, some having only ever completed Inductive University, are consistently taking our certification tests sooner. The tests are being used as a tool to learn how to design with Ignition rather than proving some level of proficiency.
This results in a lot of tests failing. I'd estimate I fail over 95% of first test submissions. If you're concerned about anyone being able to get certified with no possibility of failure, I'd say the certification test system already did that.
My description isn't representative of every single test, but is the new trend. I enjoy grading tests that have the effort we expect put into them, and if you're here in the forums I know you put in that effort. Those of you that leave jokes or interesting images in tests make it more enjoyable, but not everyone takes the test in good faith. Without a submission limit it is possible to brute force through the certification test, and as with any test there are those who attempt to cheat.
Ultimately tests are not serving their original purpose in the certification system, so a change had to be made. This change will allow us to provide more learning opportunities and tie certification to a consistent education in Ignition. I appreciate all of the good ideas and feedback. A lot of other questions in this thread should be answered once we get a FAQ post up.
Ouch. Free may have been the primary problem.
While half of us may not love the idea of the certifications changing, myself included, we all appreciate your due-diligence with this (probably) mind-numbing task! You are appreciated