Or:
Why I believe that “certifying things” is often nonsense.
In order to make life easier, people scale the world. They make certificates (Zertifikate) that prove how objects of this world follow or have been generated according to a certain standard.
The DIN is certainly a positive example (initially: Deutsche Industrie Norm). It was started by a club/association of industry partners. This standardization of technological items certainly brought considerable progress.
I am sure this made a lot of sense. The same is true for a common “metrics” in Europe or even world-wide for characteristics of objects (distance, weight, size, volume, etc.). or states (pressure, speed, temperature, time, etc.).
After the “standardization” comes the “certificate”. Stating a reliable and tested actual measure for an object is the simplest form of certificate. You can say:
There can only be a certificate if a standardization has been done before.
Wherever people are successful in a field, the underlying method will also be applied to other areas. Even if, perhaps, it does not make sense. For instance because everything that is alive cannot be reasonably standardized like a dead mass.
Brussels (the EU), for instance, now not only certifies plants and fruit. No, there are many areas – and I mean areas where it cannot be done – where they standardize and certify endlessly. For example, we have a cucumber norm and sustainability (including the certificates). Institutions and associations of all sorts also take part in the “standardizing”, using all imaginable areas for any purpose at all.
Mostly, they start with writing down collections of (allegedly) best practice. You will have won if you managed to introduce an obligatory ISO norm or some such. And then they start teaching the auditors and doing audits.
But do we really want to standardize humans, their interactions and their lives? During the last few decades and centuries, metrication and measurements have been applied to humans, nature and social systems.
Now enterprises have to have certifications saying that they function “correctly”, even though they consist of human beings. “Correct” is defined as something that follows the logic of an often very complicated and contradictory standard. And everything else is “wrong”. And more often than not, people totally forget what was intended or what was initially the problem.
They even wanted to extend the concept and include families. In the 1960ies, they discussed if people should be allowed to marry without a marriage licence. They also demanded a father or mother licence if you wanted to become parents.
(Incidentally, driver’s licences, too, are just certificates). To be sure, the intent was well-meant: they wanted to improve the situation of children.
At the time, I cynically thought how it would perhaps be desirable to also certify sons and daughters, since fathers and mothers were under consideration. After all, children should behave according to standards, shouldn’t they? Well, today, this concept became a little bit true: schools, for instance, generate their curricula following the standard child image – without ever considering how different children are.
I am glad that, in the end, the parent licence did not come after all. Regardless of many children, unfortunately, still living in rather sad conditions. However, the “parent licence” is an excellent example for the limits of standardization and certificates.
So roles in the family are not yet certified. Yet in other social bodies, they try to standardize away – for instance in enterprises when it comes to management. Just think of project, knowledge, quality management, etc. And I am sure that, sooner or later, the BGM (business health management), the common good economy and the CSR (Coporate Social Responsibity) will be certified. And, of course, before they certify them, they have to standardize them.
In my book, social systems with humans acting therein are something that nobody should try to standardize. Standardized social systems give me pause. Also, I do not believe that leadership and management can be standardized. But how can you certify something that cannot be standardized?
But let us stick to project management: It will not be possible to standardize PM in a rational way. So how to certify it in a rational way?
Basically, it is a pity, isn’t it? After all, they say that project managers too, (like, for instance programmers) should again learn from their masters and from practicing a lot in order to become experts – just like craftsmen.
You can get titles with money, through finishing an expensive course and by learning a lot by heart. But you will only become a master through sweat and industriousness. And it is quite possible that, in the future, only the masters will be wanted.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
P.S.
Incidentally, it is quite well worth the effort doing an internet certificate search. I was literally beaten by the multitude – also by how absurd many of them are. I will refrain from giving examples, there is no end.
Loading ...