certification

[Arun]

Hi

I want to take Labview certification. But im not sure vat to study for that and whatis the exact use of that. Does anyone know if the companies really prefer someone who has labview certification??

[Jim Kring]

I want to take Labview certification. But im not sure vat to study for that and whatis the exact use of that. Does anyone know if the companies really prefer someone who has labview certification??

Getting certified is a good way to improve your LabVIEW skills and make sure that your really as good as you think you are. And, like any certification, it allows a prospective employer or client to immediately make a reasonable judgment of your baseline ability with LabVIEW. Bottom line, it certainly won't hurt you. But, after you have become certified and are very skilled in LabVIEW, you probably won't need to maintain your certification. There just aren't any employers (that I know of) that only hire certified LabVIEW programmers. It isn't at all like the Microsoft, JAVA, or Cisco certs. But, if you send a resume to a company that uses LabVIEW and values a skilled wire-worker, the certificate might earn you an interview.

-Jim

[CTPietry]

I had simillar questions regarding the actual recognition of the certifications. I was able to find and download a PDF from NI's site detailing the topics to know for the CLD. It is rather lengthy, but it is thorough and well thought out. I recommend it as a study guide.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

I was able to find and download a PDF from NI's site detailing the topics to know for the CLD.  It is rather lengthy, but it is thorough and well thought out.

As an employer myself, I have to admit that I have a difficult time evaluating potential candidates for programming positions. Any LabVIEW test that I might put together would only cover a few areas of interest. If you look at the Tasks and Objectives of the Certified LabVIEW Developer exam, you will see that many key areas of LabVIEW knowledge are tested.

The reality is however that I cannot reasonably say that I will ONLY accept LabVIEW Certified Developers (CLD's). This excludes a huge population of people that are just as qualified. I can only say that if I was to sort through a pile of candidates with equal skill levels, all the CLD's would be in my short list.

[aledain]

Unfortunately my mind turns away from the idea of sitting any sort of exam ((+++ years at uni ;-)). For some professional organisations, peer recognition works just as well, if not better than exam certification. I agree with Michael that being a CLD would not be the sole requirement for a position as a programmer or LabVIEW developer, it would limit the field unnecessarily. However, I would hazard a guess that there are many talented programmers who have neither the time or money to become CLD'ed, but might benefit from community recognition.

So if i may propose a peer certification program, perhaps LAVA "sponsored" where a review panel could award recognition. It could have different levels (journeyman (1-3 yrs, master (4-6 years), grandmaster (7+ years), etc). Recognition could be based on review of work, review of commitment to the LabVIEW community, time immersed in wiring, or other areas that the review panel could think of. Recognition would be free and based somewhat on the scientific research principal.

Any other thoughts, or is this too big a task?

[PJM_labview]

So if i may propose a peer certification program, perhaps LAVA "sponsored" where a review panel could award recognition. It could have different levels (journeyman (1-3 yrs, master (4-6 years), grandmaster (7+ years), etc). Recognition could be based on review of work, review of commitment to the LabVIEW community, time immersed in wiring, or other areas that the review panel could think of. Recognition would be free and based somewhat on the scientific research principal.

It's a really interesting idea :thumbup: . I do not know how easy it will be to implement in some cases (ex people doing only close source software for a company), but nonetheless, this is quite an original idea.

I like it :thumbup:

[Michael Aivaliotis]

So if i may propose a peer certification program, perhaps LAVA "sponsored" where a review panel could award recognition.

The question then becomes, how do you pick the review board?

[Bryan]

I've wanted to become a LabVIEW certified programmer for at least 3 years now, but I'm tentative to pay the money to become certified because I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge to pass the test. Here's why:

I had a LabVIEW basics course in college, where we used LabVIEW 4.0.

I then took another LabVIEW Basics I course when I worked for a previous employer, we used 6i for that course I believe.

All of the remaining 5 years of experience with labview I have is due to learning as I go. I don't have any other formal education in LabVIEW except for the 2 basics I courses I've taken, but have written labview programs for rs232, 485, GPIB, IMAQ and DAQ applications, and I have no other formal programming education, all self-taught.

I consider myself to be a relatively advanced programmer, but am afraid that in my basically self-taught experience with LabVIEW has left holes in my programming knowledge, which will be exposed come test time, then I will have wasted my money taking a certification test that I could potentially fail.

I guess I need some level of certainty before I would feel comfortable taking that route.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

I've wanted to become a LabVIEW certified programmer for at least 3 years now, but I'm tentative to pay the money to become certified because I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge to pass the test.

Here's the link to the National Instruments Certification Program Tasks and Objectives:

Tasks and Objectives

If you can handle the above material you should be ok. By the way, most or all of the material is covered in NI Basics 1 and 2 courses. Perhaps the advanced course as well. All of this is specified on the NI website. NI does a good job of clarifying what material is covered.

On another note, being self-taught is nothing to be worried about. Most of us learn more on the job and by diving into real projects than the NI support engineers themselves. We're the ones that push LabVIEW to the max and use it in ways that it was not even designed for. The problem with the test may be that you may not know the proper terminology that's used or required by NI in their questioning.

[aledain]

The question then becomes, how do you pick the review board?

Perhaps a peer vote/poll on a gang of three (four) to be top level in the first instance. These incumbents then review and add new certified members at the various levels. By default we could assume that "top level certified" means they are by default also reviewers. Alternatively we could propose that once several top level members are available, that a review board is elected by the top level members from amongst the available top level members.

Levels

By various levels we could envisage a system whereby you could apply for an open evaluation (the board chooses which level you are "graded" at). Alternatively you could apply to become a lowest level member and once a lowest level member you can be reviewed at a later date to progress to higher levels.

(Proposed) Levels Might Be:

Novice: <1 year full time or equivalent, no code review.

Journeyman: 1-3 years full time OR small app reviewed (+30 VI's) OR ...

Master: 3-6 years full time OR large app reviewed (+100 VI's) OR ...

GrandMaster: 6+ years full time OR very large app reviewed (+300 VI's) OR ...

Other Considerations

We'd also have to allow for certification where source code could not be evaluated for privacy reasons. Also need some sort of Non-Disclosure Agreement for the reviewd code. Along with this we might insist that all GrandMasters/ReviewBoard must have all business relationships declared at a level such that a person seeking certification is not imparting knowledge to a business associate that they do not wish to divulge such information.

We'd also might consider incorporating the NI certification equivalent at an appropraite level.

We'd also might consider an alternate "testing" process for those who want/need to prove their prowess ... but this might not even have to be part of certification at all.

We'd also might consider that to become a GrandMaster, you might need support from at least one (or N) other GrandMasters (ie a sponsored application), as a further level of peer recognition.

We'd probably need a professional charter of "standards" that our certification process recognises for members at each level. This would aid prospective employers in what they can expect from a "certified" developer.

We'd probably need some disclaimer to avoid being sued :headbang: in this litigious world of ours, if the information were to be used by a prospective employer.

[aledain]

Having just received the list of LabVIEW champions (http://www.ni.com/devzone/lvzone/champions.htm), I realise my name was omitted from the list ;-)

I think my original idea (http://forums.lavausergroup.org/index.php?showtopic=76&hl=) has been subverted somewhat.

I still believe our own comunity based recognition would serve the community better than a corporation led one.

[Mike Ashe]

I still believe our own comunity based recognition would serve the community better than a corporation led one.

Hmm, I have to disagree (respectfully, but disagree nevertheless).

This depends partly on what you define by community what you mean by "help". If you mean the businesses who hire LabVIEW programmers, and the programmmers looking to be hired, then certification must "have some teeth in it" to be worthwhile. If you are evaluating someone for hire based on certification then you need to know that there is some rigor behind the certification process and standards. That is tough to do with a community/peer based group with no current funding behind it. It is tougher than producing quality open source code. In many fields of endeavor there exists peer certification that amounts to little more than a self admiration society and popularity points. I am not suggesting that you are suggesting that. Rather, I assume that you want a certification that carries even more weight than NI's. That is not impossible, but will not be realistically feasible until we have "board members" and people in the certification group who have consistent paid time to devote to the certification effort. Volunteer effort will not cut it.

I'm an independent consultant. Been doing this for 9 years, full time now, part time before that. I know I don't have time/budget to spend on this right now and I do not know a single consultant who does. We're all too busy finding the next project and completing the current one. In order to have certification you must have a training process. NI has sewn shut the training process with it's training centers and with certification of LabVIEW Instructors. Non of the major Alliance partners can get involved with a community certification effort for fear of loss of their NI approved training centers.

When there is a return on investment of time for a community/peer based certification, then I think we will see this. This may start to be possible in about a year. NI's original patents on LabVIEW will run out at that time and there will be a possibility of at least starting on an ANSI Std G. Once that happens (or starts to happen) then companies that have budget may dedicate some for this. We may also see government and/or academic support for a version of G that is independent of NI and which will need it's own independent certification. Once that is in the works it will make sense for the certification group to include certification for NI's version of G, LabVIEW.

I think you've got a good idea, but until another year goes by I'm not going to hold my breath.

(If I'm wrong, and a real peer certification for LabVIEW is created in the next year from this post, I will conceed I was wrong, publically and repent by buying you a :beer: at the earliest opportunity.)