Building a Brand
I wrote this article five years ago. It was edited by Adena Schutzberg, and appeared in print in Earth Observation Magazine in April January 2005 -- that publication's last print issue. (EOM continued as an online publication until August of 2005). (Web archive copy).
I am republishing this piece on my blog in 2010 because I think all raised issues are still very valid. I find that I am not the only one wondering about the value of the acronyms after their names (I became an AICP in 1993, a GISP in 2007). I will share more of my current thinking in a follow-up to this post.
I work out with a trainer at a local gym. I like James -- he knows his stuff and pushes me hard. The other day I asked James what he thought about professional certification. "It is very important," he said. He added that his national certification from the XYZ fitness authority helps him acquire and keep clients like me. James was obviously unaware that I did not know that he held a certification. I liked him for his work.
As I was looking for an accountant recently, I opened the phone book and found several dozen listings for Certified Public Accountants (CPAs). There were no listings for non-certified accountants. I called the CPA closest to my home.
In both of these examples certification had seemingly nothing to do with my selection of services. But maybe it did. Maybe the gym only hired James because of his certification. Maybe non-certified accountants don't even bother to get listed in the phone book because of all the competition from the CPAs? Or maybe all accountants are already certified?
I am leading, of course, to the subject of GIS professional certification, much debated in our industry. A lot of questions have been running through my mind since the launch of the GIS Certification Program, administered through the GIS Certification Institute (GISCI). Questions like: Would you rather trust your GIS project to a GISP (a Certified GIS Professional) than to an acronym-deprived Ms. Jane Doe? Would you pay extra for the GISP's services? How much more? Why? Also: Whom is certification designed for? Whom does it serve -- the certified professional, the public, or someone else?
Certification and Branding
These days the word "branding" has a highly commercialized connotation. Interestingly, branding was originally implemented to protect the consumer. For that reason, branding enjoys the protection of the law. However, over the years, branding has "evolved" to a state in which it protects mainly the interests of the brand owner. Branding is now a marketing technique.
I submit that professional certification is not much different from branding. Certification implies recognition by one's peers, which branding does not. But the differences end there. The similarities are more profound, the major one being that both systems seem to exist primarily to promote the sales of services to the public, and to promote the brand itself.
The following analogy needs no explanation:
- certifier . . . certificate holder . . . public
- brand owner . . . brand distributor . . . public
- franchisor . . . franchisee . . . public
Certification and Licensing
I am a planner by education, and hold a national certification from the relevant certifying authority. The certification makes me more recognizable to the lay person, thus generally assisting the public in their selection of professionals (or so the theory goes). The certification does not allow me to practice planning in my home state of New Jersey, though. For that I need a license from the state (as does a barber in order to cut my hair and a plumber in order to fix my drain).
An interesting thing is happening within the planning profession in New Jersey right now. Planning professionals, who have qualified for national certification as part of their Professional Planner (PP) licensing process, choose not to pursue the certification. They only pursue the planning license. In marketing terms, it appears that the value of the certifying brand is eroding.
Which brings me to more questions about our own industry: Is the GISCI certification program trying to fill the state licensing void by creating a national GIS certification system? Do we know how close individual states are to implementing their own programs for licensing GIS professionals? Will those programs interplay with the current GISCI program? Will there be direct credit transfers, for example? With the implementation of state GIS licensing, will the GISP brand gain or lose value over time?
To Certify, or Not to Certify?
GISP has a nice ring to it. I think I will pass, though. Until the day the state begins to regulate my services. Then, if I am not retired, I will apply for a license.
Posted by Atanas Entchev at 1/17/2010 6:29 PM 
Categories: AICP,Planning,GISCI,New Jersey,Architect,URISA,Jobs,APA,profession,Opinion,NJAPA,GIS architect,GIS,2010,Business,blog,GISP,NJ
Tags: AICP Planning GISCI New Jersey Architect URISA Jobs APA profession Opinion NJAPA GIS architect GIS 2010 Business blog GISP NJ
Categories: AICP,Planning,GISCI,New Jersey,Architect,URISA,Jobs,APA,profession,Opinion,NJAPA,GIS architect,GIS,2010,Business,blog,GISP,NJ
Tags: AICP Planning GISCI New Jersey Architect URISA Jobs APA profession Opinion NJAPA GIS architect GIS 2010 Business blog GISP NJ
Just to be clear, I was indeed the editor of EOM until Feb 2005. But while I probably reviewed and suggested some changes to your article, so did the rest of the team, including our managing editor and copy editor. I was lucky enough then and now to have several sets of eyes to help put together the best possible content in the clearest, most grammatically correct manner.
I always thought this was among your best contributions to the industry. I look forward to the follow up!
Reply to this
I stand corrected. It took me a while, but I found the print edition of EOM I was referencing -- dated January 2005. The article is filed under April 2005 in the online archives, hence my error.
Reply to this
Novell fought this war 10+ years ago with "Paper" Engineer certifications. The paper clearly indicates you passed some tests, but what you really know is a secret between you and Novell. This was in response to non-techie managers whom send employees to test-prep (invoiced as technical training) only to have employee fail test. They complained and forced Novell to soften the questions. Microsoft, cisco and others all fell into the trap. I once interviewed a guy with an amazing list of certifications; he could not tie his shoes. How can GIS certs be any different? The acronyms sure look important and certainly must be indicative of an expert at something, but what ? and how might the expertise assist me in my specific situation ? Tough questions to answer.
Lets assume a considerable segment of business managers today, age 45 and up, will slowly phase out of technical decisions. The younger business managers will have a much better understanding of technology and what questions to ask candidates that glean the necessary understanding of they might be engaged efficiently. Too much focus is placed on the mid-life decision makers today that just don't understand technology.
This is, of course, only my opinion but I feel "certified" to say it!
Tom
Reply to this
I understand professional certification is largely symbolic. I've known brand new professionals just out of school who become certified as a soon as possible, so I know that certification can mean "I can pass a test" more than "I have experience and applied knowledge." In that sense having letters after your name is sort of like wearing a tie to a client meeting. In a professional development class on public involvement I once asked whether it was ever appropriate to dress for your audience - to dress more casually for a working class audience, for example. Another attendee, a state worker, replied "no, people expect their suits to be wearing suits."
Before I took my NJ Professional Planner exam I asked several more experienced colleagues whether I should do it. Their response was "the test is not too hard and licensing is easy to maintain, so why not." This is not to say I didn't learn a lot through studying, but I don't have high hopes for retention of knowledge I rarely use.
Reply to this
Regarding the CPA. I used to be a social worker, and I had what was known as a CSW - Certified Social Worker. That was the license in that I was limited in what I could legally do without the designation. It's been changed to LMSW (Licensed MSW) but either way, it was a license in terms of government regulation. So, perhaps you can't practice without a CPA.
Reply to this