Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
In 1974, the SCDP developed a model licensing bill and submitted it
to a number of state legislatures. According to its model legislation, no
person in a state that passes the SCDP bill could “practice, continue to
practice, offer or attempt to practice data processing or any branch
thereof” without either achieving a four-year degree in data processing
and gaining three years of related experience, or successfully completing
a certifi cation examination and fi ve years of experience. The bill also
provided a fi ve-year window in which those with twelve years of experi-
ence could be “grandfathered” into the profession. Practitioners were
granted a twenty-four-month grace period in which to acquire the neces-
sary qualifi cations. The legislation covered a wide variety of occupational
activities and titles, including any that made use of the terms “data pro-
cessing,” “data processing professional,” “computer professional,” or
any of their derivatives. The state was given the power to revoke the
certifi cation of any registrant who committed fraud, was proved guilty
of negligence, or who violated the professional code of ethics.
60
The proposed SCDP legislation is notable as the only concerted
attempt in this period to encourage government involvement in the pro-
gramming labor market. In fact, the specter of externally imposed state
regulation had been raised as a primary justifi cation for establishing
certifi cation programs in the fi rst place: since self-regulation was consid-
ered to be one of the defi ning characteristics of a profession, surrendering
control over this function to the state was essentially an admission of
defeat. Observers warned that the lack of a solution from within the
science would result in a solution imposed from without: “In several
fi elds, the lack of professional and industrial standards has prompted the
government to establish standards.”
61
Ironically enough, even the defeat
of the SCDP legislation proved humiliating to some practitioners; the
state's unwillingness to legislate data processing activities was perceived
as a slight to the entire industry's importance and reputation.
62
Although the model SCDP legislation was adopted by none of the
states to which it was submitted, the fact that it was proposed at all
reveals one of the primary shortcomings of voluntary certifi cation pro-
grams such as the CDP: the lack of effective methods of enforcement.
The inability, or unwillingness, of associations like the ACM and the
DPMA to self-regulate was widely criticized by industry observers.
Neither group had ever taken action against one of their members
accused of fraud or negligence, and both had reputations for being
unwilling to take strong positions on issues of public interest or safety.
Indeed, the DPMA was unable even to enforce the proper use of the CDP
