Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Indeed, the proposal that launched the CDP program in 1959 suggested
that “the fi rst association to undertake a Data Processor's Certifi cate is
going to be the leading association in the data processing fi eld.”
69
Opposed to the idea that this controlling organization could be anything
but the ACM, the Executive Council of the ACM worked to undermine
the efforts of the DPMA at every occasion. In 1966 the council consid-
ered a resolution, clearly aimed at the CDP, to “warn employers against
relying on examinations designed for subprofessionals or professionals
as providing an index of professional competence.”
70
An early draft of
this document referred specifi cally throughout to the “DPMA certifi ca-
tion program.” Although the fi nal published version referred only to
unspecifi c “certifi cation programs,” the target of its attacks was obvi-
ously the CDP. Later that year the Executive Council established a
Committee to Investigate the Implications of the CDP. The fi rst order of
business for the committee was the drafting of a strongly worded objec-
tion to the use of the word professional in association with the DPMA
exam, and the wording of subsequent exam and program literature
eliminated all references to such language: CDP therefore came to stand
for “Certifi ed Data Processor, ” rather than “Certifi ed Data Professional. ”
71
Even this modest acronym was offensive to some professional groups. A
member of a SHARE (an infl uential IBM users group) panel on certifi ca-
tion was “disturbed to read [the] statement that many DPMA certifi cate
holders are beginning to use the initials 'CDP' in their titles.” Such pre-
tentious behavior, he suggested, “will quickly bring down upon DPMA
the wrath of other professions. It is probably illegal in some states. I fail
to see how it can conceivably benefi t the cause of professionalism which
DPMA and others of us are working toward.”
72
Although the DPMA
insisted that “many persons who use the CDP initials do so more to
publicize the certifi cation program” than to promote their own personal
interests, pressure from competing associations forced it to abandon
many of its more ambitious claims for the CDP program.
73
A statement
in 1966 conceded that “it would be presumptuous at this early stage in
the program to suggest that CDP represents the assurance of competence,
or that the Certifi cate should be considered as a requirement for employ-
ment or promotion in the fi eld.”
74
It is no wonder that so many employ-
ers and practitioners lost confi dence in the ability of the DPMA to
successfully administer an industry-wide certifi cation program.
An even more troublesome problem for the DPMA was resistance
from its primary constituency to its proposed educational requirements.
The original CDP announcement included a list of specifi c academic
