Reading other candidates’ comments and looking at the dates, I’m struck by how little has changed in this certification system over time. For years, those who undertake this path face the same difficulties, with issues that reoccur with surprising and concerning regularity, and without any real signs of improvement.
The questions are often unclear, sometimes ambiguous, more like trick questions from a quiz show than assessments designed for a professional context. It’s no surprise, then, that evaluations sometimes seem unexpected or inconsistent, leaving legitimate doubts that unfortunately remain unanswered.
When trying to seek clarification, one invariably encounters the barrier of “confidentiality,” which ends up feeling more like a justification to avoid any form of discussion than a true safeguard of the process.
In fact, the answers provided through the official channel often carry a merely formal weight: they invariably confirm the correctness of the evaluation but do not accept any form of feedback or constructive dialogue.
The only option that is sometimes granted to candidates is to retake the exam. However, while this comes at no real cost to the provider, for the candidate (and possibly their employer), it means lost time, missed job opportunities, and delays that no one will ever compensate for.
All of this happens without even a real opportunity to discuss the substance of the initial evaluation.
In the absence of open and transparent communication, even the recognition of the work done and the right—fundamental, in my opinion—to receive understandable, consistent, and proportionate feedback, is lost.
In my case, for example, I encountered unexpected problems of all kinds, both technical—with an environment that on more than one occasion was not fit for purpose (as demonstrated by two retakes being granted)—and in terms of clear inconsistencies in the final scoring. I found myself, in two different exam sessions, with the exact same task and the same level of partial completion. Yet in one session, 33% of the work was recognized, while in the other, the same task was given 0%.
This, along with an equally puzzling score on another task, cost me the entire exam by just a few points. Quite difficult to accept under these circumstances.
Beyond any considerations about the evaluation method—which we know is a complex matter—this is about fairness and consistency: if two identical situations are treated in completely different ways, something is clearly wrong.
But there’s no way to respond, no way to clarify. It’s deeply disappointing, because from a company of this level, I expected much better quality and transparency.
Needless to say, even in this case, no logical explanations were provided. Probably to avoid calling into question the overall credibility of the system, legitimate concerns from the candidate are brushed aside without a real response. And of course, no reconsideration is ever possible—even when faced with obvious inconsistencies.
I don’t want to be mistaken for someone who simply enjoys criticizing. On the contrary, I would like to believe that the feedback we offer could be genuinely heard and, if valid, used to improve the service. But given the lack of change mentioned at the beginning of this post, I strongly doubt that such interest exists.
I honestly think it’s a shame, because the products offered are solid. But they could be so much more valuable if supported by an exam process that is more open, consistent, meritocratic, and willing to listen. Instead, the feeling is of a closed mechanism, where there is no room for external voices or viewpoints that differ from those who control the rules—rules that often remain both unchallengeable and undisclosed.
Fortunately, certification is not always necessary.
With humility—but also with nearly 30 years of experience working with high-profile companies and clients—I can say that I’ve worked successfully without ever needing anything beyond real skills. If a client does not require certification as a formal prerequisite, it’s entirely possible to work effectively without having to submit to a system that, in the end, doesn’t seem truly merit-based. A system which, in the way it is managed, appears more aimed at generating steady revenue thanks to a sort of monopoly than at delivering tangible added value to those who participate.
In many cases, pursuing this certification is simply a mandatory step dictated by the needs of companies that require it in order to assign a resource. Essentially, a self-sustaining business model...
Apologies if I’ve been long-winded, but I’ve read several posts here with great attention and have personally experienced the very same situations...
These are just my thoughts and direct experiences—nothing more, whether you agree with them or not.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts, whatever they may be.
-- Stefano
