the profession - the computing profession at a crossroads

3
92 Computer B y any measure, the computing field enjoyed a golden era dur- ing the past decade. About two years ago, however, a rather dramatic meltdown began as harsh economic realities unfolded, causing an attendant up- heaval in the field. Suddenly, there was a glut of seasoned computing profes- sionals in the job market, and busi- nesses became disenchanted with the value of their computing investments. This newfound wisdom prompted several questions and concerns about return on investments, software’s appalling quality, the negative impact of immature and fleeting technologies, and the deeply entrenched practice of software development as art, not science. ACADEMIC IRRELEVANCE Empirical evidence reveals that fewer than 20 percent of computing professionals in the US’s financial ser- vices industry have any formal acade- mic background or training in com- puting systems. Over the past decade, project managers ignored fresh com- puting-discipline graduates, instead hiring crash-course training-center or liberal-arts college graduates with a couple of years experience in the indus- try. These managers held the view that recent computing graduates needed to go through long company-sponsored training programs and apprenticeships before they could perform useful work. On the academic and training side, institutions from universities to com- munity colleges to street corner mom- and-pop training centers expanded existing computing programs or started new ones. These programs came in many forms, partly to address the allegedly increased demand for computing professionals. Others saw this trend as an opportunity to realize their cherished dream of becoming a program director, chair, or dean. Academia, however, failed in its edu- cational mission in the name of funda- mentals versus fleeting practical knowledge. Neither academic leaders nor professional organizations such as the IEEE Computer Society and the ACM expressed concern about the enormous impact and attendant prob- lems caused by mushrooming com- puting academic programs. The fallout from this trend included a curriculum irrelevant to overall industry needs and a lack of pragmatic and enforceable curriculum standards, quality control, resources, and an iden- tity for the discipline itself. COMPUTING RENAISSANCE Today’s computing profession offers four broad employment categories: design and manufacture of com- puter hardware; development of system software, embedded systems, and general- purpose software such as database servers, toolkits, and application frameworks; • applications development with minimal programming, using con- figurable and interoperable third- party commercial off-the-shelf components; and application implementation using packaged software such as enter- prise resource planning systems. Only employers for the first two cate- gories seem to attach significance to formal academic degrees in the com- puting discipline. The third category employs more people than the others. The fourth category demands both computing technical skills and a deeper understanding of each application domain’s business processes. In addition to programming exper- tise, employers expect future comput- ing-discipline graduates to master many other skills, including systems engineering and end-to-end system architecture and its elements: security, performance, scalability, availability, reliability, supportability, manageabil- ity, and maintainability. Programming services will emerge as The Computing Profession at a Crossroads Venkat N. Gudivada, University of Michigan, Dearborn THE PROFESSION Continued on page 90 Industry and academia must work together to chart the best course for the profession’s future.

Upload: vn

Post on 22-Sep-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

92 Computer

B y any measure, the computingfield enjoyed a golden era dur-ing the past decade. Abouttwo years ago, however, arather dramatic meltdown

began as harsh economic realitiesunfolded, causing an attendant up-heaval in the field. Suddenly, there wasa glut of seasoned computing profes-sionals in the job market, and busi-nesses became disenchanted with thevalue of their computing investments.

This newfound wisdom promptedseveral questions and concerns aboutreturn on investments, software’sappalling quality, the negative impactof immature and fleeting technologies,and the deeply entrenched practice ofsoftware development as art, not science.

ACADEMIC IRRELEVANCEEmpirical evidence reveals that

fewer than 20 percent of computingprofessionals in the US’s financial ser-vices industry have any formal acade-mic background or training in com-puting systems. Over the past decade,project managers ignored fresh com-puting-discipline graduates, insteadhiring crash-course training-center orliberal-arts college graduates with acouple of years experience in the indus-try. These managers held the view thatrecent computing graduates needed togo through long company-sponsoredtraining programs and apprenticeships

before they could perform useful work.On the academic and training side,

institutions from universities to com-munity colleges to street corner mom-and-pop training centers expandedexisting computing programs orstarted new ones. These programscame in many forms, partly to addressthe allegedly increased demand forcomputing professionals. Others sawthis trend as an opportunity to realizetheir cherished dream of becoming aprogram director, chair, or dean.

Academia, however, failed in its edu-cational mission in the name of funda-mentals versus fleeting practicalknowledge. Neither academic leadersnor professional organizations such asthe IEEE Computer Society and theACM expressed concern about theenormous impact and attendant prob-lems caused by mushrooming com-puting academic programs.

The fallout from this trend includeda curriculum irrelevant to overallindustry needs and a lack of pragmaticand enforceable curriculum standards,

quality control, resources, and an iden-tity for the discipline itself.

COMPUTING RENAISSANCEToday’s computing profession offers

four broad employment categories:

• design and manufacture of com-puter hardware;

• development of system software,embedded systems, and general-purpose software such as databaseservers, toolkits, and applicationframeworks;

• applications development withminimal programming, using con-

figurable and interoperable third-party commercial off-the-shelfcomponents; and

• application implementation usingpackaged software such as enter-prise resource planning systems.

Only employers for the first two cate-gories seem to attach significance toformal academic degrees in the com-puting discipline. The third categoryemploys more people than the others.The fourth category demands bothcomputing technical skills and a deeperunderstanding of each applicationdomain’s business processes.

In addition to programming exper-tise, employers expect future comput-ing-discipline graduates to mastermany other skills, including systemsengineering and end-to-end systemarchitecture and its elements: security,performance, scalability, availability,reliability, supportability, manageabil-ity, and maintainability.

Programming services will emerge as

The ComputingProfession at aCrossroadsVenkat N. Gudivada, University of Michigan, Dearborn

T H E P R O F E S S I O N

Continued on page 90

Industry and academia mustwork together to chart thebest course for theprofession’s future.

90 Computer

T h e P r o f e s s i o n

computer science is inherently an inter-disciplinary subject with little coreknowledge to justify its distinct iden-tity. Yet others compare computer sci-ence with mathematics in that, just aswe need applications to extract practi-cal usefulness from mathematics the-ory, computer science provides theunderpinning for academic disciplinesin engineering and the sciences.Therefore, these disciplines can better

fill the role of educating computing stu-dents and designing and developingmore relevant curricula that betterreflect these students’ domain-specificneeds. The emergence of computer sci-ence courses transformed to suit anapplication-oriented context in disci-plines such as engineering manage-ment, systems engineering, biology,and physics vindicates this argument.

COMPUTING VERSUS ENGINEERINGIn a previous column (“Jobs, Trades,

Skills, and the Profession,” Computer,Sept. 2002, pp. 104, 102-103), NevilleHolmes provided an illuminating lookat how the computing profession dif-fers from the traditional engineeringbranches. According to Holmes, engi-neering clearly demarcates the rolesplayed by its practitioners, tradespeo-ple, and the resulting products’ endusers.

The computing field lacks any suchdemarcation, however. Industry viewsthe computing profession as a collectionof variegated and vacillating skills withno clear structure. Holmes argues thatwe can correct some of the issues thediscipline faces if we accept computing’sstatus as a secondary profession, onethat aids and abets other professions.

Meanwhile, software engineering isemerging as a distinct discipline whose

a commodity item, with most pro-gramming outsourced to the lowestbidder for economic reasons. The mar-ket’s current development toolkits andframeworks already sport high-levelabstractions that even some smart highschool students can use to develop sim-ple yet useful applications.

Thus, an industry renaissance infavor of developing functionally exten-sible applications has led developers todesign applications based on an archi-tectural framework with built-in exten-sibility points. These designs allow theimplementation of new functionalitywithout writing any code. Functionallyextensible systems lie somewherebetween approaches like parameter-ized and aspect-oriented programmingand enterprise resource planning sys-tems. This trend will further lessen theneed for people with no skills beyondprogramming.

RevitalizationIn addition to the recent demise of

many dot-com companies, further con-solidation in the computing industry willresult in the disappearance of some busi-nesses and the reemergence of those withclear vision, distinctive competence, andan effective strategy.

This revitalized computing industrywill demand high quality from employ-able graduates who can understand andsolve real problems and orchestrate end-to-end solutions. The responsibility forsupplying this expertise rests primarilywith academia, while industry providesan active advisory and support role.

Identity challengesThe academic front faces challenges

to the identity of the computing disci-pline in both general and computer sci-ence. The ascent to prominence ofinterdisciplinary research in bioinfor-matics, computational biology andphysics, library science, and digitallibraries has only made defining, estab-lishing, and asserting the true identityof the discipline more imperative thanever.

Some circles have even asserted that

roots lie in computer science. DavidLorge Parnas offers compelling rea-sons to support that perspective in“Software Engineering Programs AreNot Computer Science Programs”(IEEE Software, Nov./Dec. 1999, pp.19-30). Parnas cogently argues for andsubstantiates the merits of developingsoftware engineering programs inengineering departments, especially inelectrical and computer engineering.

THE UNCERTAIN FUTUREComputing professionals may soon

be held legally liable for a defectivesoftware system. Accountability andresponsibility should thus be at theheart of any professional practice.Therefore, we face a compelling needto address issues related to curriculumstructure and its standardization, itscurrency and relevance to overallindustry needs, its program quality,and the extent to which it fosters collaboration between industry andacademia.

Wake-up callAcademia must awaken to the hard

realities the computing professionalfaces in the field and then become moreresponsive and accountable.

Now that the body of knowledgehas matured and stabilized, we need todefine curricula with much more rigor,then standardize it across all institu-tions irrespective of their ability toacquire the needed resources to imple-ment that curriculum. This approachcontrasts sharply with today’s sug-gested computer science curriculamodels and accreditation standards.We must strike a balance betweenfocusing on fundamentals and impart-ing practical skills. Unfortunately,many departments lack the resourcesfor accomplishing this task.

Further, in computer science instruc-tion, a dichotomy exists between the-ory and practice. Professors frequentlytake a concept-oriented approach toteaching, compartmentalizing anypractice-based learning. Often, cap-stone courses in computer science seek

Continued from page 92

The academic front faceschallenges to the identity

of the computing disciplinein both general andcomputer science.

May 2003 91

sionals with advanced degrees, espe-cially those who have gained theirpractical insight by working in thetrenches. Similarly, few opportunitiesexist for faculty to spend their sabbat-ical time working with industry tosolve real problems.

At least part of the faculty in soft-ware engineering programs shouldpossess substantive practical experi-ence and insight—traits somewhat

more valued in engineering disciplinesthan in computer science. Institutionscommonly expect the engineering fac-ulty to possess substantial industryexperience because designing anddeveloping a real-world system posemuch greater challenges than writinga research paper. In contrast, com-puter science departments typicallyfavor publications over practical expe-rience.

Academia alone cannot extricateitself from the current situation with-out the active leadership of industryand professional organizations such asthe IEEE Computer Society and theACM. For better or worse, academi-cians dominate professional societies,thus these societies primarily reflectacademics’ needs: organizing confer-ences and publishing magazines, jour-nals, and conference proceedings.Introspection is paramount.

Mission, vision, goals, and objec-tives must all be closely examined andaligned with reality, while balancingtactical needs with long-term strategy.Some energy should be channeledaway from introducing more confer-ences and publications and into reduc-ing the explosion of more or less thesame information packaged differ-ently and appearing in a plethora offorums.

to bring coherence and consummationto the knowledge students have gainedin various courses—yet theory andpractice should be interwoven acrossthe curriculum.

This fundamental difference ininstruction style raises the question ofcomputer science and software engi-neering programs coexisting within thesame academic department. A coexis-tence scenario is desirable because itlets software engineering programsleverage computer science programs’core competency. But several factorsargue for separating the two disci-plines: curriculum structure and stan-dardization, accreditation and licens-ing, and culture clash. However,resource-related issues will force manysoftware engineering programs todebut in the coexistence scenario; theywill thus assert their own identity onlygradually.

Meaningful collaborationAcademia and industry should col-

laborate more meaningfully and pro-ductively. Although this statement hasbeen made by many, time and again,collaboration has yet to go beyondobtaining grant money and establish-ing inactive industry advisory com-mittees.

Industry views the professor as anidealist detached from reality. But sim-ply blaming academia for the field’scurrent state doesn’t ameliorate the sit-uation. Working through professionalsocieties to shape the curriculum, pro-viding real-world case studies for class-room use, establishing programsthrough which faculty can spend sum-mer and sabbatical time in industry,and exploring other avenues tostrengthen cooperation would benefitindustry.

EXPERIENCE MATTERSGenerally, academia doesn’t value

industry experience. Worse, industrysimply ignores academic experience.This hostile attitude doesn’t help theprofession’s advancement. It preventsattracting seasoned industry profes-

CERTIFICATION AND LICENSINGProfessional societies should cham-

pion both the need for and administra-tion of certification and licensing. Theyshould also liaise with government,business, and industry to educate thesesectors about the significance of hiringlicensed professionals and the processinvolved in that licensing.

Currently, the market treats the ITworkforce as disposable labor. Societiesshould actively seek to improve thestature and public image of computingprofessionals and address issues thataffect the careers of computer scienceand software engineering graduatesand practicing professionals.

The recently initiated IEEE ComputerSociety’s Certified Software Develop-ment Professional credential is a goodstep in this direction (Leonard L. Tripp,“Benefits of Certification,” Computer,June 2002, pp. 31-33). Counter-arguments to certification have beenadvanced, however, on the grounds thatpoor software quality stems from morefundamental problems than softwareengineers not all learning the samematerial (Adam Kolawa, “CertificationWill Do More Harm than Good,”Computer, June 2002, pp. 34-35).

E ducators must recognize the pro-fession’s current reality (SpencerJohnson, Who Moved My Cheese?

Putnam, 1998), forge a vision forimproving it, devise a strategy for real-izing this vision, then provide soundleadership for its implementation. If wedo not, “survival of the fittest” alonewill determine the profession’sDarwinian future. �

Venkat N. Gudivada is a visiting asso-ciate professor of computer and infor-mation science at the University ofMichigan, Dearborn. Contact him [email protected].

Editor: Neville Holmes, School of Computing, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1-359, Launceston 7250;[email protected]

Professional societiesshould champion both the

need for and administrationof certification and

licensing.