In this Simple Talk opinion piece, Microsoft certification veteran Dr Greg Low considers – and shares his thoughts on – the recent announcement that many role-based Microsoft certifications are being retired.

Microsoft have announced that many role-based certifications are being retired. I strongly disagree with this policy in the way it’s implemented. The retirement of these certifications does not make sense to me at all. 

As can be seen in the announcement, Microsoft explains it this way: 

Technology changes faster every year. To keep our credentialing program relevant, we continually review our Applied Skills scenarios and Certifications to ensure they reflect the latest skills and Microsoft technologies, and retire those that are no longer relevant.

But first: what is a role-based certification? 

The whole point of a role-based certification is that is relates to the person’s role – not to the required knowledge at a specific point in time. To me, it’s irrelevant whether the latest skills have changed. The issue is whether the role has changed to a different one. In my view, a role-based certification should just evolve as the requirements of the role evolves.

Ask yourself: do roles still exist for Azure Developers, or Azure Data Scientists, or Azure AI Engineers, or Azure Security Engineers? 

Of course they do. 

So why, then, are these role-based certifications being retired? Now, I understand the compulsion to push AI into everything, and it’s fine that the role now requires AI knowledge…but so what? 

The role itself still exists. So the role-based certification shouldn’t be retiring. 

Why role-based certifications are important

Prior to role-based certifications, we had versioned certifications related to products and services. Many SQL Server readers would remember having developer and DBA exams that targeted a specific version of SQL Server and then, a few years later, there would be developer and DBA exams for another version of SQL Server when it was released. 

There were many arguments against this. The biggest issue was that the exams would always focus on what was different in the new version. That meant that the exams were fine as ‘upgrade’ exams, but they didn’t focus on how people used said version in the market. They didn’t focus enough on all the things that people needed to know.

This made the exams less useful to employers.

The certifications needed to focus on the role that people needed to fill, rather than on versions of a product – which is exactly where role-based certifications came in. It also meant that the certifications required a broader knowledge. Perhaps, for example, you needed to know about operating system administration as well as SQL Server administration. 

Role-based certifications should just evolve, not expire 

With a role-based certification, changes in the level of knowledge required should just be reflected in updates to the requirements for membership of the certification. This would mean newcomers would need to have enhanced – or different – levels of knowledge. Perhaps even prompting a change in the actual exams that need to be passed for certification.

For existing members, though, it should just change the knowledge required for re-certification. 

Take this example from my local area: if a plumber is already certified but the government now decides that the plumber must know about ‘Regulation ABC’, the plumber simply has to learn about ‘Regulation ABC’. That’s it.

Perhaps we require them to recertify (or even examine them) regarding it. But we don’t tell all the existing plumbers that they aren’t plumbers anymore, and that they now need to become ‘Regulation ABC’ Plumbers. And this is no different to so many other professions that have ongoing development requirements. 

Retiring certifications

We certainly shouldn’t now be constantly ditching role-based certifications just because we just want people to have some different knowledge to retain it. After all, the roles still exist! Essentially, it now means that certifications target versions of knowledge rather than targeting the roles people fill. 

And this applies to so many of the certifications in the Microsoft list. 

Are we really saying that an Azure Security Engineer role doesn’t exist now? Or a Power Platform Solution Architect Expert? Or an Azure Data Scientist or Azure AI Engineer? Sorry, but that’s just not sensible. Not to mention that many of these are relatively recent roles. 

I think Microsoft have lost the point of role-based certifications. Recertification was meant to be what kept them relevant – not retirement, or replacement, of the certifications.

These changes will devalue the certifications in the market, greatly increase the cost in maintaining them, and remove much of the value in achieving them in the first place. I really think the changes need to be reconsidered.   

Unnecessary confusion

The other issue I want to call out here is the confusion around the fundamentals-level exams. These are not role-based certifications.

People taking fundamentals exams were told that they were a ‘one-off’, and that they had ‘no recertification requirements.’ So, the assumption was always that people would pass fundamentals exams as a first step, and then their knowledge would grow from there. And, as knowledge requirements change, the contents of the exams would change accordingly.

Well, this doesn’t seem to be the case, as the changes Microsoft have announced are even more confusing in relation to these fundamentals exams. Take Azure AI Fundamentals, which is being retired and replaced with…Azure AI Fundamentals.

Yes, you read that correctly. 

We’re now going to tell people who took that exam, that it no longer is valid, and they need to take another exam with the exact same title.

Again, the only thing changing should be the contents of the exam. Why isn’t this the case?

Do you agree? Disagree? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.