Skip to main content

Scrum Alliance Quietly Changes Certified Scrum Trainer Requirements

It appears the the Scrum Alliance has quietly changed the requirements for becoming a Certified Scrum Trainer (CST).

Last fall, when I was planing the transition to becoming an independent Scrum coach, I checked out the requirements for becoming a CST and was quite disillusioned to discover that a 5 year apprenticeship was required. May 2007 + 5 years = 2012. Sigh.

This goes a long way to explain why only 54 trainers have emerged from the pool of 25'000 CSMs and probably has a very positive impact (from the trainer's point of view) on the cost of certified Scrum training.

But now, the career path has been shortened. I could not find a press release, but now, according the Scrum Alliance, a CSM can apply to become a Certified Scrum Practitioner (CSP) after 1 year — this is not new. What is new is that a CSP can apply to become a CST after another year.

I think this is a good thing. First of all, the CSP rating now has a purpose in life. Before, someone like me might do it for marketing reasons, but there was no career path associated with it. Now there is clear justification for the journeyman certification (and I'm motivated to do it!).

Second, this is a sign that the demand for Scrum training (and coaching and consulting) will continue to rise (probably accompanied by a price drop, but the market will be bigger). If the demand for Scrum training were to remain constant, there would be no need to increase the pool of trainers. Call it a sign that agile is moving into the mainstream.

So my prediction: a lot more trainers, many more Scrum masters, and a lot more companies doing Scrum. (I just hope most of them really do Scrum!)


Scott Dunn said…
Thanks for the post. Didn't realize the other options outside of CSPO and CST.
Anonymous said…
Any self-respecting developer will laugh at this certification program and people sporting the title. You can't be serious thinking this will in any way help you in your career.

Popular posts from this blog

Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS?

Participants in last week's Scrum MasterClass wanted to evaluate approaches to scaling Scrum and Agile for their large enterprise. So I set out to review the available frameworks. Which one is best for your situation?

Recently a number of approaches have started gaining attention, including the Scaled Agile Framework ("SAFe") by Dean Leffingwell, Disciplined Agile Development (DAD), by Scott Ambler, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde. (Follow the links for white papers or overviews of each approach).

How to compare these approaches? My starting point is Scrum in the team. Scrum has proven very effective at helping teams perform, even though it does not directly address the issues surrounding larger organizations and teams. An approach to scaling Scrum should not be inconsistent with Scrum itself.

Scrum implements a small number of principles and constraints: Inspect and Adapt. An interdisciplinary Team solves the problem. Deliver something of va…

Sample Definition of Done

Why does Scrum have a Definition of Done? Simple, everyone involved in the project needs to know and understand what Done means. Furthermore, Done should be really done, as in, 'there is nothing stopping us from earning value with this function, except maybe the go-ahead from the Product Owner. Consider the alternative:
Project Manager: Is this function done?
Developer: Yes
Project Manager: So we can ship it?
Developer: Well, No. It needs to be tested, and I need to write some documentation, but the code works, really. I tested it... (pause) ...on my machine. What's wrong with this exchange? To the developer and to the project manager, "done" means something rather different. To the developer in this case, done means: "I don't have to work on this piece of code any more (unless the tester tells me something is wrong)." The project leader is looking for a statement that the code is ready to ship.

At its most basic level, a definition of Done creates a sh…

10 Warning Signs, that your team is not self-organizing

How do you know that self-organization is working? The Bern Chapter of Scrum Breakfast Club looked into this questions, and identified the following warning signs (which I have taken the liberty of translating).

The team reports to the Scrum Master at the Daily ScrumPeople wait for instructions from the Scrum MasterTeam members don't hold each other responsible [for their commitments]The same impediment comes up twice"That's the way it is" => resignation"I" instead of "We"Flip charts are lonelyCulture of conflict-avoidanceDecisions processes are unclear, nor are they discussedPersonal goals are more important than team goals
To this list I would add my a couple of my favorites:
you don't see a triangle on the task board (not working according prioritization of stories)after the daily Scrum, people return directly to their desks (no collaboration)there are a least as many stories in progress as team members (no pairing)
P.S. You can join the …