Just to clarify, in the original thread where this idea was mooted, I also said I was generally against two-tier systems, but in the situation where I was delaying applying for more lucrative job roles until my CCSP was officially endorsed and could be listed on my resume without any caveats, of course I would have opted for the fast track if one was available!
However, I absolutely agree the root cause of the frustrations should be addressed before going down a two-tier route, and that's the processing delays. No one has been able to provide a good reason why the CCSP endorsement for an existing CISSP can't be automated and instantaneous, and as I pointed out in the previous thread, that would free up resources to process other endorsement applications and help them get the queue down.
In terms of being aware of the processing times when I applied, upon submission of my application I was advised the process would take up to 6 weeks. Even now, 6 weeks and 6 days after I submitted my application, I haven't received any other related correspondence, and I'm still waiting for endorsement. However, I know from the other thread and from viewing the endorsement section of the website the process is now stated to be 8 weeks. So, for me, it really is an issue of managing expectations. Had I been told 8 weeks at the outset I wouldn't have anything to moan about!
The official line is the additional 2 weeks of stated waiting time is due to an increase in applications. Although, in the other thread someone said the extra delay was due to the queue having been suspended for 2 weeks during an upgrade of the system. This is particularly galling if true.
From reviewing other forums where people are tracking endorsement wait times, the queue is running at pretty much exactly 7 weeks, so hopefully I only have 1 more day to wait!
Implementing a multi-tier system appears to be a reaction to the symptom rather than the disease, at first glance. Of that disease (the delayed endorsement process - which appears to be worsening) @AlecTrevelyan and I have provided considerable input in other threads about the issue, though I cannot speak for him (or anyone else).
Like Alec and others, I would not have been in favor originally. However, the inability of (ISC)2 to complete an endorsement in the original 4 to 6 weeks, which extended to 8 weeks upon actual submission the same day, and which is actually taking longer - according to some reports - has consequences beyond annoyance for some members. It is costing considerable sums of money, for which the member will no longer be reimbursed by the organization they work for. For others, the potential of a lost job opportunity looms large.
Yes, you may say that a company that refuses to reimburse an employee for circumstances beyond their control is acting unfairly, but the company may point out that the uncertainty of time is not something they can keep the books open for indefinitely, particularly at the end of the year.
Based on the originally announced 4 to 6 week endorsement time frame, a CISSP credentialed candidate that submitted the endorsement package for the CCSP in October, or earlier, should have had faith that things would have been processed in time for reimbursement.
A new member that requires confirmation of their work history may certainly take longer, but I am a CISSP credential holder in good standing, and the endorsement website recognized that immediately. If as I understand it, the only task to perform when a package like this arrives is to send the candidate an email to verify their name for the certificate and the physical address to mail it to, then what is the delay in getting that confirmation email?
One need not pay extra for a faster response, however, it is a sound business practice to divide the incoming endorsement packages into "level of effort" groups. Considering a grocery store checkout process, the customer has three options. There is no difference in the price of groceries between the options.
These options have evolved over the years for the store's financial benefit, not the customer's. The secondary benefit - which is touted as being for the customer - is that if you only have a small number of items, or are comfortable with self-service, you have options which didn't exist when I was younger. This appears to offer improved customer service. Admittedly, it doesn't always work as well in practice, but the result overall has been a reduction in costs for the store, and more options for the customer. More options translates into one component of creating a more satisfied customer.
The self-service model may require another "upgrade" at (ISC)2, and we, as members, are not having a good experience since the last one was implemented, as so many postings indicate. Therefore I personally would be leary of it until (ISC)2 demonstrates that they can do a better job of project management. In the interim, performing some traffic management to divide incoming packages like mine into an express lane would not make the endorsement process less thorough. (In the grocery store every item at the express lane is tallied, just like in the full-service lanes.)
You may call this a multi-tiered, or "fast lane," approach but remember that I'm not advocating having a member paying more to get into an express or self-service lane.
With that said, and knowing what I know now, had an option to pay been available, I would have gladly chosen it because without it as of the day after Christmas I'll have been waiting 9 weeks and will absorb an expense of several thousand dollars.
> CyberLead (Newcomer II) posted a new reply in Certifications on 12-24-2018 05:19
> Considering a grocery store checkout process, the
> customer has three options. There is no difference in the price of groceries
> between the options. Option A is the full service checkout line. At my
> store this is for customers purchasing more than 15 items and want a human
> cashier. Option B is the express line for those with 15 items or less that also
> want a human cashier. Option C is a self-service area without human cashiers
> (just one human to step in and resolve issues at any of the 8 point-of-sale
> terminals). The number of items doesn't matter. These options have
> evolved over the years for the store's financial benefit, not the customer's.
> The secondary benefit - which is touted as being for the customer - is that
> if you only have a small number of items, or are comfortable with
> self-service, you have options which didn't exist when I was younger. This
> appears to offer improved customer service. Admittedly, it doesn't always work
> as well in practice, but the result overall has been a reduction in costs for
> the store, and more options for the customer.
The Invisible Hand of Adam Smith.
(I wonder why more people don't find that idea faintly creepy ...)
Merry Exmas to all.
====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
The newest computer can merely compound, at speed, the oldest
problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the
communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to
say and how to say it. - Edward R. Murrow
Circling back to the original thought....
Would you pay extra (perhaps $20) to reduce your wait-time to 5-7 days, presuming (ISC)² used the revenue to pay for additional certifiers?
The original goal was must faster turnaround to accommodate those who can't afford to wait even a month. The better analogy is a convenience store vs a big-box store. Nobody expects to save money buying a soda at a gas-station, but they do expect it much quicker than even walking into the big-box store.
Often, the proposals boil down to "let me cut in line". The original proposal was is a bit different -- funding an overall increase in capacity with the most obvious benefit helping those paying the most.