@njpsu wrote:I think ISC2 management needs to do a much better job at vetting these major changes WITH membership not AT membership.
I'd be shocked if this was a management decision. Anything that creates or changes certification should be a board decision as it ostensibly impacts the definition of "member." (Really should be a membership one, but that is a different debate/bylaw).
As others have noted, these concentrations never took off. I think part of the problem is that if you had an interest in these concentrations, you were probably already in that specialized role to begin with. I think years ago, the path was you already were an architect, engineer, manager and then earned your CISSP. In that regard, the target audience for these credentials probably had some additional feathers in the cap (PMP, CCMP, CEM, etc.) that could validate their skills.
I suspect the discussion that happened at the board level at some point in the not too distant past was that our membership was too flat; we "needed" more vertical options. We're pulling in a million people at the low end with the CC and now transitioning these CISSP concentrations into distinct upper end credentials. Tthey are now a distinct a higher level of achievement and that creates more vertical options.
To that I say "to what end." We were a financially stable, successful organization. We did not need to expand our menu of membership. Ostensibly, the board has changed the definition of membership, which at one time was centered on the CISSP. And the response from our peers on the board has to been to deem member counts as classified information. So this change, we won't really know if it is working until the board, which essentially elects itself, decides to tell us what they want us to know. Real good example to set for the security industry (yes, I am pursuing my CSP - Certified Sarcastic Professional).
