The Certified Scrum Master
(CSM) Certification: What People Actually Think
In late October and early November 2010 I ran the
2010 Scrum Certification survey to explore what was
happening in the industry with regards to Scrum certification.
Question # 5, of 8, asked "What do you think about the Certified
ScrumMaster (CSM) designation? For the sake of clarification, to earn
the CSM designation you must attend a CSM course (2-3 days) and then
take an online questionnaire." This article lists all of the
comments provided, organizing them in to several categories:
Note that it was possible for people to
indicate that they held zero or more Scrum certifications, but that in
the lists below I have listed a comment only once even though it may
fall into several categories. To assign a comment to a category I
first selected any CST comments, then I selected comments from any CSM,
then comments from anyone who had other certifications, then finally
comments from people who didn't indicate that they had Scrum
Comments from Certified Scrum Masters (CSMs)
- The course was great. The "exam" was a joke. I got a 100% score
in 5 (!!) minutes. I really thought the exam was an insult to my
- it's ok... oly the word certification is a bit overdone
- it was a good 2 day training. The online questionnaire was
fairly easy for me. I feel everyone can get a CSM designation, which
may make the certification meaningless. If someone uses it to sell
his Scrum knowledge, I would question about his integrity. It's an
entry level training per say.
- Useful course in that it allowed me to take time and understand
more about Scrum / agile. The certification is a little silly in
that you are not actually a master of anything when you complete the
course. I like the idea of increasingly testing my knowledge and
experience against some level of "norm" to understand where I need
to work more.
- As one of the foremost Agile thought leaders, Scott Ambler once
said, "Certification is just a start -- not a destination."
- At the time that I took the course, Ken (who was the instructor)
was pretty explicit - that a 'CSM' was no more and no less than
having spent a couple of days with him and other like minded
individuals, talking to and learning from each other (not even a
test). This still seems a reasonable way to think of it.
- Attending the course is by all mean very useful, provided some
pre-readings. It is definitely IT oriented (i.e. IT background is
extremely useful). Accreditation exam is reasonable provided some
- Certainly easier to get than my PMP!
- Certification is overrated in general. I think, it's more a
problem of those who interpret a certificate in the wrong way than
those who have a certificate.
- Certification tells me someone knows the language. Calling them
a Master is wrong - it should be something like Scrum Foundation
Certificate, not Master. I've seen a number of newly-minted CSMs who
seem to think that they truly are mastered, and become dogmatic
about their approach.
- Certifications should be based on passing an objective exam and
possibly an in-person interview or another subjective component,
such as an essay
- Confuse, sold as more than what it really implies.
- CSM doesn't mean much to me.
- CSM is almost worthless from a knowledge point of view. CSM has
some value for keyword search on resumes.
- Given the short 'training time', I think 'Certificate' and
'Master' is widely misinterpreted as someone with deep knowledge and
long experience, in spite of the fact that the actual level is
rather explicitly given on the certificate (and Scrum Alliance web
site). Nevertheless, it *is* misleading to a point where it hurts
acceptance of Scrum (IMO).
- Good intro to Scrum basics & terminology. Not enough to get
anything actual done. Confused often as being master of scrum
instead of being master of your project's scrum.
- Good two days, but only if you have a good CST. Most hiring
managers don't realize that it is pretty much a formality.
- Helps in the resume.
- I agree that!
- I completelly disagree about the CSM, I did the course because
of the leraning activities, I don't belive that a single course of 2
days can ensure that I'm a certified
- I don't agree that people should be certified after a simple
questionnaire. I have done quite a few interviews for companies and
people feel as if they are qualified to be a scrum master after just
attending the course. I was brought in to ask questions to see if
they really understood what scrum was and how to apply it.
- I don't put much stock in it. It was easy enough to get if you
have experience doing Scrum for a good period of time. I did it
mostly for resume/hiring purposes as many job postings say "CSM is a
plus" or "required". What's nice though is that it does weed out
some folks who "say" they have experience and really have nothing
close to that.
- I don't think about it.
- I don't think certifications that aren't
continually/periodically enforced with training/testing are worth
- I don't think it signifies much, I will be going for the next
level up as soon as possible.
- I don't think there are enough qualifications to earn the CSM.
The class should just be one part of it, there should also be some
practical experience required.
- I find it has limited value beyond indicating that one was
interested enough in scrum to take the time to better understand
what scrums all about, enough to spend the time and their or their
companies money to learn more.
- I find the CSM to be almost completely devoid of value. I don't
think it proves competency, much less basic comprehension. As a
result, I think the designation has done significant harm to the
advancement of certifications for a valuable purpose in our
- I had used Scrum for 10 years before attending the CSM course.
It always helps to hear someone with more experience (Jeff
Sutherland) speak about Scrum. The hands-on labs were very helpful,
- I have no problem with it. I only think it is too expensive.
- I hire Scrum Masters, User Story Specialists and Agile Coaches.
I would not hire anyone who was not a CSM or CSPO as a minimum
because it tells me that the candidate values Scrum enough to invest
in it or to convince their employer to invest in them. I know
exactly what the qualification really is, but like passing a driving
test it means that the candidate will then start to learn by doing,
having achieved an entry level qualification.
- I knew that the word Certified didn't mean much. It is
misleading, and should be dropped. But I learnd a lot, much of
which I've also put in practice, for a few years already. From that
viewpoint, the best course I've followed so far.
- I personally think the term 'master' is a wrong term. If we
whould change it to Certified Scrum Trainee, this would better
reflect the state of your knowledge at that point. Since most
people who are attending the CSM are quite new to agile & scrum in
general. The online questionnaire doesn't add any value to mee. If
someone wants to pass it, he will pass, whether or not he masters
- I thin the current CSM is not a real certification. All that is
required for certification is to attend a two day course. You
should be required to take a test to validate your competency,
- I think an official certification program is good, especially to
weed out all those people saying they're doing SCRUM or agile, while
all they're doing is meeting every day and not writing
documentation. What is dislike though is that the online
questionnaire is really lame (I guess people with decent google
skills and no SCRUM knowledge what so ever can even score a 100%). I
also think the 'must attend' course is actually harming the value of
the SCRUM certification, of course especially with the already
mentiond far-too-easy questionnaire. I guess making the
questionnaire far more complicated, maybe even with open questions,
that the certificate (and the training) would be far more valuable
- I think everyone knows that in order to be a successful CSM you
must have executed a few projects. CSM certified however shows you
have been exposed to the agile thinking and might have had some
discussions about what it is and what it is not
- I think HR uses it as a disqualifier if you /don't/ have it, but
I don't think the presence of this certificate really means much
other than you can repeat back what you hear in class.
- I think it does not provide much value because there is no
knowledge required to get the designation.
- I think it doesn't make any difference and the silly "debate"
about this, much of it generated by a few magazine and blog writers,
is irrelevant. It's about learning, not about a title. ScrumMaster
is a title, not an indication of mastery.
- I think it is a feel-good thing. I was glad I did it and
certainly learned some things, but I would never hire one person
over another due to a CSM, that is for sure!
- I think it is a great idea and fantastic introduction to Agile
Management principles - a must for all project managers new to
agile. It needs to be combined with practical experience in an agile
environment and further training (potentially the Succeeding with
Agile course which is more advanced). Just having the qualification
does not qualify you as a competent manager.
- I think it represents a minimum investment and commitment to
learning a set of Agile practices. While it seems like little
effort, it's an effort many people still opt NOT to make, and as a
result is an initial indication that a person cares about learning.
Beyond that, their experience and knowledge generally speak for
themselves. Note that I'm not talking about more in-depth
certifications to validate someone's knowledge and skills as a
trainer or coach.
- I think it sucks. There's no proof that I really know anything -
not even a reasonable expectation. In my class there was a guy who
was mostly checked out the whole time, and yet he's a CSM. The cert
is a total joke.
- I think it's OK actually. I know a lot of people think it's a
BS cert (and in a way it is) but I think the scrum alliance were
pretty shrewd in that many execs and managers only look at the title
and have zero understanding of what it means. For those guys, the
title does its job, Scrum gains some credibility, and people who
have a CSM do in fact have basic understanding of Scrum. Anyone who
does in fact know more about agile practices and frameworks is not
impressed by a certificate anyway so why should they really care
what you had to do to get it. (As a comparison, are newly minted
computer science graduates really held in any regard? They aren't
anywhere I've worked...)
- I think it's relatively meaningless. I learned more from the
books I read prior to taking the training and receiving the
certification. No one would be ready to lead a scrum project based
solely on having the certification.
- I think that it should test the student and not just be an
indicator that the trainer is doing their job properly. There is no
fail rate that I'm aware of.
- I think that there should be a test involved. Just attending a
course should not allow one to get a certification. It dilutes the
certification in my opinion.
- i think the certification is secondary the curse indeed is VERY
useful cause teacher was awesome
- I think the course is fine, the certification is not worth the
PDF it is written in
- I think the couse should not be mandatory. And I think people
should work on how this is seen in the market. Lots of companies are
hiring CSMs thinking they know Scrum a lot, and we know this is not
true. This is only the first step.
- I think the CSM has been invaluable to spread the word about
Scrum and get HR departments to fund the training. I also think that
all it can possibly certify is that one has attended a course taught
by someone with a reasonably good understanding of Scrum and
reasonably good skills to convey that knowledge.
- I think the CSM is ok. But I do feel the SA has cashed in on a
money grab and that CSM is not any more valuable than other
training. CST costs are prohibitive for me.
- I think the CSM is useful in that it indicates a minimum level
of interest in and exposure to SCRUM and Agile concepts.
- I think the main issue is that there is not a lot of actual
rigor in obtaining the certification. Adding the online
questoinnaire is a step foward but it isn't rigorous- and past
certificate holders are not required to complet it. At a minimum
some sort of test and possibly a resume/reference list might make
sense to "prove" at least some level of Agile knowledge to indicate
the CSM is not just a casual user that knows a few terms.
- I think this as no real value. It is just a proof you attended a
- I think this was a good choice. The course was very good and i
learned a lot. The online certificate was just an add-on to the
knowledge i got in the course.
- I use it because it helps with HR type folks, and it doesn't
have enough teeth to it for engineering managers.
- I was "certified" back in 2005 when all you had to do was attend
the course, so I am probably not technically still a CSM. My
opinion about the CSM is the same as all types of certifications for
"professions" such as software developer, project manager, and
business analyst: certifications are not a reliable indicator of a
person's ability in what they are certified.
- I welcomed it. I am in job transition and this credential
signals to prospective employers that I am retraining myself for
agile. By the way, I will answer #4 below regarding the
organizations I'm seeking employment with
- I'm not terribly happy with it because I feel that the Scrum
Alliance has done a poor job of staying true to Scrum as described
by its originators.
- IMHO CSM is the wrong title. It should be renamed to something
like CSN (Certified Scrum Newbie). But I still think that the CSM
courses are valuable (if the trainer is good) and a great starting
point for your agile career.
- IMHO we should not have any "certified" certificate distributed
for the Scrum Master Course as this is very confusing.
- In my case, it designates that someone has just attended to a
CSM course. the online questionaire was pro forma. I still think it
means that the intructor was an experienced agile/scrum practioner.
When I see CSM, I read that.
- In my opinion, it does not have the same weight as a
certification (like the PMP) that requires job experience and
mastery of the domain body of knowledge.
- It can help others perceive that I have a certain competency
that others who have not been certified do not have.
- It doesn't really mean much.
- It felt cheap to take the online questionnaire. It felt way to
easy to get 100% there.
- It gets the attention to minimally assure that I have gone
through the basic training
- It gives the basics but not much more. Then again, for many
people this is way too much information in a short time.
- It has been improved compared to some years ago where you need
not to pass an exam. Now you can better rely on that a CSM knows the
fundamental basics and principles of Scrum, but not more than that.
- It in and of itself is an important start to becoming an agile
practioner but by itself is utterly meaningless
- It indicates at least having been exposed to some fairly
detailed explanation on Scrum and Agile. If I am interviewing
someone, I can assume a certain level of knowledge. If that isn't
displayed I know it will be hard to get the person do be agile. If
it is, the default situation applies: no guarantee on actual skill
level. But that is true for any certification that I know of. In
other words: The certification raises expectations a little, but
that's all. For myself, I valued the course a lot, not the
certification. I don't think it has helped me getting a new job, the
Scrum experience on my resume did that.
- It is a start to a long path with the ScrumAlliance that
represents the most active and not enterprise (such as Microsoft or
IBM) dominated Agile community in the world.
- It is good, but can be mode formal like PMP certification. Now
anyone who attend the course can get certification.
- It is helpful to differentiate the people who are using Scrum as
a buzzword from people who at least have been exposed to the
concepts. However even among CSM there are differences of opinion on
if you are doing Scrum correctly.
- It is just a business of Scrum Alliance
- It is just one way of getting a little bit more understanding.
Just another training course, can be a wake up call about agile for
- it is less meaningfull to me than having experience in the role
with no certification. If i'm interviewing scrum masters, i will
rule out someone who just has the course but no experience before
someone that can demonstrate the role but does not have the
- It is much for business not so much from professional, I have to
- It is OK, it gives a lot of general guidelines but has little to
back up each of these or follow up on how you are doing. A Monkey
can pass a test, so going "PMI" is not the solution. Maybe a one
week lab with follow up, or a one week practice follow up on each of
the key aspects of a ScrumMaster would be helpful
- It is one of the most conflicting questions you can ask me. I
think it's a necessary step, if you believe you will have greater
market penetration and acceptance of Agile IF hiring managers have
something to leach onto.
- It is solid foundational information which should be understood
by a manager or anyone leading a Scrum team.
- It just a good two days training provided by some good Scrum
Trainer/Practioner, however it only makes you understand the Scrum
practices. For the begining its good but if someone thinks that
after the course s/he become expert since s/he is certified its not
- It may have more value in fed or other large
corporate/consulting. I paid for the course myself because I don't
want to become stagnate. The CSM is another reminder that I find
soft skills important
- It means you know the vocabulary and have heard about the roles
and their respective responsibilities.
- It raises the bar a little bit, but it does not increase the
overall value of the certification.
- It seems to be less rigorous than the PSM certification. I
could have "achieved" it without actually knowing anything!
- It should not be called a certification; it is merely attendance
at a very short course. The course is good, as far as it goes, but
calling it a certification is way over the top. Further, I believe
that only the less important aspects of Agile can be taught in a
course. The key things are learned thru hard experience or through
- It shouldn't be called a "certification", because it doesn't
really certify anything by attendance. I didn't have to take the
test, but from what I've seen of it, it basically only tests whether
you were sleeping or paying attention. I think that certification
has become an impediment to adoption of agile practices. At one
time, it may have been a necessary evil, but I think that time has
- It shows that you have had a training and understand the matter
from the book.
- It used to be a lot more meaningful in the early days, when one
had to be pretty leading-edge even to have heard of Scrum Master.
Now it's almost totally meaningless - but I still like and respect
- It was (and still is) a good marketing strategy for getting
Scrum and agile accepted in large corporations. I value the CSM
designation as a differentiator: if someone prominently puts the CSM
on his resume it makes me question his experience. True experienced
scrum masters don't value their CSM designation, they let their
experience speak for itself.
- It was a nice idea to get the idea of certification within Scrum
of the ground and market share. But is should now really be tiered a
bit more. I am not a fan of exams though, it generally shows you are
good at passing exams not the necessarily the subject. The problem
is also the name ScrumMaster which linked with the word Certified
assumes certain abilities. Probably mixing it in with Practioner,
Professional, Expert etc tiers it to a final Master of ScrumMastery....
- Its a good way of letting people know about your Agile
- Its a joke together certified after a class and just taking a
- It's a starting place. Certification does not necessariy show
skill, but it does show dedication to a craft and the desire to
- It's becoming like the PMP - - meaningless. I'm finding that
more clients are not interested in the certification, they are
interested in people with actual experience in using Scrum.
- It's been a wonderful marketing instrument, but calling this a
Certification has been a scam for a long time. With the online
questionnaire, the credibility of the Certification should be easier
to uphold. Interestingly, the market does not care about this
Certification being so easy to obtain; (relative) scarcity does the
rest and the CSM stands out as something interesting to add to your
resume (not that any HR person would know what CM... uh, CSM really
- It's bullshit. It is reasonable to have some way of identifying
who has basic level of Scrum knowledge, but it has to involve either
more training or experience, and a harder exam, at the minimum, It
should also probably be renamed to emphasize it represents a minimal
- It's fine, but it also depends who teaches it as well as how you
prepare. I many of the leading books, followed the blogs & then was
taught by Mitch Lacey & Jeff Sutherland which I feel made the
quality I received much better.
- It's hard to take it too seriously, as I realize that many of
the individuals who "earned it" alongside myself were less than on
board. However, these individuals can now also claim the
- It's just as good as a PMP (another certification I hold) in
terms of recognition. It doesn't say you are good or bad at it but
that you've had a minimum amount of training. Caveat emptor still
applies. However, many organizations look for it, setting it as a
bar to jump over.
- It's like with all certifications: it's just a name that PHBs
recognize. I was doing agile projects for 15 years, but got tired of
explaining what it means.
- Its okay. I am not particularly invested in it.
- It's totally nuts and worthless.
- It's wrongly called "certification". It's only a basic training
- Limited recognition and is way below PMP certification.
- Nice, but the certificate should definitely say it is a "Visited
the Course " Certificate
- Not enough. I was surprise at the shallowness of the CSM
certification process (2004).
- Open-Ended Response
- Pretty nonsensical to call this "certified" and "master". It's a
beginner's course, it should be intended to foster new ideas and to
widen the mindset, not to certify somebody.
- Professionally, it's valuable, but quite frankly there was
little core information that I gleaned out of the 3-day class I
attended that was not already available on the internet. The value
in the class for me were the exercises.
- Taking an online questionaire? Not much value to me I think.
- the "certification" has no doubt helped drive adoption of the
training and promoted Scrum adoption in the business community.
These are good things. It is a weak certification in that it doesn't
mean a whole lot in terms of understanding, but it does show that
you are at least trained, and bothered to get the training. The
majority of the better end of the industry seem to know and
- The "Master" word is usually misleading and can give a false
self-assurance to the person. Also, being "certified" just by "being
there" is ridiculous.
- The certification does not mean much to me. The problems you
will be facing when implementing scrum is much more demanding in
experience and leadership
- The certification in it self has no value. Being a practitioner
and working with Scrum and Agile in real projects is what is
counting. Certification is mainly good business for the Certified
- The certification is too easy to obtain. It is useful for
breaking through HR and executive objections to Scrum and the
certified individual. "Oh, their certified? Must be at least
looking at then."
- The course is just an introductory session and may not really
help in real world scenarios. Even the online exam is relatively
easy. The CSM is just a certification to add in the resume.
- The course was good. The certification is a sham.
- The csm courses are great.
- The CSM designation has little meaning other tahn the CSM has
been exposed to the basic ideas of SCRUM.
- The CSM training was an outstanding opportunity to get a focused
deep dive into Scrum. Also based on the number of questions in
class there is a lot of interest and engagement on the topic. For
new Scrum team this would be an outstanding chance to get a level
set of the scrum methodology, lexicon and also practice doing in a
- The designation is only to show that I attended the course.
- The designation just says you took a course. It's not
certifying the practitioner. It's certifying the course.
- The name is misleading. After just an intro course and short
questionnaire, a certificate is fine, but it should have only been
called Certified Scrum Associate or something like that. Ok, I
guess too late for that.
- the perceived value is greater than the actual value. if
someone has only taken the CSM certification course but has not read
any of the texts, or has not worked on an Agile project - i don't
think they could possibly lead an agile project or agile
- The training itself is valuable. The certificate binds people
and creates a tribe. That is the real value. Compency is no part of
it. But does that really matter if people are more motivated and
inspired with their certificate in their hands?
- The word â€˜certifiedâ€™, when used in the context of Agile
Software Development, is a filler word that has no bearing on
anything salient about individualâ€™s skills, knowledge or mindset
for agile. CSM only shows individual has completed Scrum training
(as provided by Scrum Alliance) - it is a â€˜Certificate of
Completionâ€™ for a attending a course. As such CSM does not
demonstrate experience and skill. More importantly it does not
demonstrate the culture and mind-shift change needed for agile.
Easy way for employers to filter resumes Easy for employees to get
fundamental training Easy way for organizations to â€˜marketâ€™
their credential but does not prove experience, skill or ability
- There are more 2 day courses where you get certified after
attending. The problem is that the M in CSM makes others believe
that you have reached mastery, while you just have started your
- Think certification proves absolutely nothing, and costs too
much for what it is. Though clearly, the owners of "Scum" know the
value of their branding == makes CSM's more marketable than "Agile
- To expensive for what I learn new. Is double than the price I
pay for PMP.
- Too easy, does not have any requirement to keep up to date with
new ideas. Say want you want about PMP Cert but the real benefit is
going to the local chapter meetings and getting PDUs and learning
things I can apply to Agile and talking to PMPs about Agile. CSM:
2 days of group hugs and games and suddenly I can take on an Agile
- Value highly dependent on the individual and the trainer whose
course they attended. Positively damaging to the reputation/uptake
- Very good introduction of Scrum and agile principles and
practices in a 2 day program.
- When I took the CSM there was not any questionnaire. I think it
shouldn't be any questionnaire neither a "Certified" label attached
to the ScrumMaster workshop
Comments from other holders of Scrum
Certified Scrum Novice: the certification gives a complete
wrong expectation regarding the deployability of Scrum and the actual Scrum
skills of CSMs.
I think it is more of an introduction to the community of
practice, emphasis on community. I'm not too sure there is much value in any
of the certifications as I am not sure if there is a single way to practice
scrum. I always thought it was more about principles than practice-but I'm
not certified so what do I know. From a hiring point of view (both for
employment and consulting, which is really why we get these certificates), I
would use the certification as a filter for the first round of cuts. The
certification implies an awareness of Scrum and Agile but I would be more
interested in how the candidate employed agile principles and scrum
techniques than the certification.
I would suggest that some basic prior experience must be
required by candidate for obtaining certification and also, Exam needs to at
least 3 after the course. So, we will be able to assess candidate's skills
I think that the certification should require a more
complete set of challenges. 2-3 days seems to me too simple to be a CSM
It presents knowledge about scrum to people. Doesn't mean
much if you're a developer
No, I took the course with Ken Schwaber (Scrum.org) and then
I did the exam.
It is a strategic certification to have for the future of
the project management. However, at present time, it is recommended (by
me) to either have a certification according to predictives methods
prÃ©dictives and/or to have made studies in this sense. The actual
certification, should take out IS-IT sector and open up to the other sectors
of activities... toward to a Scrum 2.0 vision (and all Scrum certification
too, I think about Scrum Product Owner in particular).
Comments from people without Scrum Certifications
- A CSM can get better credibility by omitting to mention the
- a three-day course might be helpful, but fundamentally scrum is
learned by doing it.
- A worthwhile way of proving entry level competence,
- Almost useless. We have interviewed many CSMs who have no
understanding of Scrum or Agile.
- Almost worthless, for two reasons: not able to take online exam
WITHOUT taking a CSM course = money making scheme no pass or fail
on exam = no authentication of skills, just attendance
- As a manager, I consider the main value in certifications the
dedication and commitment it shows the holder invested in the
process. A short course and informal exam show little dedication or
commitment. It is better than nothing, but not much.
- Better than nothing, but I think a certification with a real
test would be better. And there should be different levels,
according to the practice of the CSM.
- Certification is a necessary evil. The goal being to provide an
accepted and reasonable measuring stick of a person's abilities that
can be used to gauge the skills and knowledge of various candidates
for hiring purposes.
- Certification mostly used to filter the resumes, but doesn't
guarantee a person knowledge/usage of the specific subject ( Scrum,
.Net,etc) . A highly work experienced person practicing SCRUM on his
project religiously doesn't need a certification & his knowledge
will speak rather than certifications.
- CSM has made Agile look like a cheesy money-making scam.
- CSM is not a designation , SCRUM Master is. To be a Scrum
master , I see realtime hands-on experience to be the best
qualification as opposed to doing a CSM course. I know of many scrum
masters in my org who are great at SCRUM though they may not be CSMs.
- CSM is not relevant for me. What is relevant is whether the
person can effectively lead and guide the team. This drive comes
from within the person and not from external certification.
- CSM shows that a candidate has enough of an interest in the
subject matter to invest the time and money to become more
knowledgeable in Scrum. It is not a reflection of whether they have
the experience or aptitude to play the role of a Scrum Master at a
- Every certificate test how people memorize, not their
- Having a certification does not qualify you to be a ScrumMaster.
It simply means you went to the course. When I hire a ScrumMaster, I
will interview them thoroughly even if they happen to have a
- I am dubious of certifications that can be achieved through
short training courses. If certification is to exist in our industry
I would prefer some element of ongoing improvement, such as is
required in the UK medical profession where CPD points are required
to stay certified.
- I am unaware of what the term Scrum refers to. I am studying
software design and UML diagrams and have stubled upon this site.
As for the title, I think it should be called something else, as
ScrumMaster just doesn't sound quite right.
- I believe that education (of any kind) is probably beneficial,
but I doubt that certification if based only on a three day will
result in any quality lift. But on the other hand, most of the
people I have met with a Scrum certification takes it very seriously
- I believe that the training is good, but the designation of
someone being a "master" after 2 days of a training is very false.
- I believe the concept of being certified in Scrum after a 2 or 3
day course is absurd at best. Furthermore, the role of ScrumMaster
is rather important and requires more than just a short course to be
able to fully understand how to perform.
- I consider certification of any kind worse than useless,
- I do not have any first hand experience, but I have seen a lot
of discussion about CSM certification online (mostly in non-Scrum
- I do not put any value on an CSM.
- I don't give it much value as one can attend the course and
obtain the designation with little or no demonstrated aptitude and
- I regard it only as a nice to have. Following an Agile/Scrum
course and working daily according to the Agile principles is way
more important than following a CSM 2-3 days course and getting a
- I teach Agile/Lean as a consultant for over 5 years. CSM is
just "spend a day and $1200" and you get a piece of paper.
- I think certifications are questionable ways to display skills,
but may be required to land a job.
- I think could be useful for improve the abilities and the
knowledge and not for a SM job , because I believe Scrum is not
enough to build a process, and because of that a SM job is not so
useful (incomplete responsabilities)
- I think it has an overblown title. "Certified Scrum workshop
attendee" seems more truthful.
- I think it is a joke. It isn't that the course doesn't have
value but to claim someone is somehow "certified" after a 2 days
course is not serious.
- I think it is pretty useless and does not prove even minimal
understanding of Scrum process
- I think it should be in the format of PMP to gain more
- I think itÂ´s expensive and too easy to earn such certification,
comparing it to other known certifications, like PMI, Sun, Oracle
- I think that it is likely to help people get up to speed with
the technique, but certifications are often poor indicators of
competence with the technique largely due to requiring a theoretical
test of a practical skill.
- I think that training is good. I don't think it 's a substitute
for experience. I think that a lot can be learned from reading
books and blogs on the subject - there are many good ones out
there. Certficication can give the impression tjhat people know
what they are doing and sometimes nothing could be further from the
truth. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing sometimes, and
let's face it... 2-3 days of training won't give you an awful lot of
- i think the csm should be more than a 2-3 day course but should
contain some actual practical skills.
- I treat it as a indicator that the person has been on a two day
course :-) They now know more about Scrum & agile. They have had
an introduction to Scrum practices. They've not actually yet
practiced Scrum. They do yet have the skills to manage an agile team
if the CSM is the sum total of their agile experience. Generally
I'd want to explore how they came to be on a CSM and go on from
- I would think that at least the Scrum vocabulary is familiar as
well as the general ideas and process. It definitely does not show
any proven ability to execute.
- In my opinion its just a piece of paper confirming one attended
a 2-3 days course. It might serve as a competitive diferential if
you have two unexperienced candidates.
- It does not really reflect a candidates ability
- It implies you listened in class and are a good test taker.
- It is a goodd designation.
- It is valuable, but not so much.
- It isn't really a certification, but a proof of attendance of
the CSM course. It's good to have, but not at all mandatory.
- It might help organizations take Agile more seriously, and also
have a comfort level that there is someone (CSM) who knows what they
- It provides a false impression to prospective employers about
the level of knowledge, skills, and experience.
- It seems that CSM -designation is way too easy to get and it
doesn't have any value.
- It should be called an introductory training on scrum. a) it is
introductory b) its just a 2 day training c) it doesn't certify
anything since you cant fail
- It tells me someone has attended a two day course - nothing more
- It's a great course for those starting out in scrum, or even as
a refresher course. The more experienced and knowledgeable the
trainer, the more you gain from the course.
- It's a scam; you should be asked for some evidence pior
certification (eg. At least 2yrs and/or 5 projects)
- Its a way to force people to pay for classes they may not need.
I've passed the online sample test every time..without taking any
- it's useless to give someone a "master" cert without any proof
- Mandatory attendance seems like presenteeism
- Meaningless. Taking a 2-3 day course does not help you
effectively managing tasking and/or people.
- No opinion
- Not particularly relevant to being able to be a good scrum
- not very useful (from the little i know and have heard about it)
- participating in a CSM curse is fun and educating, but the
certification is rather worthless
- Probably a good idea.
- Pure theoretical certification - has little meaning in the
"real" world. Should have a practicle element to be more meaningful.
- Since no agile experience is required, CSM has little meaning.
- Sounds like a good idea.
- the course is not worthless but it does not qualify you to
perform any job decently. there is much more to it.
- They are a disgrace to the words "Certified". Attending a 2 day
training course does not make you certified of anything but being
able to attend.
- This certification is not a substitute for experience which is
hard to find. I think by reading books and implementing ideas one
can gain more than by earning a certification.
- To a certain extend this is just money making. As I've seen in
the current company I work in, teams get into Scrum quickly and PO
as well as SM should have more knowledge, especially in team
building, making retrospectives etc. than the CSM can deliver. If
there is no knowledge whatsoever, a CSM designation could be ok,
since it verifies the knowledge gained with the questionnaire.
- Very helpful for any scrummaster position.
- We do not want to work with people having such a superficial
level of 'Agile knowledge' that the only thing they can show for it
- When recruiting this is a nice to have currently, but I would
still hold agile experience higher than the certification on it's
- why taking the designation that seriously? why can't just take
it as a completion of a classroom learning? So CSM is about 2-3
days of learning. Someone willing to spend the effort to meet
trainers and learn about what it is. Classroom learning is
good... and it's no use hammering the certification.
- Worthless. Has zero correlation to skills and knowledge.
- You follow a course and get certified and although you will
learn a lot about SCRUM, it makes me think it's all about earning
money. At least a normal test should be passed.
Comments from Certified Scrum Trainers (CSTs)
I think the CSM designation provides a consistent and
predictable standard for a core education on the Scrum framework. I think
the CSP designation provides a consistent and predictable standard for
representing experience in applying Scrum. I think the CST and CSC provide a
consistent and predictable standard for guide-level experienced
practitioners who have the ability to teach and coach others in learning and
applying Scrum. Taken together, the Scrum Alliance is providing a strong
learning journey for individuals and organizations for learning, applying
and adapting Scrum.
I would like it to be more rigorous, but I think that no
matter what happens to it, there will be a large population who take shots
at it. I do not consider it to be a measure of anything other than whether
or not a person has demonstrated that they "should" have enough basic
knowledge to be a part of the conversation. With respect to that, I think it
is fine, but I'd like to see more advanced levels added.
I feel the focus should move towards practitioner level
certifications based on actual experience.
It certifies that a person knows the basics of being a
ScrumMaster. It does not imply they have experience or will be successful in
It is OK as an entry level certification.
What a bogus question. The CSM designation is a
certification that you attended and that you reviewed what you learned and
were given suggestions on what you needed to get more information on. Unlike
the the industries that flourish around other certifications such as Law,
Finance, Accounting, and Project Management where your memorization and
regurgitation skills count more than learning self discipline and self
respect and accountability, the Scrum Certification frame is transparently
simple and honest. Come, and join an interactive class, learn the basics and
get recognized for that, then take a quiz and find out what you need to
learn more about. Got anything like this for modeling or architecture?
It serves as an excellent introduction to Scrum, and an
increasingly valuable industry credential.
It's fine, people understand what it takes to become a CSM.
This book, Disciplined Agile Delivery: A Practitioner's Guide to Agile Software Delivery in the Enterprise describes the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) process decision framework.
The DAD framework is a people-first, learning-oriented hybrid agile approach to IT solution delivery. It has a risk-value delivery lifecycle, is goal-driven, is enterprise aware, and provides the foundation for scaling agile.
This book is particularly important for anyone who wants to understand how agile works from end-to-end within an enterprise setting.
Data professionals will find it interesting because it shows how agile modeling and agile database techniques fit into the overall solution delivery process.
Enterprise professionals will find it interesting beause it explicitly promotes the idea that disciplined agile teams should be enterprise aware and therefore work closely with enterprise teams.
Existing agile developers will find it interesting because it shows how to extend Scrum-based and Kanban-based strategies to provide a coherent, end-to-end streamlined delivery process.
We actively work with clients around the world to
improve their information technology (IT) practices,
typically in the role of mentor/coach, team lead, or trainer. A full
description of what we do, and how to contact us, can be
found at Scott W.
Ambler + Associates.