The Certified Scrum Master (CSM) Certification: What People Actually Think

• From CSMs
• From Other Certification Holders
• From Non-Certified People
• From CSTs

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 certifications.

• 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 intellectual capabilities.

• 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 further studies.

• 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.

• Fine

• 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 much.

• 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 industry.

• 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, too.

• 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 the subject.

• 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 and meaningful.

• 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 CSM session

• 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 some.

• 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 certification

• It is much for business not so much from professional, I have to admit

• 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 correct.

• 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 mentoring.

• 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 passed.

• 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 the course.

• 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 capability

• Its a joke together certified after a class and just taking a test.

• It's a starting place.  Certification does not necessariy show skill, but it does show dedication to a craft and the desire to improve.

• 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 means ;)

• 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 level "achievement".

• 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 designation.

• 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 on Scrum.

• 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 appreciate this.

• 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 Scrum Instructors.

• 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 non-work environment

• 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 transformation

• 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 ‘certified’, when used in the context of Agile Software Development, is a filler word that has no bearing on anything salient about individual’s skills, knowledge or mindset for agile.  CSM only shows individual has completed Scrum training (as provided by Scrum Alliance) - it is a ‘Certificate of Completion’ 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 ‘market’ 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 journey.

• 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 Project Facilitators"

• 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 project.

• useless

• Value highly dependent on the individual and the trainer whose course they attended. Positively damaging to the reputation/uptake of agile.

• 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

• A CSM can get better credibility by omitting to mention the certification

• 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 high level.

• Every certificate test how people memorize, not their understanding/knowledge

• 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 certification.

• 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, including csm

• I do not have any first hand experience, but I have seen a lot of discussion about CSM certification online (mostly in non-Scrum Agile circles).

• 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 experience.

• 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 diploma.

• 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.  Worthless.

• 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 credibility .

• I think it´s expensive and too easy to earn such certification, comparing it to other known certifications, like PMI, Sun, Oracle and Microsoft.

• 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 knowledge.

• 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 there.

• 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.

• Interesting

• Interesting

• It does not really reflect a candidates ability

• It implies you listened in class and are a good test taker. Nothing else.

• 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 are doing.

• 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 class.

• it's useless to give someone a "master" cert without any proof of experience.

• 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 master

• 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 is CSM.

• When recruiting this is a nice to have currently, but I would still hold agile experience higher than the certification on it's own.

• 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.

• Agile Certification: Are You Certifiably Agile?
• Agile Certification (SCAM)
• Coming Soon: Agile Certification
• Surveys into Agile Development and Data Management
• Why Agile Software Development Works: Improved Feedback

Copyright © 2010-2012 Scott W. Ambler

This site owned by Ambysoft Inc.