Though the GIS-P is a step in the right direction, there is still plenty of room for improvement. My question for you is: How would you suggest improving the GIS-P Certification process/evaluation?

My personal thoughts on it: currently, I believe the certification is too heavily focused on time spent in the field. It seems that almost all of the evaluation criteria reflect time commitments rather than competencies.

The other day, a co-worker was trying to explain the need/demand for having the GIS-P and suggested other parallels, including the PE. After thinking about it for a bit, it was clear to me the main difference between the PE and the GIS-P, at least in my mind – the PE tests basic competencies in the field, while the GIS-P, at best, assumes competency/quality is gained through experience and education.

More than anything, I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this, if you agree, disagree, or see other aspects of the GIS-P that could be improved. Share.

A recent article about the feelings of having a test as part of the GIS-P:

http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_id=2540