Enterprise IT architect certifications appear most often at the apex of certification programs, where less than 1% of IT professionals ultimately ascend. Even so, many IT architect certifications are available, and you don’t need to invest in one certification sponsor’s vision to reach the top.
Many IT certifications in this area fall outside vendor umbrellas, which means they are vendor-neutral or vendor-agnostic. Nevertheless, the number of vendor-specific IT certifications exceeds vendor-neutral ones by a factor of more than 2 to 1. That’s why we devote the last section of this article to all such credentials, as we encountered them in search of the best enterprise architect certifications.
For IT pros who’ve already invested in vendor-specific certification programs, credentials at the architect level may indeed be worth pursuing. Enterprise architects are among the highest-paid employees and consultants in the tech industry.
Enterprise architects are technical experts who are able to analyze and assess organizational needs, make recommendations regarding technology changes, and design and implement those changes across the organization.
The national average salary per SimplyHired is $130,150, in a range from $91,400 to a whopping $185,330. Glassdoor reports $133,433 as the average. Ultimately, the value of any IT certification depends on how long the individual has worked and in what part of the IT patch.
Becoming an enterprise architect is not easy. While the requirements may vary by employer, most enterprise architects have a bachelor’s degree or higher in a computer-related field along with 5-10 years of professional work experience. Many enterprise architects obtain additional certifications past graduation.
Certifications are a great way to demonstrate to prospective employers that you have the experience and technical skills necessary to do the job and give you a competitive edge in the hiring process. Certification holders also frequently earn more than their uncertified counterparts, making certifications a valuable career-building tool.
Below, you’ll find our top five certification picks. Before you peruse our best picks, check out the results of our informal job board survey. Data indicates the number of job posts in which our featured certifications were mentioned on a given day. The data should give you an idea of the relative popularity of each of these certifications.
Certification | SimplyHired | Indeed | LinkedIn Jobs | LinkUp | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AWS Certified Solution Architect (Amazon Web Services) | 1,035 | 464 | 2,672 | 240 | 4,411 |
CTA (Salesforce) | 303 | 787 | 3,201 | 353 | 4,644 |
ITIL Master (Axelos) | 641 | 848 | 1,218 | 1,119 | 3,826 |
TOGAF 9 (The Open Group) | 443 | 730 | 271 | 358 | 1,802 |
Zachman Certified – Enterprise Architect (Zachman) | 86 | 107 | 631 | 252 | 1,076 |
Making its first appearance on the leaderboard is the Certified Solutions Architect credential from Amazon Web Services (AWS). AWS, an Amazon subsidiary, is the global leader in on-demand cloud computing. AWS offers numerous products and services to support its customers, including the popular Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) and Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2). AWS also offers numerous cloud applications and developer tools, including Amazon Comprehend, Amazon SageMaker Batch Transform and Amazon Lightsail.
AWS offers certifications at the foundation, associate and professional levels across five role-based categories: architect, developer, operations, cloud and specialty certifications. Foundation-level certifications validate a candidate’s understanding of the AWS Cloud and serve as a prerequisite to AWS specialty certifications. Foundation certifications are a recommended starting place for those seeking higher-level credentials.
Associate credentials typically have no prerequisites and focus on technical skills. They are required to obtain professional-level certifications, which are the highest level of technical certification available. Specialty certs, meanwhile, focus on skills in targeted areas.
AWS currently offers the following credentials:
The AWS Certified Solutions Architect credential is available at the associate and professional levels. The associate credential targets candidates with at least one year of experience architecting and implementing solutions based on AWS applications and technologies. AWS updated the associate-level test in February 2018 to include architecture best practices and new services.
The AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional certification targets senior AWS architects who can architect, design, implement and manage complex enterprise-level AWS solutions based on defined organizational requirements. Candidates should have a minimum of two years’ direct experience deploying and designing on the AWS cloud and be able to translate organizational requirements into solutions and recommend best practices. The associate credential is a mandatory prerequisite.
Certification name | Certified Solution Architect – Associate
Certified Solution Architect – Professional |
---|---|
Prerequisites and required courses | Associate: One year of hands-on experience recommended, AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner
Professional: Certified Solution Architect – Associate credential plus a minimum of two years of hands-on experience |
Number of exams | Associate: One test (65 questions, 130 minutes to complete)
Professional: One test (170 minutes to complete) |
Certification fees | Associate: $150 (practice test $20)
Professional: $300 (practice test $40) |
URL | https://aws.amazon.com/certification/ |
Self-study materials | AWS makes trial questions, practice exams, test guides, whitepapers and more available on the certification home page. |
CTA: Certified Technical Architect
In 1999, Salesforce revolutionized the world of CRM when it introduced the concept of using the cloud to provide top-notch CRM software. Today, Salesforce has more than 150,000 customers, making it the industry leader for CRM enterprise cloud platforms. Currently, Salesforce offers solutions for various focus areas, including sales, service, marketing, commerce, engagement, community, productivity (Quip), platform and ecosystem, integration, analytics, enablement, internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence, mobility, and industry (financial and health).
To meet industry needs for qualified and experienced professionals with the skills necessary to support its growing customer base, Salesforce developed and maintains a top-tier certification program. It offers many paths to candidates, including for administration, app building, architecture and marketing.
Salesforce Architect certifications are hierarchical, with most (but not all) lower-level credentials serving as prerequisites for more advanced credentials. At the top of the certification pyramid is the highest credential a Salesforce professional can earn – the Certified Technical Architect (CTA), which is our featured Salesforce certification.
The Salesforce Architect certification pyramid has three levels:
Salesforce requires CTAs to maintain current skills. Credential holders must pass maintenance module exams with each new product release cycle (typically in summer, winter and spring). While challenging to earn, the CTA is important for IT professionals who are serious about a Salesforce technologies career.
Certification name | Certified Technical Architect (CTA) |
---|---|
Prerequisites and required courses | Salesforce Certified Application Architect and Salesforce Certified System Architect credential:
|
Number of exams | One test (four hours to complete; candidates must formulate, justify and present recommendations based on a hypothetical scenario to a review board) |
Certification fees | $6,000
Retake fee: $3,000 |
URL | http://certification.salesforce.com/technicalarchitect |
Self-study materials | Salesforce maintains links on the certification webpage to numerous review materials, including the online documentation, tip sheets, user guides, exam guide and outline, Architect Journey e-books, Trailhead trails, and the Salesforce Certification Guide. |
ITIL Master Certificate – IT Service Management
One of our favorite credential sets (and for employers as well, judging by job board numbers) is the ITIL for IT Service Management credentials from Axelos. Axelos is a global provider of standards designed to drive best practices and quality throughout organizations. ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) joined the Axelos family in 2013.
Axelos manages ITIL credentialing requirements and updates, provides accreditation to Examination Institutes (EIs), and licenses organizations seeking to use ITIL. In addition to ITIL certifications, Axelos offers credentials for Prince2 2017 (which includes Foundation, Practitioner and Agile qualifications), Prince2 Agile, Resilia, MSP, MoP, M_o_R, P30, MoV, P3M3 and AgileSHIFT.
ITIL is a set of well-defined and well-respected best practices that specifically target the area of IT service management. There are more than 2 million ITIL-certified practitioners worldwide. ITIL is perhaps the most widely known and globally adopted set of best practices and management tools for IT service management and support.
Axelos maintains a robust ITIL certification portfolio consisting of five ITIL credentials:
Axelos introduced ITIL 4 in early 2019. ITIL 3 practitioners should check the Axelos website frequently for updates about the transition to ITIL 4 and availability of the ITIL 4 transition modules.
The ITIL Master is the pinnacle ITIL certification, requiring experience, dedication, and a thorough understanding of ITIL principles, practices, and techniques. To gain the ITIL Master designation, candidates must have at least five years of managerial, advisory or other leadership experience in the field of IT service management. They must also possess the ITIL Expert certification. Once the skill and certification requirements are met, the real certification work begins.
Upon completing the prerequisites, candidates must register with PeopleCert, the sole approved Axelos Examination Institute, and submit an application. Next, candidates prepare and submit a proposal for a business improvement to implement within their organization. The proposal submission is followed by a “work package,” which documents a real-world project that encompasses multiple ITIL areas.
The work package (1) validates how the candidate applied ITIL principles, practices, and techniques to the project; and (2) documents the effectiveness of the solution and the ultimate benefit the business received as a result of the ITIL solution. Finally, candidates must pass an interview with an assessment panel where they defend their solution.
Axelos will soon be sponsoring 50 lucky people in their quest to obtain the ITIL 4 Master certification. You can register your interest in the program here.
Certification name | ITIL Master Certificate – IT Service Management |
---|---|
Prerequisites and required courses | ITIL Expert Certificate: Five years of IT service experience in managerial, leadership or advisory roles |
Number of exams | No test required, but candidates must complete the following steps:
|
Certification fees | $4,440 if all ITIL credits obtained through PeopleCert
$5,225 if some ITIL credits were obtained from other institutes |
URL | https://www.axelos.com/certifications/itil-certifications/itil-master |
Self-study materials | Axelos provides documentation to guide candidates in the preparation of proposal and work package submissions. Available documents include ITIL Master FAQs, ITIL Master Proposal Requirements and Scope, and ITIL Master Work Package Requirements and Scope. |
A leader in enterprise architecture, The Open Group’s standards and certifications are globally recognized. The TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) standard for enterprise architecture is popular among leading enterprise-level organizations. Currently, TOGAF is the development and architecture framework of choice for more than 80% of global enterprises.
TOGAF’s popularity reflects that the framework standard is specifically geared to all aspects of enterprise-level IT architectures, with an emphasis on building efficiency within an organization. The scope of the standard’s approach covers everything from design and planning stages to implementation, maintenance, and governance.
The Open Group offers several enterprise architect credentials, including TOGAF, Open CA, ArchiMate, IT4IT and the foundational Certified Technical Specialist (Open CTS).
The Open Group reports that there are more than 75,000 TOGAF-certified enterprise architects. At present, there are two TOGAF credentials: the TOGAF 9 Foundation (Level 1) and TOGAF 9 Certified (Level 2). (The TOGAF framework is currently based on version 9.2, although the credential name still reflects version 9.)
The TOGAF 9 Foundation, or Level 1, credential targets architects who demonstrate an understanding of TOGAF principles and standards. A single test is required to earn the Level 1 designation. The Level 1 test focuses on TOGAF-related concepts such as TOGAF reference models, terminology, core concepts, standards, ADM, architectural governance and enterprise architecture. The Level 1 credential serves as a steppingstone to the more advanced TOGAF Level 2 certification.
The TOGAF 9 Certified, or Level 2, credential incorporates all requirements for Level 1. Level 2 TOGAF architects possess in-depth knowledge of TOGAF standards and principles and can apply them to organizational goals and enterprise-level infrastructure. To earn this designation, candidates must first earn the Level 1 credential and pass the Level 2 exam. The Level 2 test covers TOGAF concepts such as ADM phases, governance, content framework, building blocks, stakeholder management, metamodels, TOGAF techniques, reference models and ADM iterations.
Candidates wanting a fast track to Level 2 certification may take a combination exam, which covers requirements for both Level 1 and 2. Training is not mandatory for either credential but is highly recommended. Training classes run 2-5 days, depending on the provider and whether you’re taking the combined or single-level course. The Open Group maintains a list of approved training providers and a schedule of current training opportunities on the certification webpage.
Certification name | TOGAF 9 Foundation (Level 1)
TOGAF 9 Certified (Level 2) |
---|---|
Prerequisites and required courses | TOGAF 9 Foundation (Level 1): None
TOGAF 9 Certified (Level 2): TOGAF 9 Foundation (Level 1) credential |
Number of exams | Level 1: One test (40 questions, 60 minutes, 55% required to pass)
Level 2: One test (eight questions, 90 minutes) Level 1 and 2 combined test (48 questions, 2.5 hours) |
Certification fees | $320 each for Level 1 and Level 2 exams
$495 for combined Level 1 and Level 2 exam Exams are administered by Pearson VUE. Some training providers include the test with the training course. |
URL | http://www.opengroup.org/togaf9/cert/docs/indiv.html |
Self-study materials | A number of resources are available from The Open Group, including whitepapers, webinars, publications, TOGAF standards, the TOGAF Foundation Study Guide ($29.95 for PDF; includes practice exam), practice questions (99 cents for PDF) and the TOGAF 9 Certified Study Guide (a combined study guide is available for $59.95). The Open Group also maintains a list of accredited training course providers and a calendar of training events. |
Zachman Certified – Enterprise Architect
Founded in 1990, Zachman International promotes education and research for enterprise architecture and the Zachman Framework. Rather than being a traditional process or methodology, the Zachman Framework is more accurately referred to as an “ontology.” Ontologies differ from a traditional methodology or process in that, rather than focusing on the process or implementation, they focus on the properties, types and interrelationships of entities that exist within a particular domain. The Zachman Framework ontology focuses on the structure, or definition, of the object and the enterprise. Developed by John Zachman, this framework sets a standard for enterprise architecture ontology.
Zachman International currently offers four enterprise architect credentials:
Zachman credentials are valid for three years. To maintain these credentials, candidates must earn continuing education credits (referred to as EADUs). The total number of EADUs required varies by certification level.
Certification name | Enterprise Architect Associate Certification (Level 1)
Enterprise Architect Practitioner Certification (Level 2) Enterprise Architect Professional Certification (Level 3) Enterprise Architect Educator Certification (Level 4) |
---|---|
Prerequisites and required courses | Level 1 Associate: Four-day Modeling Workshop ($3,499)
Level 2 Practitioner: None Level 3 Professional: None Level 4 Educator: Review all materials related to The Zachman Framework; Level 3 Professional recommended |
Number of exams | Level 1 Associate: One exam
Level 2 Practitioner: No exam; case studies and referee review required Level 3 Professional: No exam; case studies and referee review required Level 4 Educator: None; must develop and submit curriculum and course materials for review and validation |
Certification fees | Level 1 Associate: test fee included as part of required course
Level 2 Practitioner: None, included as part of Level 1 required course Level 3 Professional: Not available Level 4 Educator: Not available |
URL | https://www.zachman.com/certification/what-we-certify/enterprise-architect#enterprise-architect-associate-level-1 |
Self-study materials | Live classroom and distance learning opportunities are available. Zachman also offers webcasts, a glossary, the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture and reference articles. |
Beyond the top 5: More enterprise architect certifications
The Red Hat Certified Architect (RHCA) is a great credential, especially for professionals working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
The Project Management Professional (PMP) certification from PMI continues to appear in many enterprise architect job descriptions. Although the PMP is not an enterprise architect certification per se, many employers look for this particular combination of skills.
Outside of our top five vendor-neutral enterprise architect certifications (which focus on more general, heterogeneous views of IT systems and solutions), there are plenty of architect-level certifications from a broad range of vendors and sponsors, most of which are vendor-specific.
The table below identifies those vendors and sponsors, names their architect-level credentials, and provides links to more information on those offerings. Choosing one or more of these certifications for research and possible pursuit will depend on where you work or where you’d like to work.
<td”>EMC Cloud Architect Expert (EMCCAe) <td”>GoCertify </td”></td”>
Sponsor | Enterprise architect certification | More information |
---|---|---|
BCS | BCS Practitioner Certificate in Enterprise and Solutions Architecture | BCS homepage |
Cisco | Cisco Certified Architect (CCAr) | CCAr homepage |
Enterprise Architecture Center of Excellence (EACOE) | EACOE Enterprise Architect
EACOE Senior Enterprise Architect EACOE Distinguished Enterprise Architect EACOE Enterprise Architect Fellow |
EACOE Architect homepage |
FEAC Institute | Certified Enterprise Architect (CEA) Black Belt
Associate Certified Enterprise Architect (ACEA) Green Belt |
FEAC CEA homepage |
Hitachi Vantara | Hitachi Architect (three tracks: Infrastructure, Data Protection, and Pentaho Solutions)
Hitachi Architect Specialist (two tracks: Infrastructure and Converged) |
Training & Certification homepage |
IASA | Certified IT Architect – Foundation (CITA-F)
Certified IT Architect – Associate (CITA-A) Certified IT Architect – Specialist (CITA-S) Certified IT Architect – Professional (CITA-P) |
CITA homepage |
National Instruments | Certified LabVIEW Architect (CLA) | CLA homepage |
Nokia | Nokia Service Routing Architect (SRA) | SRA homepage |
Oracle | Oracle Certified Master, Java EE Enterprise Architect Certified Master | Java EE homepage |
Red Hat | Red Hat Certified Architect (RHCA) | RHCA homepage |
SOA (Arcitura) | Certified SOA Architect | SOA Architect homepage |
These architect credentials typically represent pinnacle certifications within the programs to which they belong, functioning as high-value capstones to those programs in many cases. The group of individuals who attain such credentials is often quite small but comes with tight sponsor relationships, high levels of sponsor support and information delivery, and stratospheric salaries and professional kudos.
Often, such certifications provide deliberately difficult and challenging targets for a small, highly select group of IT professionals. Earning one or more of these certifications is generally the culmination of a decade or more of professional growth, high levels of effort, and considerable expense. No wonder, then, that architect certifications are highly regarded by IT pros and highly valued by their employers.
Enterprise architect credentials will often be dictated by choices that your employer (or industry sector, in the case of government or DoD-related work environments) have already made independent of your own efforts. Likewise, most of the vendor-specific architecture credentials make sense based on what’s deployed in your work environment or in a job you’d like to occupy.
Though there are lots of potential choices IT pros could make, the genuine number they can or should make will be influenced by their circumstances.
Study Group +1 is an effective way to help CWRU students diversify and maximize their study time. This program is designed to enhance the learning experience for undergraduate students. Students can strengthen their understanding through discussion of course content in a peer tutor-supported study group of no more than five students. Study Group +1 can help students prepare for lecture, class discussion, a quiz or exam, or to work through a challenging homework assignment.
When you're ready to form your study group, complete and submit the online form to get started.
Before forming a Study Group +1, students must first consider the following:
Once your group has formed and settled on a meeting time and place, a member of the group needs to submit a request for a peer tutor using the online Study Group +1 Tutor Request form. The request must include the name and CWRU ID of each member of the group. In some cases, the assigned tutor is not a good match for the group. If your study group finds that your tutor is not helpful or unable to meet the needs of the group, contact Shaun Hoversten, assistant director of academic support resources, and a different tutor can be assigned to the group.
If not prohibited by the course professor, group members compare answers to their homework and identify those areas where they are uncertain. White the problems on a board or in a document to be shared with the group. The entire group then discusses the problems and attempts to solve them. The Study Group +1 tutor can help by providing guidance on the proper steps for solving the problems.
Are you interested in starting a study group but not sure where to start? Or do you have a study group and want to enhance its effectiveness? Look here for advice on starting and maintaining a productive, inclusive study group.
Looking for a more formal study-group experience? ASLA's Peer-Guided Study Groups run each quarter in more than 30 courses. Registration is required at the start of the quarter. |
If you would like to consult with an experienced undergraduate study-group leader who can offer advice on organizing and running your own study group, contact us at asla@northwestern.edu.
If you'd like to join a quarter-long study group, check out our Peer-Guided Study Group program!
Contents
It is believed that students learn by doing. As opposed to being spoon-fed knowledge in lecture, study groups encourage students to go above and beyond what is being taught and to develop their own understanding of subject material. The goal of study group learning is to help students take ownership of course material; to learn to learn.
As you can see from this list, being in a study group can be really helpful. BUT these benefits come only to those who are serious about making their group work well together and serious about learning. So, although I expect you to have fun (eh, there is no reason why you can't have a study group meeting at a pub once in a while) the study group component of your course is serious stuff.
Are you interested in joining a group but don't know how to start? Talk to your classmates or instructor.
We hope that, 10 years from now, you will look back upon this first meeting of your study group with good sentiments. We realize that not all of you will form those "college-days" relationships that TV glamorizes, but some of you will. You just never know what might happen. Here are some things that will help get started on the right track:
Check off this list as you go.
Below is a list of things you should/can do at your meetings. Suggestions in bold I would recommend you do at every meeting.
This page contains a section called Problems and Solutions. It's a good idea to read it so you know what can happen and so that you can recognize it when a problem arises. A lot of the problems can be prevented if you work hard not just at the math, but at making your group work. Below is a list of guidelines that, when followed, help to avoid the common pitfalls.
There are some problem situations in which a study group might find itself. Occasionally a group just doesn't have any interaction among its members. More frequent is the problem of one student is doing all the work, either because no one else will or because he or she doesn't trust the other group members to do a good job. These problems undermine the whole idea behind study groups and are actually detrimental to learning. Not to over-dramatize this but: BE AWARE!!! Just knowing about what can happen helps to prevent or nip in the bud serious problems.
The following list is offered to increase your awareness of potential problems as well as to offer advice on how to deal with them. We cannot stress enough how important it is to discuss your problems in your group. This is why it is so important to establish an open working environment in which you can be objective about how things are going in your group and comfortable enough to point out problems.
Problem: Lack of interaction
Possible Cause: Lack of Experience with Learning in Study Groups
Suggestions:
Possible Cause: You Feel Coerced to Participate
Suggestion:
Possible Cause: Physical Arrangement
Suggestion:
Problem: Group members are participating unequally
Possible cause: Intolerance of Silence
Some people feel a strong need to fill in moments of silence with speech. In the same way that nature abhors a vacuum, some people abhor silence in conversations.
Suggestions:
Possible Cause: Dominant Speakers Monopolize the Discussion.
Suggestion:
Possible Cause: A Group Member Has No Interest in Speaking.
Some students feel that they learn better by listening than by talking. Others feel that speaking and helping others requires too much effort.
Suggestion:
Problem: A Group Member is Doing All the Work
Possible Cause: Lack of Trust between Members to Work
Suggestion:
Possible Cause: The Rest of Your Group is Slacking Off.
Suggestions:
Possible Cause: A Group Member is the Brightest Student In the Group.
Suggestions:
Problem: A Group Member is Being Uncooperative.
Suggestions:
Problem: Reinforcing Misconception
It is quite easy for a group of students to mistakenly agree, for example, that when they get zero over zero they can cancel to get one. Or to misread what it means for a function to be continuous. Or to confuse "if" with "only if." Who will be around to point out these errors?
Suggestions:
Thani Sokka has over 17 years of experience in systems engineering, enterprise architecture, design and development, software project management, and data/information modeling, working with the latest IT systems technologies and methodologies. He has spent significant time designing solutions for the public sector, media, retail, manufacturing, financial, biomedical, and social/gaming industries. At Google, Thani is a Strategic Account Manager focused on empowering Google Cloud Platform’s largest customers derive the most from Google’s cloud technologies, including it’s compute, storage, and big data solutions. He also works closely with the Google Cloud Platform Product Management and Product Engineering teams to help drive the direction of Google's Enterprise Cloud Platform business. Prior to Google, Thani was an enterprise architect at Oracle focused on helping Federal organizations implement SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions. Thani also worked as a senior IT consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton, a lead software architect at Thomson Reuters, and a software engineer at MicroStrategy. Thani has achieved various IT certifications from organizations such as MicroStrategy, Oracle, and The Open Group (TOGAF). He holds a M.S. degree in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins University and a B.S. degree in Computer Science, Biomedical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering from Duke University.
The early decades of software development generally ran on a culture of open access and free exchange, where engineers could dive into each other’s code across time zones and institutions to make it their own or squash a few bugs. But this new printer ran on inaccessible proprietary software. Stallman was locked out—and enraged that Xerox had violated the open code-sharing system he’d come to rely on.
A few years later, in September 1983, Stallman released GNU, an operating system designed to be a free alternative to one of the dominant operating systems at the time: Unix. Stallman envisioned GNU as a means to fight back against the proprietary mechanisms, like copyright, that were beginning to flood the tech industry. The free-software movement was born from one frustrated engineer’s simple, rigid philosophy: for the good of the world, all code should be open, without restriction or commercial intervention.
Today, 96% of all code bases incorporate open-source software. GitHub, the biggest platform for the open-source community, is used by more than 100 million developers worldwide. The Biden administration’s Securing Open Source Software Act of 2022 publicly recognized open-source software as critical economic and security infrastructure. Even AWS, Amazon’s money-making cloud arm, supports the development and maintenance of open-source software; it committed its portfolio of patents to an open use community in December of last year. Over the last two years, while public trust in private technology companies has plummeted, organizations including Google, Spotify, the Ford Foundation, Bloomberg, and NASA have established new funding for open-source projects and their counterparts in open science efforts—an extension of the same values applied to scientific research.
The fact that open-source software is now so essential means that long-standing leadership and diversity issues in the movement have become everyone’s problems. Many open-source projects began with “benevolent dictator for life” (BDFL) models of governance, where original founders hang on to leadership for years—and not always responsibly. Stallman and some other BDFLs have been criticized by their own communities for misogynistic or even abusive behavior. Stallman stepped down as president of the Free Software Foundation in 2019 (although he returned to the board two years later). Overall, open-source participants are still overwhelmingly white, male, and located in the Global North. Projects can be overly influenced by corporate interests. Meanwhile, the people doing the hard work of keeping critical code healthy are not consistently funded. In fact, many major open-source projects still operate almost completely on volunteer steam.
The 2010s backlash against tech’s unfettered growth, and the exact AI boom, have focused a spotlight on the open-source movement’s ideas about who has the right to use other people’s information online and who benefits from technology. Clement Delangue, CEO of the open-source AI company Hugging Face, which was recently valued at $4 billion, testified before Congress in June of 2023 that “ethical openness” in AI development could help make organizations more compliant and transparent, while allowing researchers beyond a few large tech companies access to technology and progress. “We’re in a unique cultural moment,” says Danielle Robinson, executive director of Code for Science and Society, a nonprofit that provides funding and support for public-interest technology. “People are more aware than ever of how capitalism has been influencing what technologies get built, and whether you have a choice to interact with it.” Once again, free and open-source software have become a natural home for the debate about how technology should be.
Free as in freedom
The early days of the free-software movement were fraught with arguments about the meaning of “free.” Stallman and the Free Software Foundation (FSF), founded in 1985, held firm to the idea of four freedoms: people should be allowed to run a program for any purpose, study how it works from the source code and change it to meet their needs, redistribute copies, and distribute modified versions too. Stallman saw free software as an essential right: “Free as in free speech, not free beer,” as his apocryphal slogan goes. He created the GNU General Public License, what’s known as a “copyleft” license, to ensure that the four freedoms were protected in code built with GNU.
Linus Torvalds, the Finnish engineer who in 1991 created the now ubiquitous Unix alternative Linux, didn’t buy into this dogma. Torvalds and others, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, believed that the culture of open exchange among engineers could coexist with commerce, and that more-restrictive licenses could forge a path toward both financial sustainability and protections for software creators and users. It was during a 1998 strategic meeting of free-softwareadvocates—which notably did not include Stallman—that this pragmatic approach became known as “open source.” (The term was coined and introduced to the group not by an engineer, but by the futurist and nanotechnology scholar Christine Peterson.)
Karen Sandler, executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit that advocates for free and open-source software, saw firsthand how the culture shifted from orthodoxy to a big-tent approach with room for for-profit entities when she worked as general counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center in the early 2000s. “The people who were ideological—some of them stayed quite ideological. But many of them realized, oh, wait a minute, we can get jobs doing this. We can do well by doing good,” Sandler remembers. By leveraging the jobs and support that early tech companies were offering, open-source contributors could sustain their efforts and even make a living doing what they believed in. In that manner, companies using and contributing to free and open software could expand the community beyond volunteer enthusiasts and Boost the work itself. “How could we ever make it better if it’s just a few radical people?” Sandler says.
As the tech industry grew around private companies like Sun Microsystems, IBM, Microsoft, and Apple in the late ’90s and early ’00s, new open-source projects sprang up, and established ones grew roots. Apache emerged as an open-source web server in 1995. Red Hat, a company offering enterprise companies support for open-source software like Linux, went public in 1999. GitHub, a platform originally created to support version control for open-source projects, launched in 2008, the same year that Google released Android, the first open-source phone operating system. The more pragmatic definition of the concept came to dominate the field. Meanwhile, Stallman’s original philosophy persisted among dedicated groups of believers—where it still lives today through nonprofits like FSF, which only uses and advocates for software that protects the four freedoms.
“If a company only ends up just sharing, and nothing more, I think that should be celebrated.”
As open-source software spread, a bifurcation of the tech stack became standard practice, with open-source code as the support structure for proprietary work. Free and open-source software often served in the underlying foundation or back-end architecture of a product, while companies vigorously pursued and defended copyrights on the user-facing layers. Some estimate that Amazon’s 1999 patent on its one-click buying process was worth $2.4 billion per year to the company until it expired. It relied on Java, an open-source programming language, and other open-source software and tooling to build and maintain it.
Today, corporations not only depend on open-source software but play an enormous role in funding and developing open-source projects: Kubernetes (initially launched and maintained at Google) and Meta’s React are both robust sets of software that began as internal solutions freely shared with the larger technology community. But some people, like the Software Freedom Conservancy’s Karen Sandler, identify an ongoing conflict between profit-driven corporations and the public interest. “Companies have become so savvy and educated with respect to open-source software that they use a ton of it. That’s good,” says Sandler. At the same time, they profit from their proprietary work—which they sometimes attempt to pass off as open too, a practice the scholar and organizer Michelle Thorne dubbed “openwashing” in 2009. For Sandler, if companies don’t also make efforts to support user and creator rights, they’re not pushing forward the free and open-source ethos. And she says for the most part, that’s indeed not happening: “They’re not interested in giving the public any appreciable rights to their software.”
Others, including Kelsey Hightower, are more sanguine about corporate involvement. “If a company only ends up just sharing, and nothing more, I think that should be celebrated,” he says. “Then if for the next two years you allow your paid employees to work on it, maintaining the bugs and issues, but then down the road it’s no longer a priority and you choose to step back, I think we should thank [the company] for those years of contributions.”
In stark contrast, FSF, now in its 38th year, holds firm to its original ideals and opposes any product or company that does not support the ability for users to view, modify, and redistribute code. The group today runs public action campaigns like “End Software Patents,” publishing articles and submitting amicus briefs advocating the end of patents on software. The foundation’s executive director, Zoë Kooyman, hopes to continue pushing the conversation toward freedom rather than commercial concerns. “Every belief system or form of advocacy needs a far end,” she says. “That’s the only way to be able to drive the needle. [At FSF], we are that far end of the spectrum, and we take that role very seriously.”
Free as in puppy
Forty years on from the release of GNU, there is no singular open-source community, “any more than there is an ‘urban community,’” as researcher and engineer Nadia Asparouhova (formerly Eghbal) writes in her 2020 book Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software. There’s no singular definition, either. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was founded in 1998 to steward the meaning of the phrase, but not all modern open-source projects adhere to the 10 specific criteria OSI laid out, and other definitions appear across communities. Scale, technology, social norms, and funding also range widely from project to project and community to community. For example, Kubernetes has a robust, organized community of tens of thousands of contributors and years of Google investment. Salmon is a niche open-source bioinformatics research tool with fewer than 50 contributors, supported by grants. OpenSSL, which encrypts an estimated 66% of the web, is currently maintained by 18 engineers compensated through donations and elective corporate contracts.
The major discussions now are more about people than technology: What does healthy and diverse collaboration look like? How can those who support the code get what they need to continue the work? “How do you include a voice for all the people affected by the technology you build?” asks James Vasile, an open-source consultant and strategist who sits on the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “These are big questions. We’ve never grappled with them before. No one was working on this 20 years ago, because that just wasn’t part of the scene. Now it is, and we [in the open-source community] have the chance to consider these questions.”
“We need designers, ethnographers, social and cultural experts. We need everyone to be playing a role in open source.”
“Free as in puppy,” a phrase that can be traced back to 2006, has emerged as a valuable definition of “free” for modern open-source projects—one that speaks to the responsibilities of creators and users to each other and the software, in addition to their rights. Puppies need food and care to survive; open-source code needs funding and “maintainers,” individuals who consistently respond to requests and feedback from a community, fix bugs, and manage the growth and scope of a project. Many open-source projects have become too big, complicated, or important to be governed by one person or even a small group of like-minded individuals. And open-source contributors have their own needs and concerns, too. A person who’s good at building may not be good at maintaining; someone who creates a project may not want to or be able to run it indefinitely. In 2018, for instance, Guido van Rossum, the creator of the open-source programming language Python, stepped down from leadership after almost 30 years, exhausted from the demands of the mostly uncompensated role. “I’m tired,” he wrote in his resignation message to the community, “and need a very long break.”
Supporting the people who create, maintain, and use free and open-source software requires new roles and perspectives. Whereas the movement in its early days was populated almost exclusively by engineers communicating across message boards and through code, today’s open-source projects invite participation from new disciplines to handle logistical work like growth and advocacy, as well as efforts toward greater inclusion and belonging. “We’ve shifted from open source being about just the technical stuff to the broader set of expertise and perspectives that are required to make effective open-source projects,” says Michael Brennan, senior program officer with the Technology and Society program at the Ford Foundation, which funds research into open internet issues. “We need designers, ethnographers, social and cultural experts. We need everyone to be playing a role in open source if it’s going to be effective and meet the needs of the people around the world.”
One powerful source of support arrived in 2008 with the launch of GitHub. While it began as a version control tool, it has grown into a suite of services, standards, and systems that is now the “highway system” for most open-source development, as Asparouhova puts it in Working in Public. GitHub helped lower the barrier to entry, drawing wider contribution and spreading best practices such as community codes of conduct. But its success has also given a single platform vast influence over communities dedicated to decentralized collaboration.
Demetris Cheatham, until recently GitHub’s senior director for diversity and inclusion strategy, took that responsibility very seriously. To find out where things stood, the company partnered with the Linux Foundation in 2021 on a survey and resulting report on diversity and inclusion within open source. The data showed that despite a pervasive ethos of collaboration and openness (more than 80% of the respondents reported feeling welcome), communities are dominated by contributors who are straight, white, male, and from the Global North. In response, Cheatham, who is now the company’s chief of staff, focused on ways to broaden access and promote a sense of belonging. GitHub launched All In for Students, a mentorship and education program with 30 students drawn primarily from historically Black colleges and universities. In its second year, the program expanded to more than 400 students.
Representation has not been the only stumbling block to a more equitable open-source ecosystem. The Linux Foundation report showed that only 14% of open-source contributors surveyed were getting paid for their work. While this volunteer spirit aligns with the original vision of free software as a commerce-free exchange of ideas, free labor presents a major access issue. Additionally, 30% of respondents in the survey did not trust that codes of conduct would be enforced—suggesting they did not feel they could count on a respectful working environment. “We’re at another inflection point now where codes of conduct are great, but they’re only a tool,” says Code for Science and Society’s Danielle Robinson. “I’m starting to see larger cultural shifts toward rethinking extractive processes that have been a part of open source for a long time.” Getting maintainers paid and connecting contributors with support are now key to opening up open source to a more diverse group of participants.
With that in mind, this year GitHub established resources specifically for maintainers, including workshops and a hub of DEI tools. And in May, the platform launched a new project to connect large, well-resourced open-source communities with smaller ones that need help. Cheatham says it’s crucial to the success of any of these programs that they be shared for free with the broader community. “We’re not inventing anything new at all. We’re just applying open-source principles to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” she says.
GitHub’s influence over open source may be large, but it is not the only group working to get maintainers paid and expand open-source participation. The Software Freedom Conservancy’s Outreachy diversity initiative offers paid internships; as of 2019, 92% of past Outreachy interns have identified as women and 64% as people of color. Open-source fundraising platforms like Open Collective and Tidelift have also emerged to help maintainers tap into resources.
The philanthropic world is stepping up too. The Ford Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, Omidyar Network, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, as well as smaller organizations like Code for Science and Society, have all recently begun or expanded their efforts to support open-source research, contributors, and projects—including specific efforts promoting inclusion and diversity. Govind Shivkumar from Omidyar Network told MIT Technology Review that philanthropy is well positioned to establish funding architecture that could help prove out open-source projects, making them less risky prospects for future governmental funding. In fact, research supported by the Ford Foundation’s Digital Infrastructure Fund contributed to Germany’s exact creation of a national fund for open digital infrastructure. Momentum has also been building in the US. In 2016 the White House began requiring at least 20% of government-developed software to be open source. Last year’s Securing Open Source Software Act passed with bipartisan support, establishing a framework for attention and investment at the federal level toward making open-source software stronger and more secure.
The fast-approaching future
Open source contributes valuable practices and tools, but it may also offer a competitive advantage over proprietary efforts. A document leaked in May from Google argued that open-source communities had pushed, tested, integrated, and expanded the capabilities of large language models more thoroughly than private efforts could’ve accomplished on their own: “Many of the new ideas [in AI development] are from ordinary people. The barrier to entry for training and experimentation has dropped from the total output of a major research organization to one person, an evening, and a beefy laptop.” The recently articulated concept of Time till Open Source Alternative (TTOSA)—the time between the release of a proprietary product and an open-source equivalent—also speaks to this advantage. One researcher estimated the average TTOSA to be seven years but noted that the process has been speeding up thanks to easy-to-use services like GitHub.
At the same time, much of our modern world now relies on underfunded and rapidly expanding digital infrastructure. There has long been an assumption within open source that bugs can be identified and solved quickly by the “many eyes” of a wide community—and indeed this can be true. But when open-source software affects millions of users and its maintenance is handled by handfuls of underpaid individuals, the weight can be too much for the system to bear. In 2021, a security vulnerability in a popular open-source Apache library exposed an estimated hundreds of millions of devices to hacking attacks. Major players across the industry were affected, and large parts of the internet went down. The vulnerability’s lasting impact is hard to quantify even now.
Other risks emerge from open-source development without the support of ethical guardrails. Proprietary efforts like Google’s Bard and OpenAI’s ChatGPT have demonstrated that AI can perpetuate existing biases and may even cause harm—while also not providing the transparency that could help a larger community audit the technology, Boost it, and learn from its mistakes. But allowing anyone to use, modify, and distribute AI models and technology could accelerate their misuse. One week after Meta began granting access to its AI model LLaMA, the package leaked onto 4chan, a platform known for spreading misinformation. LLaMA 2, a new model released in July, is fully open to the public, but the company has not disclosed its training data as is typical in open-source projects—putting it somewhere in between open and closed by some definitions, but decidedly not open by OSI’s. (OpenAI is reportedly working on an open-source model as well but has not made a formal announcement.)
“There are always trade-offs in the decisions you make in technology,” says Margaret Mitchell, chief ethics scientist at Hugging Face. “I can’t just be wholeheartedly supportive of open source in all cases without any nuances or caveats.” Mitchell and her team have been working on open-source tools to help communities safeguard their work, such as gating mechanisms to allow collaboration only at the project owner’s discretion, and “model cards” that detail a model’s potential biases and social impacts—information researchers and the public can take into consideration when choosing which models to work with.
Open-source software has come a long way since its rebellious roots. But carrying it forward and making it into a movement that fully reflects the values of openness, reciprocity, and access will require careful consideration, financial and community investment, and the movement’s characteristic process of self-improvement through collaboration. As the modern world becomes more dispersed and diverse, the skill sets required to work asynchronously with different groups of people and technologies toward a common goal are only growing more essential. At this rate, 40 years from now technology might look more open than ever—and the world may be better for it.
© Copyright 2023 Technology Review, Inc. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
A study published this week could help doctors to identify patients with brain injuries, in seemingly unresponsive states, who are more likely to recover.
In the study, published in the journal Brain on Monday, researchers identified what may be the source of a curious phenomenon known as "hidden consciousness" or cognitive motor dissociation (CMD).
Hidden consciousness is seen in patients with acute brain injury who appear to be in a coma or other unresponsive state.
Patients with CMD seem to be able to hear and comprehend verbal commands even though they cannot carry out those instructions because the body does not respond, study author Jan Claassen, a researcher at Columbia University and critical care neurologist at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said in a statement.
The CMD phenomenon has only been identified in the past few years and is still poorly understood.
Methods have been developed to detect CMD in unresponsive patients. These include analyzing changes in electrical activity or cerebral blood flow recorded by an electroencephalogram (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) respectively. But both of these methods currently have their limitations.
Nevertheless, it is thought that around 15 to 20 percent of patients who appear to be in a coma or another unresponsive state display signs of CMD when evaluated with such methods, Claassen told Newsweek. The detection of CMD is reshaping our understanding of patients in comatose or other unresponsive states.
Clinicians define when a patient is in a "coma" purely based on the clinical examination, Claassen said. They apply this label to patients who display a complete absence of arousal (for example, eye opening) and awareness.
Patients with CMD do not seem to be able to follow commands and may in clinical examination appear to be in a coma.
But an analysis of EEG or functional MRI, recorded while patients are given verbal commands, reveals that the brains of these unresponsive patients are being activated in a similar way to conscious patients, Claassen said. This supports the interpretation that patients with CMD are to some degree conscious.
Identifying patients with CMD has important clinical implications for interactions, communication with families and the guidance of therapeutic decisions, according to the study.
Importantly, in prior research, Claassen and colleagues have been able to associate CMD with the recovery of consciousness and long-term recovery of independence in brain-damaged patients.
Researchers have been trying to develop more effective screening methods to identify which patients are likely to be in a state of hidden consciousness. But progress has been hampered by the fact that the brain mechanisms underlying the phenomenon have remained a mystery. This is where the latest study comes in.
In previous research, Claassen and colleagues found that subtle brainwaves detectable with EEG are the strongest predictor of hidden consciousness and eventual recovery for patients with brain injuries.
For the latest study, the scientists used EEG to examine 107 unresponsive patients with acute brain injury. Almost half of the patients appeared comatose, while one quarter were in a vegetative state—i.e. their eyes were open but they could not follow commands.
The remaining patents were in a minimally conscious state—meaning they could track an examiner with their eyes or look at them but were not able to follow any commands.
Using the EEG, scientists can identify when patients are trying, but are unable, to respond to a command such as "keep opening and closing your right hand."
This method detected CMD in 21 of the patients. The scientists then analyzed structural MRI brains scans from all the patients.
Using a special analysis technique, the team were able to identify patterns of brain injury that the patients with CMD shared and contrast those to the individuals who did not display signs of hidden consciousness.
The researchers found that all of the CMD patients had intact brain structures related to arousal and command comprehension. This supports the idea that they were able to hear and understand the verbal commands.
But they also found that the CMD patients had damage to brain regions responsible for integrating and carrying out motor commands, which is why they were unable to take action.
"Our study suggests that patients with hidden consciousness can hear and comprehend verbal commands, but they cannot carry out those commands because of injuries in brain circuits that relay instructions from the brain to the muscles," Claassen said in the statement.
The findings could lead to more frequent and earlier diagnosis of CMD. This, in turn, could help better predict which brain-injured individuals are more likely to recover with rehabilitation, according to the scientists.
More research is required before the approaches documented in the study can be applied to clinical practice. But the latest study shows that it may be possible to screen for CMD using widely available structural brain-imaging techniques.
Due to the technical complexity of CMD detection, at this time it is only available in a few academic centers. As a result, the vast majority of patients with hidden consciousness in the United States and around the world remain undiagnosed.
"Not every critical care unit may have resources and staff that is trained in using EEG to detect hidden consciousness, so MRI may offer a simple way to identify patients who require further screening and diagnosis," Claassen said in the statement.
When you need to remember something important, it makes sense to look around for hacks and tricks to maximize your recall. And plenty of those are out there, but do they actually work? One popular tip involves chewing a certain flavor of gum or spraying an specific scent in the air while you study or work, then using the same gum or scent when it’s time to perform, such as when you’re taking a text or presenting the material you went over. The tip relies on the so-called Proust Effect and if you use it, your mileage may vary.
Marcel Proust, a 20th-century writer you may already be familiar with, was the man who came up with the term “involuntary memory” to describe being hit with a memory because of a scent, taste, sound, or other sense-based trigger. As a reward for his efforts, he got this effect named after himself.
It’s a real thing that happens to the best of us: A sensory stimuli, like walking by someone wearing the perfume your mom used to wear, can jolt us into a vivid memory of the past. The phenomenon has resulted in a lot of research, because it’s deeply human but also deeply physiological and scientific.
When you search for studying and memory tips, this one comes up a lot. The University of Nebraska Kearney, for instance, recommends using unfamiliar scents as a “brain booster” by spraying a different scent every time you study a unique subject. Before your test in that subject, spray the corresponding scent because, they say, “this can help you recall information.”
Here’s the thing: Involuntary memories are more emotional than they are practical. Research shows that olfactory cues are much more effective at triggering emotional memories than visual cues are. The scent of a spray or the taste of a gum might transport you back to when you were studying, but it’s not guaranteed to help you remember the details of what you were studying so much as make you feel the way you felt when you were doing that.
It’s similar to the idea of changing into a designated “study outfit” when it’s time to hit the books in that way: Scents can help you compartmentalize and get in the zone, which can have a positive impact on your focus and output, but they aren’t the magic cure-all to make you remember entire passages of text.
Chewing strawberry gum while you study for chemistry and again when taking your chemistry test is more likely to help you feel like you’re in your chemistry zone than anything, which, again, can be helpful. To really remember what you studied, though, make sure to double up on hacks by using a study technique, such as interleaving or the primacy effect.
A SCOBY may look pretty gross, but new research suggests the bacteria and yeast glob could help Type 2 diabetics lower their blood sugar levels.
The study found participants who consumed 8 ounces of kombucha for four weeks saw their blood sugar levels decrease from 164 to 116 milligrams per deciliter.
Scientists from Georgetown University, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the nonprofit MedStar Health reported the findings Tuesday in the Frontiers in Nutrition journal.
Kombucha, a fermented, sweetened black tea drink produced from a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast, has long been touted as healthy, based on claims it enhances immunity and energy levels, reduces food cravings and alleviates gut inflammation.
“Some laboratory and rodent studies of kombucha have shown promise, and one small study in people without diabetes showed kombucha lowered blood sugar,” study co-author Dr. Dan Merenstein, a professor at Georgetown’s School of Health, said in a statement.
“But to our knowledge, this is the first clinical trial examining effects of kombucha in people with diabetes,” he continued. “A lot more research needs to be done, but this is very promising.”
In the study, one group drank the kombucha while another downed a placebo beverage.
No one was told which drink they were receiving.
After a two-month period to “wash out” the biological effects of the beverages, the mixtures were swapped between the groups, who were directed to drink their new concoction for four weeks.
The placebo beverage didn’t seem to have any effect on blood sugar levels.
The American Diabetes Association advises that fasting blood sugar levels should be between 80 to 130 milligrams per deciliter.
Participants drank kombucha produced by Craft Kombucha, a commercial manufacturer in the D.C. area.
The study authors noted different brands of kombucha have slightly varying microbial mixtures.
“However, the major bacteria and yeasts are highly reproducible and likely to be functionally similar between brands and batches, which was reassuring for our trial,” said Dr. Robert Hutkins, the study’s senior author.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 37 million Americans have diabetes, and 90% to 95% of them have Type 2 diabetes.
Approximately 96 million American adults — more than 1 in 3 — have prediabetes.
“Diabetes itself is the eighth leading cause of death in the US as well as being a major risk factor for heart disease, stroke and kidney failure,” lead study author Dr. Chagai Mendelson said.
Mendelson said further studies are needed to assess kombucha’s effect on diabetes.
“We hope that a much larger trial, using the lessons we learned in this trial, could be undertaken to give a more definitive answer to the effectiveness of kombucha in reducing blood glucose levels, and hence prevent or help treat Type 2 diabetes,” he added.
Undergraduate Advising Support Office
Campus Location:
Sears Building, Room 447
10900 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland,
OH
44106
10900 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland,
OH
44106-7028
Phone: 216.368.2928
Email: ugstudies@case.edu