SolidWorks Certification Process

SolidWorks has had a certification process for a long time. It originated in 1997 with a written test for reseller tech support certification. It had very odd rules. If you got certified, it was actually the reseller organization that got certified, not the guy who passed the test, even though you were the only one who passed. It was obviously to cater to reseller business owners who hired hot-headed rougue engineers who might get certified and then change their minds. Anyway, the whole reseller relationship with SolidWorks is very strained, and fits funny, although it seems to have worked well (business wise) for SolidWorks and resellers. You can decide if it works well for you.

There was also a training certification in 97. That consisted of teaching a sample lesson from the training manual to a group of other test takers and the guy evaluating you.

A couple of years later, maybe 1999, I don’t remember, they added the certification for users, the CSWP  (certified solidworks professional – affectionately called “See Swoop”). I didn’t bother with this until I was working somewhere and they wanted me to proctor tests, so I had to take the exam in 2002.

The format of the test evolved from a paper hand-out for the original tests, to a computer program that randomized questions and answers. Multiple choice and modeling questions.

The test was imperfect, and I was convinced that some questions had no correct answers, and some had multiple correct answers. I thought this was due to people who had a rather narrow and pedantic view of SolidWorks functionality, working only from how the software worked in theory, rather than from how it actually worked. One example was the classic “do inference lines add sketch relations?” The answer they were looking for was “no”, but the correct answer is “yes”. If both ends of a line pick up the same inference to the same entity, it will create a coincident relation. Draw a line from one side of the origin and then make the line go away from the origin. You get the blue dotted line at both ends of the line, and the line is black when you are done – fully defined (except the ends).

Anyway, there were other questions on the old test that I liked because it made sure you knew definitions and names, but these drove other people crazy. Stuff like “time dependent” aspects of the assembly feature manager. You had to identify feature names, symbols, cursors, menus, etc.

The modeling questions were reasonable. The questions and diagrams were clear and understandable, so that if you got it wrong, it wasn’t a question of interpretation. It made sure you knew how to make sketch relations and use parametrics. To take the test, you had to allot 8 hours, there were 50 multiple choice and a selection of modeling questions. If you could rip through the test at full speed, the whole thing would still take about 2 hours, including the modeling, but many people spent 5+ hours at it. It was not a simple test, but it was for the most part fair. It was an imperfect test, but it tested a wide range of knowledge, and if you passed it, you felt a sense of accomplishment.

This past fall 2007, the test has been redone again. There are several changes. First, they have added a new level for students and beginners called the CSWA (A=associate). For the CSWA, there are only 7 multiple choice questions, and a 3 hour time limit. There are three modeling questions, where you select a mass property in the multiple choice. The difference between a “part modeling” and “advanced part modeling” is simply the number of features, sketches or dimensions. It’s not clear to me why you would bother with “advanced part modeling” on a test for beginners. Also, the certification terminology doesn’t line up with the training terminology. “Advanced part” in training implies something with lofts, sweeps or something complex or “advanced”. On the CSWA, you will not use any advanced features whatsoever.

On the CSWP you also have two COSMOSXpress questions. This seemed kind of odd to me. Why COSMOSXpress? Why not Routing, or ScanTo3D or sheet metal or surfacing? There is even a separate COSMOS specialist test that you can take if you want. I suppose it has to do with the general marketing push that we have all seen on COSMOS stuff. I think the COSMOS questions are out of place on the CSWA and the CSWP, and should be reserved for the COSMOS specialty test, but I get the feeling this is another non-negotiable marketing initiative.

On the CSWP, you have 18 questions, still the 3 hour time limit, half for parts, half for assemblies, and they are all fill in the blank, and all modeling questions (no “word” type questions). If you get the first one wrong, you’re screwed because the questions build on the original part. Half of the questions are based on just making changes to the model dimensions, and reporting the new mass properties.

The CSWP is not significantly more challenging than the CSWA, aside from the number of questions. In fact, on the CSWP you have no questions on drawings!?!? You still have COSMOS questions, but no drawings. You can get through the test using a Rib feature as the most advanced operation.\n\nThe most challenging part of either test is reading the illustrations. They are 3D isometric dimensioned views. I bought the college text book that they took many of the parts for the training classes, certification parts and even Model Mania parts. The text book does things the same way, and many of the parts in the text have dimensions that do not work together, or geometry that is impossible to see, dimensions that are impossible to interpret where they attach, etc. Anyway, the faults of the book spilled over into the test.

In the end, the new test mainly tests your interpretation skills. The modeling that it tests is BASIC at best. Extrude, revolve, cut, fillet. No sheet metal, surfacing, no advanced fillet types, no loft, sweep, deform, indent, multibodies, no nothing that could be considered even remotely advanced or challenging. The knowledge of SolidWorks that it tests is zilch. Someone on the SW Forums pointed out that you could take the CSWP test using Inventor, without even firing up the SolidWorks software.

The new test is a paragon of efficiency. It is completely automated, geared to low quality and a high number of test takers (there’s that “scalability” again!). I’m sure that was part of the goal, along with pushing COSMOS on a captive audience. The CSWA is almost something I could live with, if the COSMOS stuff went away, and you had many more questions covering a wider range of essential concepts. The CSWP is a lame afterthought. I don’t get it. What does it test? The parts are basic, but the illustrations are abombinable.

On the bright side, the cost of the test is coming way down, from $500 to $99. Also, there will be some specialist tests, like sheet metal, COSMOS and surfacing. These tests are only $20. Someone suggested that the tests are really just ways for SW to take more of your money. I don’t think this is true at all. I do think they are a thinly veiled COSMOS marketing ploy.

Rather than just criticizing, here’s what I would do if I were in the thankless position of writing certification exams:

– Make sure the test measures your Skills and Knowledge of SolidWorks software.

– Make sure everybody has to do a mixture of word questions covering concepts and modeling questions covering more than just the basics.

– Test many corners of the software, maybe allowing the user to select questions to leave out – everything – sheet metal, mold tools, surfacing, multibody, shape/deform/flex/indent, loft, sweep, hole wiz, in-context, drawings, inserted parts, patterns, mirror, sketch relations, configurations, etc

– Make sure the questions and illustrations are absolutely clear and unambiguous. The models must be challenging, the illustrations should not be. This must test modeling skill, not interpreting ambiguous illustrations.

– Ask tough relevant questions with clear answers, don’t get into playing word games or trying to be cute (the old test was especially bad in this respect).

– Don’t let the technology used to deliver and grade the test get in the way of writing a challenging, meaningful exam.

Jeremy Luchini is the guy at SW responsible for the test, and I really don’t envy his task. He has the best of intentions. Everybody’s a critic, and I’m sure he’s heard it all.

Anyway, I don’t really expect anything I say here to go anywhere. What’s done is done. You still have to take the test to get on the CSWP list. You need to go to the CSWP event at SWWorld. You need the bragging rights, even if they aren’t worth the 1s and 0s they’re printed on. The next step is to go to the SolidProfessor website and order their new CSWA/CSWP  preparation class. Yes, I wrote it, so this is your cue to jump all over me for advertising. (ttthhhhppppbbbbbbbtt!!)