Great post that raises some interesting questions. I think in these tough economic times IT professionals are entitled to ask "what's in it for me?" when thinking about joining the BCS. After all they will be expected to spend time taking exams and part with money to join. One feature of working in IT is the need to constantly keep that skill set updated. Worryingly, the time spent on that BCS exam is time that cannot be spent elsewhere, maybe getting that vendor qualification that makes you just that little bit more appealing to employers. So the problem is you need a good reason to bother with all of this. Here is another problem: qualifications are only worth as much as the value people attach to them. Nathan Pledger's comment is worrying, if people inside the BCS don't value his qualification, why should anybody else? The commitment towards professionalism is very important, but today the idea that if you are not in the BCS you are somehow less professional that its members is insulting. Organisations have to earn the right to say that and an organisation that many see as irrelevant or even worse whose members feel hasn't benefited them has not earned that right. In some ways I feel the BCS is trying to run before it can walk in this area. It needs to take its time and grow its reputation in the IT community before claiming the right to judge it. Steve Burrows said "BCS is about sharing, internally and externally", this is a very important aim. Sharing knowledge and good practice benefits us all and going to BCS meetings is one of the ways to do that perhaps. The world of IT is truly global though so the BCS might be limited in its usefulness in this area however this is something genuinely useful that it can facilitate. I think the BCS could be a useful body one day, but it needs to calm down a bit, stop it with the letters after the name (no one is impressed!) and think beyond exams towards the power of the network. Then it might be possible to have an answer to the title of this blog post.