I can think of no more humbling experience than going in front of the board.  I have been on both sides and it is an emotional experience.  It is two straight hours of grilling, going back and forth, and even a little adversarial in questioning techniques at times.  The best advice I can give is "Don't take it personally and be honest about your limitations".  Having sat on a few boards you come to realize that this is a difficult thing to do from a certification standpoint.  Every MCA I know wants there to be more certified architects and wants everyone that comes in front of a board to pass.  But they understand that they have a duty to ensure the bar for the certification remains consistent and that every candidate meets the guidelines of the competencies - and they only have two hours to accomplish that goal.

Here is the process from a board member's perspective:

• Review documentation for up to 12 candidates and try to make enough notes to ensure that in the future I can recall some things that I want to find out more about during the board review
• Right before the specific board, I review the documentation for the candidate and my notes one more time to refresh my memory.  I have about 5-10 minutes to do this.
• Find out from the moderator what the specific technology depth areas are for the candidate
• Discuss and settle on a sequence for each of the board members to ask questions - we do it one at a time so we don't question over each other and we each have 10 minutes (which we can give to others on the board if we want)
• On my Windows tablet I have a document that has all of the competencies and every bullet underneath each of the competencies (we often refer to this as the strawman)
• During the presentation I am scanning the competencies (and bullets) to mark down notes and areas covered by the candidate.  I am also noting the presentation flow, style, and timing to evaluate the communication skills of the candidate.
• After the presentation I listen carefully to the questions from the other board members and the answers from the candidate - I will continually go back to the strawman and mark down notes and whether the candidate meets or did not meet a certain item within a competency. 
• When it is my turn to ask questions, I try to ask questions within a small range of competencies to try and get evidence of meet or doesn't meet for each item within those competencies.
• After the first round of questions, we break and the board discusses what parts of the strawman have not been covered yet or if the board is showing does not meet.  Based on the candidate and the board's specific expertise, we determine who will ask about specific items. Remember, we are trying to make sure that we cover every item on the strawman - we are looking for evidence for every sub-bullet for each of the competencies.
• We go through the second round of questioning and I continue to focus on filling out the strawman with meets/does not meet and a note for each, asking my questions when it is my turn. 
• After the candidate gives their closing remarks we go to board deliberations.
  • This begins with everyone on the board giving a pass/don't pass vote
  • We then go through every item on the strawman and give a meets/does not meet at the detail level and then at the competency level
  • As we do the competency level meets/does not meet we provide feedback at the competency level
  • Then we do an overall pass/don't pass vote - 3 out of 4 people need to pass the candidate for an overall pass
  • Finally, we do overall feedback

You will notice that I mentioned the strawman multiple times above.  The strawman is the guidance for meeting the certification and helps keep the bar consistent from candidate to candidate.  The strawman does not provide a numerical formula that rolls up though - it becomes a judgment call based on looking at the overall meeting of the strawman.  The areas where I have seen someone pass everything but one competency and still not pass the overall certification are the strategy competency and the technical depth/breadth competencies.  For example, I personally have a hard time passing a candidate who cannot link the strategy of the business with the architecture even if they do well in all of the other areas.

As you can see above there is a lot of information being gathered during the board review - roughly a two hour period of time.  Here are some things you can do to help yourself out during the board review:

• Make sure your presentation is tight and under 30 minutes.  You will be cut off exactly at 30 minutes.  Remember that the presentation is the only time you control the board - make the best of it.
• Make sure you present your project in light of the competencies.  I wouldn't be blatant, I would tell a story, but make sure that you are providing evidence of as many of the competencies in your presentation.
• Be passionate during your presentation - you are selling you and your abilities.
• Make sure you differentiate "we" v. "I" during the board review.  Be humble, but communicate what specifically you did.  Don't represent other's work as your own.
• Listen to the questions being asked, clarify and understand what is being asked, and answer what was asked.  The board is looking for evidence and asking you specific questions to gather this evidence.  When you don't answer a question because you didn't understand it or because you are evading it, you waste time and the board may not have the opportunity to ask questions that cover the entire strawman.
• Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it would...".  You will not be able fool the board on your knowledge - but if you are honest and provide an answer that shows you can make a very educated guess based on logic and understanding it helps out tremendously. 
• Be prepared for rapid fire questioning - you most likely will be cutoff by the board during a response if they board member feels they have the answer they need (they are also mindful of time and want to get through every item on the strawman).  I have seen candidates get flustered by this, just expect it.  If there is an important point where you feel you were cut off and want to provide it, ask the board member if you can finish.  Think of the board as an important customer that is a little confrontational - you would expect to get beat up a little but still be respectful and get your point across.
• Be prepared for role play in different scenarios.
• Expect this to be stressful - every person that I know has felt that they did not pass when they finished (even those that have done exceptional).  It is emotional and you will likely replay many of the questions in your mind afterwards.  You will think of a bunch of ways to answer questions differently. After you are done, you can't worry about it anymore.
• You will probably think that the board members are not very nice by the time you are done.  It isn't meant to be that way, but the board is focused on trying to gather evidence.  As I mentioned above, the board is very interested in passing as many people as they can - the certification will not have the notoriety until there is some type of critical mass.  They aren't trying to create an adversarial environment and it isn't purposeful, but I can't think of a way to go through the process without the board asking the tough questions and doing a lot of context switching.  As a candidate, it feels personal, but as I mentioned above: "Don't take it personally".

Again, as you go through board review you will be stressed and you will be asked questions to the point of exhaustion.  It isn't on purpose, but a byproduct of the process.  I'd rather you were prepared for it so it was not a shock.  Getting through the process and passing is a great feeling - it is a tremendous sense of accomplishment.  I personally think it would be worth the pain.

This post is part of a series of articles about the MCA program.  The opinions here are solely my own and may not reflect the opinions of Microsoft or anyone affiliated with the MCA program.