National institutes who are full members of the ICMCI are obliged to observe reciprocity rights in respect of all other full members: that is, to recognise within their own country the CMCs awarded by other full member institutes; and should a consultant awarded the CMC by another institute move to their country, to accept that individual into membership if they so request.
Reciprocity of recognition of Accredited Consulting Practices is not quite so straightforward, but extending reciprocity to this area is also logical, as the standards and processes for the professional development and assessment of consulting staff are increasingly uniform in international practices. However, it has to be recognised that the institute in country A cannot actually check and be sure that this is so or fully so in countries B, C, D…etc.
With these considerations in mind, the ICMCI has adopted the following simple protocol, binding on member institutes, for international recognition of Accredited Consulting Practices.
- The first national institute to carry out a detailed assessment of an international practice and award it ACP status should be recognised as the lead assessor of that practice internationally.
- It would be registered with the ICMCI as such (this register being available to all members of the ICMCI), and its assessment documentation should if possible be lodged confidentially with the ICMCI.
- Should that practice request to extend its ACP status to one or more other the ICMCI countries, the national institute in each of those countries is obliged to respond, and respond constructively, to that request (which of course offers it the opportunity of increased membership).
- The national institute in each of these countries should firstly be given confidential access to the lead assessor institute’s detailed assessment of that practice in the lead assessor’s country.
- The institute should then carry out a simple supplementary audit or review of the practice in its own country, designed to confirm that the same standards are in place as in the lead assessor country. It is up to the institute to decide the extent of such a supplementary audit (indeed, whether it wishes to undertake one, beyond the lead assessor’s evaluation); but it should normally be on a much smaller scale than the lead assessor’s audit.
- Subject to a satisfactory outcome, the institute would then grant ACP status to the practice in its own country, operating in accordance with its own local arrangements.