|
The Amsterdam Model
« About Us Menu
PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Richard Elliott (Australia) - Committee Chair
Angelo Kehayas (South Africa) - Deputy Chair
Barry Curnow (United Kingdom)
Saidul Haq (Bangladesh)
THE AMSTERDAM MODEL FOR
INTERNATIONAL CMC STANDARDS
The
following report sets out the background to the development and agreement
between member Institutes to adopt an international standard for the Certified
Management Consultant (CMC) competency standard and mark.
This
report formed part of the agenda papers at Amsterdam. It resulted in 19
resolutions being proposed, seconded and accepted by the ICMCI Business Meeting
held on September 20.
From
those, two further resolutions which encompassed the 19, were proposed and
adopted by the Formal Meeting of ICMCI on September 21, 1999.
The
next step is the internationalisation of the individual Certified Management
Consultant and Certified Practice models and their implementation.
The
Project Committee wishes to thank the large number of representatives of member
Institutes for their input cooperation and support in this project.
This
presentation culminates the work of two committees over the last four years.
I would
like to thank Barry Curnow and Angelo Kehayas for their considerable assistance
in this project.
Richard
Elliott
Chair
CONTENTS
1.
Introduction 4
1.1 The CMC Competency Model
4
1.2 Certified
Practice
5
1.3 Professional Development
Delivery 5
1.4 Continuing Professional
Development
5
2. Background and
History
6
2.1 Summary of CMC Standards: Survey - September
1997 6
2.2 Criteria for Initial Attainment of
CMC 6
2.3 CMC Maintenance
Processes 7
2.4
Summary 7
2.5 Key
Findings
8
2.6
Recommendations of CMC Survey Committee at Cape Town
Congress - September
1997 8
2.6.1 Development and Promotion of CMC Trademark
8
2.6.2 Objective Process for CMC Admission
8
2.6.3 CMC the Only International Standard 9
2.7
Final Resolutions of CMC Standards Survey Committee at
Cape Town - September
1997 9
3. CMC Standards Implementation
Committee 10
3.1
Background 10
3.2 CMC Admission by
Examination 11
3.3 CMC Admission by Competency
Assessment 11
3.4 Common United Body of
Knowledge 12
4. Interim Committee Report at Goa Congress - October 31,
1998 12
4.1 Examination
Strengths 12
4.2 Examination
Weaknesses 13
4.3 Assessment
Strengths 13
4.4 Assessment
Weaknesses
13
4.5 CMC
Certification Should Allow for a Combination of
Both
Processes 13
4.6 Agreement on the UBK
Required 13
4.7 Next
Step 14
4.8 Competency Model
Update 14
5.
Final Recommendations by Committee at Amsterdam Congress
September 20,
1999 14
5.1
Objectives 14
5.2 CMC - A Global
Standard 14
5.3 The Common
Framework 15
5.3.1 Elements of the Common
Framework 15
5.3.2 What the Member IMC's Should be
Certifying 15
5.3.3 Level of
Competence 16
5.3.4 Personal Attributes Versus Personal
Competence 16
5.4 Examination or Competency
Assessment 16
5.4.1 Examinations for Entry
Level 16
5.4.2
Examination
16
5.4.3
Assessment
17
5.4.4 The Basis for
Reciprocity 17
5.5 CMC Versus IMC
Membership 18
5.6 Training and
Qualifications
18
5.7 Certification
Process
19
5.8
Re-assessment 19
5.9 Global Practice
Certification
19
6 Resolutions for CMC Standards Competency Model - ICMCI
Business Meeting - Amsterdam - September 20,
1999 21
7
Final Proposal and Resolution for CMC Standards Competency Model
ICMCI Formal Meeting - Amsterdam - September 21, 1999 23
8
References 23
9
Appendix 24
9.1 IMC - United Kingdom - CMC Application Pack
9.2
IMC - United Kingdom - Certified Practices Information
1
Introduction
As part of the 1992 strategic plan,
ICMCI set about establishing an international management consulting standard.
The key strategic initiatives, which
will result at an international and a national level, were thought to be:
1.
The introduction of a Certified Management Consultant (CMC) competency
model which it is believed provides a more relevant pathway for most management
consultants.
2.
The development of an “inclusive” approach to the management consulting
community, rather than the previous approach which was perceived as “exclusive”.
3.
The development of the “Certified Practice” concept for firms.
(See Appendix 1: CMC Application Pack)
The international CMC competency model
should be adopted because feedback from clients indicated that they regard
competency-based accreditation of management consultants as important.
While some member Institutes provided
accreditation via written examination, others do not use this process as they
feel it does not address the specific competencies of different members, and
does not cover a broad enough spectrum of consultant types. The question asked
was “what is being examined and why?”
Over the last four years, two project
committees have assessed the existing standards and processes of member
Institutes throughout the world. The work of these project committees
recognised the different levels and styles of member Institutes, their members
and their markets. The first committee, the CMC Standards Survey
Committee assessed over twelve processes which included CMC attained by in
depth interview and written examination.
No member Institute regarded their
standards as being perfect, and as such they have continued to evolve. The
CMC Standards Implementation Committee (the Committee); the second committee
and author of this document, believes member Institutes should be free to choose
either assessment process.
Most importantly, the Committee regards
CMC as an important brand which should be promoted and facilitated by ICMCI and
its members at every opportunity.
(See Appendix 2: Certified Practices)
In addition to individuals being members
of member Institutes, it is recommended that there should be a corporate
classification. This category of membership was introduced in the UK with
considerable success to expand IMC membership into larger consulting firms, and
to build the CMC brand in those firms.
Certified Practices are required to
demonstrate that they already have appropriate professional development programs
and performance records for their consultants, and that these will be accredited
against a member Institute's standards - at present many member Institutes are
looking to introduce equivalent standards based on this approach.
By agreement, a firm can recommend
individuals as CMCs. Because they work for a Certified Practice, CMC's may pay
a lower fee as the Certified Practice may also be accredited to do all of the
assessing work. A firm’s consultants do not need to be CMCs, indeed they can be
all Associates, but the aim is to progress them to CMC standard.
Should consultants leave a firm they
will retain their CMC or Associate status (while they are financial members of a
member Institute) as it has been assigned to them, not to the firm.
For an annual fee, an organisational
affiliate can nominate five people who will receive benefits such as magazines,
newsletters, access to activities, etc, the primary goal being to stay in touch
with the industry, to stay informed if not involved. The five staff are
interchangeable, and additional staff can be added for an additional fee.
ICMCI does not intend to involve itself
in developing and delivering professional development products.
It is proposed that once a CMC standard
is accepted, that member Institutes will approve training organisations,
positioning themselves as the accrediting body, giving IMC's exposure across a
range of deliverers and delegates. This approach is becoming increasingly
successful in the university environment with post-graduate studies in
management consulting
It is proposed that once individual
members achieve CMC status they should undertake a minimum number of CPD hours
per annum.
·
In 1995, the ICMCI Conference in Singapore
appointed a Committee to survey the use and interpretation of the designation
CMC mark through member Institutes. The Committee consisted of Richard Elliott
- Australia (Chair), Barry Curnow - United Kingdom, Tony Battaini - Australia,
Adrian Palmer - Canada, Ben Laauwen - South Africa and Pat Gillen - Ireland
·
At the ICMCI Conference in Vienna in June 1996,
the results of the survey of member and associate countries conducted by
Australia, were presented. The interim results illustrated the extent to which
CMC has become the international standard in management consulting, but also
identified individual interpretations of CMC among member Institutes
·
At Cape Town in 1997, the final report was
presented and as a result of the apparent discrepancies in the use and
interpretation of CMC, it was resolved to form a project committee to work
towards an agreed common standard and an implementation program
·
All member countries, apart from Malaysia who
was reviewing the introduction of CMC, require a university degree or equivalent
educational qualification
·
In the case of Australia, Canada, Denmark,
France, Ireland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, individuals without a
degree, but with at least eight years management consulting, may be considered
for initial membership of their Institute. The experience is that candidates
requesting consideration on these grounds are few, and must have exceptionally
strong claims to convince membership committees of their ability to meet the
admission standards
·
All countries require the individual to have
prior management consulting experience to become a CMC. In most cases this is
set at three years, but India, Netherlands and Switzerland require five years
and Austria two years
·
Full time consulting is defined by most
countries as between 800 to 1200 client related hours per year
·
There is a wide variance for determining CMC
admission, with a preference for peer interviews
-
There are only three countries using examination alone
-
Seven using an interview alone
-
A further six using both examination and interview
-
The most usual additional requirements for attaining CMC are client
references and assignment summaries
-
India and Singapore require the consultant to be above a certain age
-
The USA uses an aggregated points system, based on education, work
experience assignment summaries, and professional activities, to determine
eligibility to attend a CMC ethics examination and certification panel interview
·
There are uneven levels of activity in relation
to the promotion of CMC
·
The survey revealed that all countries with CMC
regularly review their admission processes, some quite regularly, others on an
ad hoc basis
It was
recommended in time that member Institutes standardise the entry requirements
for CMC attainment.
·
The survey indicated that some countries did
not actively promote the CMC mark or brand name
·
Austria, Canada, France and Malaysia have
legislation or regulatory framework to govern professional registration,
including the management consulting profession
·
Australia appears to be the only country which
links CMC to a practising certificate and requires the individual to meet
certain practice hours and continuing education requirements each year to
maintain the certificate
-
Most other member countries indicated in their survey responses that
their CMC licence is basically indefinite, once issued
-
In Switzerland, there is a re-certification process for CMC's every three
years
·
Canada and Australia, use the CMC concept to
signify competency
·
In Australia, individuals are graded
permanently as CMC, but must reapply annually for a practising certificate,
which is only issued if they
-
Have practised full time as a management consultant in the preceding year
-
Undertaken a specified amount of approved continuing education
-
Remained financial members of their local state chapter
-
If they fail to meet these criteria, they are recorded on the membership
database as "non-practising CMC"
·
It is evident from the data that most member
countries and associates of ICMCI have adopted CMC as the standard for
identifying experienced individuals, practising as professional management
consultants, who are members of their country's institute
·
There is significant variation in the processes
adopted across countries to assess individuals for attainment of CMC
·
This ranges from the situation where anyone who
is a member of an institute is entitled to use CMC, such as Ireland, through to
the USA with an aggregate points system covering education, experience and
professional development, as well as an ethics examination and peer interview
There were a
number of conclusions drawn from the survey. These were:
1.
CMC is actively accepted and used by most ICMCI members as an
international standard to signify experienced management consultants
2.
There are policy statements in only six countries to reinforce CMC and
these are generally based on ICMCI policy
3.
The criteria for attainment of CMC have several common elements, such as
minimum education and experience, but vary in terms of additional criteria
4.
There is clearly no agreed approach to use or content of exams, peer
interview panels, client references or assignment summaries to assess CMC's.
There is the very real prospect of a parochial bias for admission as a CMC, in
the absence of an agreed approach for assessment
5.
There is an unresolved dichotomy between those countries promoting a
strongly regulatory framework to control the consulting profession, versus
others who prefer to rely on the marketplace as the regulator
6.
There are few guidelines and considerable scope for improvement, in the
use and promotion of the CMC mark and brand. To ensure international protection,
the majority countries need to trademark or register the CMC mark
7.
CMC tends to be used as a grade of membership, rather than as an
indicator of competency. Scope exists to re-enforce the idea that CMC is a mark
of competency, by approaches such as the annual issuing of a practising
certificate or license, based on undertaking continuing education and minimum
consulting practice hours
·
The development and promotion of the CMC mark and its
international protection against misuse are fundamental to the future of the
ICMCI
·
It is important to obtain agreement between member
Institutes that ICMCI adopt the CMC mark as the international standard for
management consulting that it will not be compromised in the long term
·
If the ICMCI is to be relevant, it has to provide a
certification process that major buyers of consulting services will respect. The
monitoring of the mark may prove to be more important to some buyers than the
mark itself
·
There needs to be an objective methodology or process
for admission to CMC which is seen as arms length by the wider market. The
avoidance of a parochial bias appears to be the most important contribution that
a CMC competency standard, governed by ICMCI, could make to the credibility of
individual members throughout the world
·
To do this, ICMCI will need to agree that CMC is the
only accepted international competency qualification and determine minimum
standards of admission and maintenance
·
This may require sacrifice of certain requirements by
some member Institutes and the raising of standards by others. For example, the
introduction of a minimum of professional development hours requirement each
year as a mechanism for holding a CMC Practising Certificate is one way to
demonstrate to the market that CMC is a properly administered certification with
proper standards
·
CMC is the only standard for identifying experienced
individuals, practising as professional management consultants, who are members
of their country’s Institute
1.
All member Institutes adopt CMC standards policy guidelines and fully
implement them within two years.
2.
All countries trademark CMC within the next two years.
3.
All countries agree that if a CMC applicant has no degree, then eight
years consulting experience be accepted.
4.
CMC applicants with a recognised degree have a minimum of three years
consulting experience prior to becoming eligible for CMC.
5.
All countries will conduct a pre-admission seminar for CMC applicants as
undertaken in Canada.
6.
From 1999, all candidates for CMC will sit a suitable exam, similar to
there developed by Canada and Australia, so as to ensure minimum CMC standards
internationally. Until that time, existing admission rules will apply.
7.
The examination papers will be prepared by ICMCI and provided to all
future CMC candidates for a small fee.
The marking
of the completed papers will be undertaken either by:
·
ICMCI approved national organisations
·
ICMCI program committee
It is further
proposed that a fee will apply for: the taking of the examination paper by an
individual member and its marking by an independent party.
8.
The minimum number of consulting hours for a full time management
consultant is defined as 1200 client related hours per annum.
9.
All countries adopt a practising certificate for all CMCs, which requires
a minimum number of 30 hours per annum, or 100 of professional development every
three years.
10.
An individual is entitled to use the CMC mark only while a member of a
national Institute which is a member of ICMCI.
11.
A CMC will enter into an agreement to use the mark responsibly and in
good faith while a member of a national Institute that is a member of ICMCI.
12.
Two program committees be formed to assist in the implementation of these
proposals. One program committee will be responsible for the examination and
professional development processes and the other for trademark and compliance
requirements.
NOTE:
The adoption of the Amsterdam model overrode some resolutions (example: 6,7,8
above) by agreeing to the use of the UK Model (Example Resolution 8, Page 21).
As a result of the acceptance of
the twelve proposals above, a CMC Standards Implementation Committee was formed
to establish an international standard. The project committee members were:-
Richard
Elliott (Australia) - Committee Chair
Angelo Kehayas (South Africa) - Deputy Chair
Barry Curnow (United Kingdom)
Liz Mellish (Australia)
Geoffrey Kitt (United Kingdom)
Saidul Haq (Bangladesh)
Summary of the Committee Report
of October/ November 1998:
LONG TERM OBJECTIVE: "To
provide an unbiased and truly international standard which consultants wish to
attain and which is recognised by all influential agencies."
SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE: "Develop
policy and implementation strategy for the CMC Standards program approved in
Cape Town and establish a competency based model for the examination process for
member Institutes."
All relevant data was collected
from various member Institutes where possible.
In essence, the Project
Committee received several suitable papers and references. Material relating to
CMC admission on a national basis falls into two main streams:
-
CMC Admission by Examination (E.g. Canada)
-
CMC Admission by Competency Assessment (E.g. United Kingdom)
·
Admission by examination can be a rigorous,
arms length process, which included the use of workshop manuals, and case
studies, a written consulting report (test) and marked by an independent body (eg.
University)
·
This process was seen by some member Institutes
as being intimidating and too broad to properly cover the various management
consulting disciplines. This concern also related to those individuals who did
not undertake regular professional development and saw such a process as
threatening
·
The member Institutes who use Examination were
satisfied with their integrity, but agreed additional exam papers were required
to properly cover more of the specialisations/ disciplines
·
Elements relating to management consulting
practice however were thought to be satisfactory
·
The strengths of the written examination were
that the criteria for assessment were clearly spelt out, it provided a
comparable platform for university accreditation degree (eg. Australia), could
have been independently measured and unbiased on an international basis
·
Weaknesses were that the process did not do
justice to specialist skills. There may have been a technical vulnerability and
it may have been too generic a focus on overarching experiences
·
The peer assessment depended on the quality of
the assessor being even-handed and to have possessed sufficient qualifications
to do the process justice. While the selection criteria may be objective, the
interpretation could have been subjective or biased.
·
IMC - UK had approved a Credit Accumulation and
Transfer Framework (CATF) which attempted to introduce a national standard for
management consultants. To achieve recognition as a management consultant, a
mix of four different types of competence needed to have been demonstrated:
management consultancy competence, management competence, relevant specialist
technical competence (eg. Finance, IT, QA) and PESTLE (political, economic,
social, technological, legal and environment); and ACT (acting, communicating
and thinking) competence. For each area, credits were awarded mainly for work
based experience supplemented by credits for training, study and personal CPD
activities
·
This concept had a number of suitable elements
and seemed ideal as an alternative or replacement of the examination process
·
A drawback may have been the high demand for
assessors. The premise was that member Institutes had time to undertake
interviews, but due to distance, culture and logistics, such a model needed low
HR input to be effective
·
IMC - Australia had a similar 'pathway' for
competency development and recognition commencing with affiliate and culminating
in CMC status. The integrated model included three training modules, a pre-CMC
workshop which covered PESTLE/ ACT competency then an examination process. The
examination was chosen because peer assessment was thought to be too time
consuming and difficult to manager in a voluntary organisation
·
Further, CMC examination provided members with
valuable transferable credit points for post graduate/ masters’ level higher
education. The market has a high regard for this process
·
At Goa, the Committee and other interested
parties workshopped the two models, together with the Kehayas model and adopted
the Goa model
Barry
Curnow arranged for Scottish undergraduate Daniel Shepherd to review the ICMCI
Uniform Body of Knowledge. This process was carried out over a period of
eighteen months and is contained in the agenda papers. Daniel was congratulated
for his considerable efforts. In practice the Body of Knowledge reflects the
common elements rather than uniform or universal ones so it may be sensible to
revert to the earlier term of Common.
A summary of the Committee presentation
slides in Goa are set out below:
·
Rigorous
·
Arms length
·
Clearly defined
·
Comparable
·
Marketable
·
Too generic
·
Incomplete assessment
·
Insufficient weight to technical skills
·
Quality of local testing
·
Consistency and bias of assessor
·
Inclusive
·
Recognises different levels of skills
·
Acknowledges experience
·
Specific focus of practice
·
Interpretation subject to bias
·
Not arms length
·
High administration costs
·
Dependent on volunteers
·
Perceived exclusivity
·
Examination only applicable to knowledge-based
components
·
Rest by peer review, assessment or relevant
qualifications
·
There cannot be single method
·
What are the components (quadrants)
·
Which elements are to be assessed
·
To be reflected in CMC standards
·
Uniform or Common?
·
The Goa model included a combination of the UK
& Kehayas models. The Committee will add subsequent developments in the market
place after October 1998.
·
Barry Curnow presented the revised UBK and the
Competency Model report from Daniel Shepherd.
·
Resolved: Approved in principle for further
refinement and consultation prior to formal adoption in Amsterdam.
This Congress needs to approve the
above recommendations and the Committee will present a summary list of
propositions for delegates to vote upon. However, the test and proof of the
standard as work in progress already exists in the work undertaken by major
consulting firms and institutes based upon it in the last year since Goa. It is
suggested that Congress can most usefully confirm the principles contained
herein and authorise the Excom to proceed with monitoring and implementing them
on an ongoing basis, subject of course to review at future Congresses.
LONG TERM OBJECTIVE: “To provide an unbiased and truly
international standard which consultants wish to attain and which is recognised
by all influential agencies.”
SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE: “Develop policy and implementation
strategy for the CMC Standards program approved in Cape Town and establish a
competency based model for the examination process for member Institutes.”
It was proposed that:
·
A global standard based on a universally
accepted common body of knowledge and competency framework (Ref: Section 7,
Resolution 1, Page 21, adopted).
·
Member status will be the minimum standard for
international reciprocity between member Institutes (Ref: R2).
·
That CMC will be the minimum international or
global competency standard (Ref: R3).
In order to
certify management consultants according to a globally acceptable standard,
reference to a globally accepted framework is required.
The Committee
referred to the various sources of reference material on this subject:
1.
The Management Charter Initiative (MCI) in the UK, which seeks to set
management consultants’ standards
2.
The Uniform Body of Knowledge (UBK) of the ICMCI that identifies the
elements of knowledge required for the profession
3.
The CATF (Credit Accumulation and Transfer) model that establishes mutual
recognition for competencies between accrediting bodies
4.
The international consulting practices model, which sets standards of
reciprocity for international practices. It also represents the application of
the international standard in practice
5.
The South African model, which aligns knowledge, competence and
qualifications.
6.
Various member nations CMC application processes.
Competence is
taken to mean the ability to produce the desired outcomes and implies the
knowledge and experience required to do so.
The global
standard is to be set on competencies and outcomes and not simply knowledge.
The basic
competency groupings are as follows:
·
Specialist Technical and Industry
·
Management
·
The Practice of Management Consulting
·
Practice Management -Managing a Professional
Practice.
·
Personal attributes, personal competencies and
ethical behaviour, which underpin effective performance. Ethical behaviour can
be separated into knowledge of what constitutes ethical behaviour and references
from the marketplace indicating an individual’s good standing. (CATF – ACT and
ethical behaviour).
·
The IMCs should be requiring proof of
competence in all of the areas defined in the global framework.
·
The member IMCs should however focus on the
over-arching capabilities which tie a consultant’s personal, functional
/technical and industry competencies together in delivering the required
professional result according to the global standard.
·
The proposed model suggests (or implies) that a
CMC possesses a certain (minimum) profile of competencies and can/should) still
progress further (say to a super CMC).
·
This argument is supported by Michael Shays in
his document “A proposal to create an international certification examination”
which in essence talks about a “super level” CMC designation.
·
The agreed framework specifies a need to prove
competence in two very different arenas namely:
1.
Specialist, management and management consulting competence
2.
Personal attributes which are personal competencies (ACT) and ethical
behaviour according to accepted standards
·
A CMC needs to satisfy minimum standards in
each area.
·
Determining proof of competence in each may
require two very different approaches.
It is
recommended that ICMCI adopt the terminology used in the Goa and UK models
(Ref: R4), and that the field of management be split into management practice
and practice management (Ref: R5). It is also recommended that proof of
competence be required in all areas defined in the global framework (ref 6.3.1)
(Ref: R6).
·
There should be a distinction between
inexperienced individuals (new to business) and individuals with a wealth of
business experience (new to the profession). ICMCI should be in a position to
accept proof of competence in business, management, industry etc from other
accredited sources and not re-invent the wheel.
·
A formal qualification/examination in
management consulting could address the market for inexperienced individuals and
provide proof of knowledge.
·
An examination is a useful tool to circumvent
or replace experience in certain areas and can be effectively used at an entry
level, especially if the individual has no other academic qualifications. An
examination is certainly not enough on its own.
It is
recommended that those member Institutes who wish to continue to use only a
written examination, rather than an assessment/ assignment process may do so, as
ling as the agreed process meets with approval by ICMCI, but that the competence
standard be demonstrated appropriately (Ref: R7).
·
An examination can only test certain aspects of
Knowledge and would not produce acceptable results in the area of Personal
Attributes.
·
Examination alone is thus insufficient on its
own– it provides proof of knowledge and not competence
·
The ACT component of a consultant’s overall
competence cannot be suitably tested by examination.
·
An approved psychometric assessment could be
used for the ACT elements. (There is a pretty good correlation between certain
psychometric assessments and the ACT elements).
·
CMC examination provides its members with valuable transferable
credit points for post graduate/ master’s level higher education. The market
generally has a high regard for this process.
·
What constitutes competence?
1.
Academic prowess – passing an examination or previous qualifications
2.
Experience – i.e. “I have done it before”
3.
Outcomes – I can demonstrate the capability
4.
A combination
·
Assessment depends on the ability of the assessor to be
even-handed and to possess sufficient qualifications to do the process justice.
While the selection criteria may be objective, the interpretation can be
subjective or biased.
·
Assessment alone is therefore insufficient, unless it allows for
the inclusion of an individual’s experience and track record.
·
It is recommended that an assessment is
indispensable in every application for CMC status but may be insufficient in
many cases, especially for inexperienced candidates, who have an insufficient
track record or experience.
It is
recommended that the preferred CMC competency assessment process be a
continuation of assessment (or the UK procedure) be adopted by ICMCI and its
member Institutes (Ref: R8). Furthermore, it is recommended that the CMC
competency standard recognise that each member Institute has unique challenges
and legal responsibilities and that ICMCI acknowledges these differences in its
global model (Ref: R9).
·
A single method of assessing competence would
not be achievable across the globe and that each institute would have to satisfy
the ICMCI that its method of assessing competence would be adequate for all
other member institutions and thus acceptable to all.
·
Examination tests knowledge, not the
application of knowledge, therefore proof of competence should override it.
·
As a result, “proof of adherence to the global
standard” is all that can be demanded; not “how adherence to the global standard
is assessed”.
·
Assessment and references should be an integral
part of any application process. This would include client and personal
references, projects completed, level of experience and potentially some
psychometric assessment.
·
Each country will have unique challenges and
legal requirements and this must be allowed for.
·
The ICMCI will need to accept a combination of
examination and assessment and set minimum equivalent standards for each.
·
The integrating component is the international
equivalent of the “CATF” model, which basically allows an applicant to build up
credits for CMC from various sources as opposed to a single prescribed source.
(The work remaining is to determine how these credits should be weighted.)
·
It remains for each member nation to prove that
their weighting system is fair and impartial and that it meets the minimum
standards of the ICMCI.
It is
recommended that the ICMCI Congress agree to a global standard of CMC
reciprocity which will be known as the Amsterdam model (Ref: R10). As an
interim measure, those member Institutes not in a position to adopt the global
standard be given time to comply (Ref: R11).
·
The concepts of Membership and Certification
are logically separate.
·
Membership relates to “belonging” and adherence
to a code of ethics and conduct and certification is required for proof of
competence
·
It is prudent to separate the concepts of :
1.
Good standing – proposal, secondment, ethics; and
2.
Competence – examination, assessment or experience
·
Good standing includes ethics and reputation
and is something relating to membership, compliance with a code of conduct and
not to competence per se.
·
It is recommended that CMC status (the minimum
standard for reciprocity) is based on both good standing and competence.
It is
proposed that the CMC competency standard include confirmation, proof of ethical
behaviour and reputation as a prerequisite to attainment of the CMC designation
and that this be confirmed by individual members and Certified Practices by
signing a code of conduct declaration to this effect (Ref: R12).
·
It is proposed that any approved training or
qualification model should have a close correlation to the common body of
knowledge and should therefore be superimposed on the competency framework.
·
A lot of work is required to assess each
applicable course and assign a (competency) grading or level to it. Each country
could utilise the equivalent of the national education authority that assigns
status to registered courses.
·
Where courses are unregistered, they could be
registered with the ICMCI and assigned a status related to the global competency
framework.
·
The above are to be fleshed out for
presentation in Toronto in April 2000.
·
The certification process must include:
·
Assessment
·
Knowledge and Signature of a code of conduct
·
Examination
·
An approved CATF model needs to be agreed. This
model will allow for the substitution of :
· | 
