+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Investors in People (/showthread.php?tid=65)
Investors in People - Paul Belford - 20th December 2005
Thanks both for your comments.
To be honest we did IIP largely because we were part of a bigger organisation which was doing it. I had hoped to go for RAO this year but other pressures put that to the back burner, and IIP came along. As 1man points out various quality standards now require it. Some of our projects are quite large multi-agency projects with complex funding and procurement rules and this will be helpful to us on those schemes.
Nevertheless if it has made us look again at our management practices (particularly in view of anticipated expansion in 2006), improved morale, and invigorated a desire amongst all staff to go seriously for RAO status, then it is surely a good thing?
I am very pleased to have achieved this and actually think it worth celebrating.
Investors in People - the invisible man - 20th December 2005
Surely it is not legal to demand IIP as a pre-qualification?
What a bizarre situation it would be if that is possible, yet membership, corporate or individual, of a professional institution is not a legitimate pre-qualification.
I am reminded of the old b-it about Quality Assurance. What a farcical paper chase that was.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Investors in People - Post-Med Potterer - 20th December 2005
I actually agree with vulpes that IIP is a load of tosh.
But I think you are being a bit harsh here vulpes. It looks like the Ironbridge people have at least taken it seriously (probably more so, and to a more rigorous standard in 2005 than Ar-Sols did in 2002). In sticking his head above the BAJR parapet, Mr. Belford has got a very rude response from another employer who is essentially trying to achieve the same thing through different means. No wonder so many of us lurk on here under pseudonyms.
Investors in People - Paul Belford - 20th December 2005
I think I may have overstated the case a bit. No it has never been demanded as a requirement per se. But hints are often dropped in the usual manner.
I agree that RAO would be more effective as a measure of quality, but this is just one step in a series of major changes we are making at Ironbridge.
Investors in People - 1man1desk - 20th December 2005
Quote:quote:Surely it is not legal to demand IIP as a pre-qualification?
What a bizarre situation it would be if that is possible, yet membership, corporate or individual, of a professional institution is not a legitimate pre-qualification.
I am reminded of the old b-it about Quality Assurance. What a farcical paper chase that was.
Not only is IIP a legitimate criteria for pre-qualification, but it is one often used. However, you are wrong to think that professional memberships are not legitimate criteria - they are also often used, as is RAO status sometimes. Quite a few of the tenders we submit (and some of the ones we invite) require appropriate individual IFA memberships and/or RAO status. QA is the most common criteria of all. I also used to think that QA was a waste of time, but as I come across old jobs being revived after gaps of several years I thank god for QA where it has been applied and weep tears of blood where it hasn't.
There may be some confusion about what 'pre-qualification' means here. We are talking about very large multi-disciplinary projects (often with fees in the millions), for very large clients, where simply preparing and submitting a tender may cost ?50-100K and the client may spend months doing the tender assessment. To avoid wasting their time, the clients use a pre-qualification process whereby only firms that can meet certain criteria (mainly technical ability, track record and availability of resources) are even allowed to submit a tender. So, perhaps 10-50 firms might be invited to pre-qualify, and only the top 4-6 might be selected to go on the tender list.
To save time on checking some aspects of the aspirant pre-qualifying firm, the client company can accept 3rd-party certifications such as IIP, QA and RAO as demonstrating competence in certain areas.
I know from experience that none of these certifications are rubber-stamps; they are hard to get, and easy to lose on an audit. You do pay for them, but the subscription cost pales into insignificance by comparison with the staff time and effort involved in qualifying for them. Of the three, RAO is easier than IIP or QA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Investors in People - vulpes - 20th December 2005
You get me wrong PMP I'm not speaking as an employer - my employer merely agrees with me. As someone who has experience of IIP I viewed Mr Belford's statement as trumpeting of something that can be used to mask poor CPD through the production of a paper trail. However, if I was rude I'll blame my hangover from last nights christmas do and the fact that the mention of IIP just winds me up. I would rather just see employers doing the right thing without flashing rosettes around. I am genuinely sorry if I upset Mr Belford but I think I've made my point. I am on the other hand pleased to see that he values the morale and aspirations of his staff. You say Slave Trader I say 'Investor In People' (Cartoon seen on a certain former Arch. Trusts finds room wall).
Investors in People - troll - 21st December 2005
Do I detect an apology Vulpes? You were a tad harsh. I happen to agree on a couple of points if I may. I feel that a fully integrated QA should be at the heart of project management. I also feel that simply putting a paper trail in place is just going through the motions.As Vulpes rightly pointed out, another unit (very smart headed paper) also holds similar accolades. However, rather than ridicule Paul, perhaps open dialogue would have been (and still should be)facilitated. Paul and his colleagues are moving in the right direction and are clearly excited about the future.There are those who wave accolades (institute Membership) about like passports and then behave unprofessionally. There are those who openly share with others an achievement in the process of becoming more efficient and accountable. To Paul and his colleagues- I have no doubt that you have chosen this course of action with the best of intentions and congratulations. Vulpes- snuggle, don`t bite.Merry Christmas.
Investors in People - BAJR Host - 21st December 2005
Ah.... IIP... just went through that at my council... explained the failings and even waived right to anonimity to highlight the stress. No desk for 3 months.... a computer only after 6 months, no training, no budget, over stretched, expectd to run and SMR as well as Development COntrol, helping Line MAnager cope with increasing workload, more an more problems on an overloaded service... guess what.... we got an award.... perhaps the bad words filter was used, so everythiing was rosey... I have asked for an explanation at why none of my comments were followed up.... still waiting.
Another day another WSI?
Investors in People - Paul Belford - 21st December 2005
Troll and others thanks very much for the support. I was not exactly upset, but certainly a bit taken aback by vulpes' rather bitter response!
I admit that I was just as cynical at the beginning - it was a paper chase, box ticking exercise, no use to us as such a small department etc. etc... Yes we could have gone through the motions and probably got the shiney badge anyway, but instead we took it seriously and all of us learned a lot.
I agree that a 'badge' such as IIP is not of itself a guarantor of good management or happy staff, but I am still proud of this achievement.
Investors in People - vulpes - 21st December 2005
Yeah you do detect an apology Troll. My experience of IIP sounds a bit similar to mr Hosty's, but I don't doubt Mr Belford's commitment so snuggles all round. Will try to be a better Vulpes in the new year. Merry Christmas to you!