Surely the bottom line should be 'policed' by the IfA with support and compliance by RAOs - if the IfA wishes to be seen as representing the industry and pulling companies together into one viable sector. Or is that not what the IfA is aiming for?
If I'm honest, I don't like the idea of policing through curators, it seems patronising and overly prescriptive, although I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the need for it.
We should all be compliant in good practise, voluntarily and willingly. Its understandable when so many companies are on the edge (and many have been there for some time) - and so many staff responsible for producing WSIs and DBAs which are seen as a way into more work are carrying that pressure. We all need a bit of self respect and pride for once, or is that to idealistic?
We have two options: to begin working with that self-respect or to tear each other to shreds until there's nothing left and the various markets we operate in have moved on. Now's the time for a bit of responsible leadership and innovation on a wide range of larger issues and this just represents some of that.
Perhaps its something about our commercial background which leads us to view curators as police. I'd rather see their role as offering balance and uniformity of compliance across their regional remits based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence and whatever regional research frameworks might exist (whether this happens consistently is another matter). They should act as an anchor to ensure the work that is done is relevant and contributes, something which is important as an industry. It should be down to us under the umbrella of our appropriate and representative industry bodies to do the work to a high standard and not take the piss. The fact is, if we do take the piss all the time (like now? :face-stir
, at some point (probably quite soon) we'll get caught out and called out by our clients and then we'll all be xx(! And curators won't have all that much to do with that situation.
Sorry, that went a little off topic I guess.......
If I'm honest, I don't like the idea of policing through curators, it seems patronising and overly prescriptive, although I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the need for it.
We should all be compliant in good practise, voluntarily and willingly. Its understandable when so many companies are on the edge (and many have been there for some time) - and so many staff responsible for producing WSIs and DBAs which are seen as a way into more work are carrying that pressure. We all need a bit of self respect and pride for once, or is that to idealistic?
We have two options: to begin working with that self-respect or to tear each other to shreds until there's nothing left and the various markets we operate in have moved on. Now's the time for a bit of responsible leadership and innovation on a wide range of larger issues and this just represents some of that.
Perhaps its something about our commercial background which leads us to view curators as police. I'd rather see their role as offering balance and uniformity of compliance across their regional remits based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence and whatever regional research frameworks might exist (whether this happens consistently is another matter). They should act as an anchor to ensure the work that is done is relevant and contributes, something which is important as an industry. It should be down to us under the umbrella of our appropriate and representative industry bodies to do the work to a high standard and not take the piss. The fact is, if we do take the piss all the time (like now? :face-stir
, at some point (probably quite soon) we'll get caught out and called out by our clients and then we'll all be xx(! And curators won't have all that much to do with that situation.Sorry, that went a little off topic I guess.......