17th August 2011, 01:13 PM
Oxbeast Wrote:@ecmgardner
My problem with the IfA is that they seem to undermine their credibility somewhat. Letting a largish group of people bypass the validation committee risks undermining the whole princilpe of validation. Setting a standard for salaries for different levels of responsibility and then going out of your way to advertise jobs that pay pocket money undermines the principle of standard setting. Having a disciplinary process and then keeping the whole thing secret undermines the deterrent aspect of the process.
I can't really respond to the salaries issue as I'm approaching it from an AAI&S perspective but the validation I can.
Every full member of the AAI&S has already undertaken validation, not just by committee but by panel interview and peer assessment and presentation in person to a panel of their work. The process of the AAI&S's assessment was more rigourous than the IfA's because it was able to deal with the volume in far more detail than the IfA has the capacity too - panel interviews for every application aren't really practicable for the IfA. The IfA examined the process in detail as part of the merger negotiations and their due dilligence. All new MIfA are still required to sign up to the IfA's code of conduct, but I think it's a mark of respect for the Association and it's own code of conduct to trust that those who have passed assesment, are indeed of the required calibre. I am aware that the panel would often not pass those for assessment because standards were not up to scratch... which is what you want to maintain the value of the membership for those who have achieved it. Is that part of your concern about the undermining of credibility? I think you have to accept the AAI&S as a credible organisation which was dedicated to high standards in it's professional areas of competence...