Last week I discussed the proposed CIPSLicence and how I felt existing mechanisms should be used more effectively prior to being diverted into creating a new badge. If you read my blog you couldn't fail to have realised that I felt the strategy was flawed.
Today I read the Supply Management Supplement on Career Development - you can hopefully see CIPS logo in the top right section of the picture. Like most of the Supply Management Supplements I found this one an easy read and it raised some useful points. Yes, I liked the CPO interviews on '[Their] route to the top'. I also quite liked the tips on using LinkedIn - not rocket science but helpful for those who haven't yet realised LinkedIn can be really useful.
But I read the Supplement with #CIPSLicence tinted spectacles.
Now when I think of a strategy I always think in terms of mutually reinforcing actions and messages - there has to be internal consistency. So it came as quite a surprise to me, given the arguments put forward for the CIPSLicence, that CIPS have effectively endorsed a publication which flies in the face of the Licence Strategy. In the whole Supplement, so far as I can see, one message was missing, why bother with MCIPS never mind the #CIPSLicence. The CPO's held up as exemplars don't appear to be MCIPS and the 'Salaries in procurement' research didn't seem to give any credence to MCIPS.
As I argued last week, CIPSLicence strategy appears flawed. However, now I wonder, instead of a strategy, are CIPS playing russian roulette with five loaded cartridges?