Having read the latest issue of Supply Management I am mystified what all the fuss about CIPS proposed License to Practice was about - was my interpretation of the initial discussion wrong or have CIPS spun a different story rather than acknowledge a change of plan.
You may recall the fanfare of the need to professionalise the procurement world and insist on a 'closed shop'. I questioned the whole rationale and felt it was really a nonsense and distraction.
Now, if I have correctly read Richard Masser (Chair of CIPS Global Board of Trustees) and David Noble (CIPS CEO) the License isn't something new at all but MCIPS. Of course I am in support of MCIPS being a benchmark but having worked alongside many who have arrived at the profession by other routes I have no choice but to question how I justify them not being viewed as professionally competent.
Nevertheless. I am more concerned about the communications strategy of CIPS. Did CIPS change their message on 'The Licence' as a result of listening - if they did, I would congratulate them if they were honest about it. If they didn't change their position, and it was always the intention that MCIPS was the Licence, why wasn't that clearer?