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?
Gordon
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that the message has changed because of the push-back against the 'let's legislate for the licence" (daft) idea. But saying that too overtly might embarrass those who were behind the (daft) idea.
peter