Has the narrative changed on CIPS Licence?

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?

Proposed changes at CIPS need further clarification

If you're a CIPS member, I suspect, like me, you received an email consulting on proposed changes to the Royal Charter. The changes would mean the creation of a new grade, 'Chartered Member', and replacing the 'P' for 'Purchasing' in CIPS with 'P' for 'Procurement'.

I have no problem with changing the name - 'Purchasing' is too limited in its scope and no longer reflects the profession.

I have argued for the introduction of Chartered Member status for many years, indeed I recall advocating it when I was on Council back in 1998/2000! However, although I am in favour I would like to understand how all this fits together:

1. How does this link with the whole discussion on CIPS Licence? Has the Licence now been dropped? If the Licence is still alive and kicking, will external stakeholders understand the difference? Will becoming 'Chartered' also require completion of the Licence? 
2. The 'academic route' is a bit vague. What sort of postgraduate qualification will be deemed acceptable? Will it have to include Purchasing/Procurement specialisms?
3. Given that FCIPS is considered the highest grade of membership, will FCIPS be contingent upon also being a Chartered Member? Would it not be very confusing for external stakeholders if someone held "the highest level of membership" yet wasn't Chartered? 
4. Is the intention that members will be charged different rates or additional fees to gain Chartered Member? - that should have been made clear.
5. Is there going to be a review of the CPD system, for example, the current system, as I understand it, has Silver and Gold, can you be 'MCIPS Chartered with Silver CPD? I think there needs to be some clarity as to what CPD requirement needs to be met to become Chartered?

So I voted 'Yes'  and 'Yes' but I hope I haven't voted for something that ends up being shaped in a way, which, had I known, I would definitely have voted 'No'!

Can CIPS licence learn from Labour's Licence to Teach

The Shadow Education Secretary has an aspiration for the introduction of a 'licence to practice' for all
teachers. The idea is that teachers would have their lessons peers-assessed and have to demonstrate they are up to date with the latest material. The peer assessment would then lead to licensing which in turn would require re-licencing every five years.

It would be the responsibility of the employers (schools) to provide the training but for teachers to make use of it. Fail to gain the licence and the teacher is 'struck-off' and banned from teaching - perhaps a bit strange in those situations where there is a shortage of teachers anyway. There are no suggestions as to what would happen if so many teachers are 'struck-off' that schools can no longer provide education, equally no suggestions as to how JobCentres would handle 'struck-off' teachers. There is some suggestion that the unions aren't happy with the proposals which may itself lead CIPS (our union, I suppose) to ask why?

I'm sure many see the advocating of a Licence to Teach as justification for the introduction of the proposed CIPS licence which I have previously discussed. Perhaps CIPS may even be considering this a part of their recommendations for the next government.

However, it is worth considering some aspects of the proposed Licence to Teach:

#CIPSLicence roulette with five cartridges loaded

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?