I had the opportunity to attend a leadership meeting that was hosted by the Institute for Credentialing Excellence ("ICE") for senior staffers' from organizations in the credentialing industry. This one-day event covered a range of topics and everyone seemed pleased with the meeting's outcome. One obvious outcome was the social/professional connections that were started or recharged among the participants. The levels of credentialing - organizational maturity was from new programs to programs that are branching out into new ventures, some outside of credentialing. Regardless of ones experience in the industry - there was something for everyone. Be it to validate what your organization is currently doing or not, to the challenges of computer-based testing.
For me, what I walked away with is a rethinking of the current credentialing model. The industry has expanded in different directions over the past few years, but for the most part how we develop examinations, set standards, etc., has not. The argument can be made that a big part of what certification organizations do is "manufacturing."
In the last half-century there has been countless advancements in technology, engineering, materials science, etc., that has changed how products are manufactured. Would 'smart phones" be available or as effective if there was no improvements to cellular networks, chip technology, etc. What drove these charges is research - where is the research for our industry? Does our industry have a research agenda? If so who are the players? If research supports changes in how we can conduct our "manufacturing", will the credentialing industry embrace these findings?
All to often we hear, "That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think we can do that because .." We all might want to consider to start acting on the stuff we don't do rather than the stuff we do - over and over and over, etc.
The 2010 ICE Annual Conference, ATP Conference, and CLEAR Meeting are
are all on the horizon,I am hopeful the we will begin to hear some new manufacturing (credentialing/certification) sounds that will dampen those who want to maintain the status quo by using and/or promoting 20th century methods in a 21st century credentialing world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the current credentialing model is probably due for some updating. It is ironic that more certification bodies are trying to develop and operate their programs consistent with accreditation standards such as NCCA and 17024 and some would say that "the industry" has probably improved as a result of this movement, but the downside of everyone following the approved model is the loss of innovation.
I advised an accrediting body account of mine to encourage innovation by including a standard requiring evidence of the implementation of an innovative practice to be accredited. Maybe NCCA and ANSI should create some positive incentives for innovation and change.
Also, it is interesting as a consultant to hear most clients ask for tried and true best practices and the most cost effective solutions to problems rather than expressing interest in figuring out new/better approaches to their problems. Many people want to take the safe approaches and the path of least resistance.
Mike Hamm