The Amsterdam Model
PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Richard Elliott (Australia) - Committee Chair
Angelo Kehayas (South Africa) - Deputy Chair
Barry Curnow (United Kingdom)
Saidul Haq (Bangladesh)
THE AMSTERDAM MODEL FOR
INTERNATIONAL CMC STANDARDS
The following report sets out the background to the development and agreement between member Institutes to adopt an international standard for the Certified Management Consultant (CMC) competency standard and mark.
This report formed part of the agenda papers at Amsterdam. It resulted in 19 resolutions being proposed, seconded and accepted by the ICMCI Business Meeting held on September 20.
From those, two further resolutions which encompassed the 19, were proposed and adopted by the Formal Meeting of ICMCI on September 21, 1999.
The next step is the internationalisation of the individual Certified Management Consultant and Certified Practice models and their implementation.
The Project Committee wishes to thank the large number of representatives of member Institutes for their input cooperation and support in this project.
This presentation culminates the work of two committees over the last four years.
I would like to thank Barry Curnow and Angelo Kehayas for their considerable assistance in this project.
Richard Elliott
Chair
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 4
1.1 The CMC Competency Model 4
1.2 Certified Practice 5
1.3 Professional Development Delivery 5
1.4 Continuing Professional Development 5
2. Background and History 6
2.1 Summary of CMC Standards: Survey - September 1997 6
2.2 Criteria for Initial Attainment of CMC 6
2.3 CMC Maintenance Processes 7
2.4 Summary 7
2.5 Key Findings 8
2.6 Recommendations of CMC Survey Committee at Cape Town
Congress - September 1997 8
2.6.1 Development and Promotion of CMC Trademark 8
2.6.2 Objective Process for CMC Admission 8
2.6.3 CMC the Only International Standard 9
2.7 Final Resolutions of CMC Standards Survey Committee at
Cape Town - September 1997 9
3. CMC Standards Implementation Committee 10
3.1 Background 10
3.2 CMC Admission by Examination 11
3.3 CMC Admission by Competency Assessment 11
3.4 Common United Body of Knowledge 12
4. Interim Committee Report at Goa Congress - October 31, 1998 12
4.1 Examination Strengths 12
4.2 Examination Weaknesses 13
4.3 Assessment Strengths 13
4.4 Assessment Weaknesses 13
4.5 CMC Certification Should Allow for a Combination of
Both Processes 13
4.6 Agreement on the UBK Required 13
4.7 Next Step 14
4.8 Competency Model Update 14
5. Final Recommendations by Committee at Amsterdam Congress
September 20, 1999 14
5.1 Objectives 14
5.2 CMC - A Global Standard 14
5.3 The Common Framework 15
5.3.1 Elements of the Common Framework 15
5.3.2 What the Member IMC's Should be Certifying 15
5.3.3 Level of Competence 16
5.3.4 Personal Attributes Versus Personal Competence 16
5.4 Examination or Competency Assessment 16
5.4.1 Examinations for Entry Level 16
5.4.2 Examination 16
5.4.3 Assessment 17
5.4.4 The Basis for Reciprocity 17
5.5 CMC Versus IMC Membership 18
5.6 Training and Qualifications 18
5.7 Certification Process 19
5.8 Re-assessment 19
5.9 Global Practice Certification 19
6 Resolutions for CMC Standards Competency Model - ICMCI
Business Meeting - Amsterdam - September 20, 1999 21
7 Final Proposal and Resolution for CMC Standards Competency Model
ICMCI Formal Meeting - Amsterdam - September 21, 1999
23
8 References 23
9 Appendix 24
9.1 IMC - United Kingdom - CMC Application Pack
9.2 IMC - United Kingdom - Certified Practices Information
1 Introduction
As part of the 1992 strategic plan, ICMCI set about establishing an international management consulting standard.
The key strategic initiatives, which will result at an international and a national level, were thought to be:
1. The introduction of a Certified Management Consultant (CMC) competency model which it is believed provides a more relevant pathway for most management consultants.
2. The development of an “inclusive” approach to the management consulting community, rather than the previous approach which was perceived as “exclusive”.
3. The development of the “Certified Practice” concept for firms.
(See Appendix 1: CMC Application Pack)
The international CMC competency model should be adopted because feedback from clients indicated that they regard competency-based accreditation of management consultants as important.
While some member Institutes provided accreditation via written examination, others do not use this process as they feel it does not address the specific competencies of different members, and does not cover a broad enough spectrum of consultant types. The question asked was “what is being examined and why?”
Over the last four years, two project committees have assessed the existing standards and processes of member Institutes throughout the world. The work of these project committees recognised the different levels and styles of member Institutes, their members and their markets. The first committee, the CMC Standards Survey Committee assessed over twelve processes which included CMC attained by in depth interview and written examination.
No member Institute regarded their standards as being perfect, and as such they have continued to evolve. The CMC Standards Implementation Committee (the Committee); the second committee and author of this document, believes member Institutes should be free to choose either assessment process.
Most importantly, the Committee regards CMC as an important brand which should be promoted and facilitated by ICMCI and its members at every opportunity.
(See Appendix 2: Certified Practices)
In addition to individuals being members of member Institutes, it is recommended that there should be a corporate classification. This category of membership was introduced in the UK with considerable success to expand IMC membership into larger consulting firms, and to build the CMC brand in those firms.
Certified Practices are required to demonstrate that they already have appropriate professional development programs and performance records for their consultants, and that these will be accredited against a member Institute's standards - at present many member Institutes are looking to introduce equivalent standards based on this approach.
By agreement, a firm can recommend individuals as CMCs. Because they work for a Certified Practice, CMC's may pay a lower fee as the Certified Practice may also be accredited to do all of the assessing work. A firm’s consultants do not need to be CMCs, indeed they can be all Associates, but the aim is to progress them to CMC standard.
Should consultants leave a firm they will retain their CMC or Associate status (while they are financial members of a member Institute) as it has been assigned to them, not to the firm.
For an annual fee, an organisational affiliate can nominate five people who will receive benefits such as magazines, newsletters, access to activities, etc, the primary goal being to stay in touch with the industry, to stay informed if not involved. The five staff are interchangeable, and additional staff can be added for an additional fee.
ICMCI does not intend to involve itself in developing and delivering professional development products.
It is proposed that once a CMC standard is accepted, that member Institutes will approve training organisations, positioning themselves as the accrediting body, giving IMC's exposure across a range of deliverers and delegates. This approach is becoming increasingly successful in the university environment with post-graduate studies in management consulting
It is proposed that once individual members achieve CMC status they should undertake a minimum number of CPD hours per annum.
· In 1995, the ICMCI Conference in Singapore appointed a Committee to survey the use and interpretation of the designation CMC mark through member Institutes. The Committee consisted of Richard Elliott - Australia (Chair), Barry Curnow - United Kingdom, Tony Battaini - Australia, Adrian Palmer - Canada, Ben Laauwen - South Africa and Pat Gillen - Ireland
· At the ICMCI Conference in Vienna in June 1996, the results of the survey of member and associate countries conducted by Australia, were presented. The interim results illustrated the extent to which CMC has become the international standard in management consulting, but also identified individual interpretations of CMC among member Institutes
· At Cape Town in 1997, the final report was presented and as a result of the apparent discrepancies in the use and interpretation of CMC, it was resolved to form a project committee to work towards an agreed common standard and an implementation program
· All member countries, apart from Malaysia who was reviewing the introduction of CMC, require a university degree or equivalent educational qualification
· In the case of Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, individuals without a degree, but with at least eight years management consulting, may be considered for initial membership of their Institute. The experience is that candidates requesting consideration on these grounds are few, and must have exceptionally strong claims to convince membership committees of their ability to meet the admission standards
· All countries require the individual to have prior management consulting experience to become a CMC. In most cases this is set at three years, but India, Netherlands and Switzerland require five years and Austria two years
· Full time consulting is defined by most countries as between 800 to 1200 client related hours per year
· There is a wide variance for determining CMC admission, with a preference for peer interviews
- There are only three countries using examination alone
- Seven using an interview alone
- A further six using both examination and interview
- The most usual additional requirements for attaining CMC are client references and assignment summaries
- India and Singapore require the consultant to be above a certain age
- The USA uses an aggregated points system, based on education, work experience assignment summaries, and professional activities, to determine eligibility to attend a CMC ethics examination and certification panel interview
· There are uneven levels of activity in relation to the promotion of CMC
· The survey revealed that all countries with CMC regularly review their admission processes, some quite regularly, others on an ad hoc basis
It was recommended in time that member Institutes standardise the entry requirements for CMC attainment.
· The survey indicated that some countries did not actively promote the CMC mark or brand name
· Austria, Canada, France and Malaysia have legislation or regulatory framework to govern professional registration, including the management consulting profession
· Australia appears to be the only country which links CMC to a practising certificate and requires the individual to meet certain practice hours and continuing education requirements each year to maintain the certificate
- Most other member countries indicated in their survey responses that their CMC licence is basically indefinite, once issued
- In Switzerland, there is a re-certification process for CMC's every three years
· Canada and Australia, use the CMC concept to signify competency
· In Australia, individuals are graded permanently as CMC, but must reapply annually for a practising certificate, which is only issued if they
- Have practised full time as a management consultant in the preceding year
- Undertaken a specified amount of approved continuing education
- Remained financial members of their local state chapter
- If they fail to meet these criteria, they are recorded on the membership database as "non-practising CMC"
· It is evident from the data that most member countries and associates of ICMCI have adopted CMC as the standard for identifying experienced individuals, practising as professional management consultants, who are members of their country's institute
· There is significant variation in the processes adopted across countries to assess individuals for attainment of CMC
· This ranges from the situation where anyone who is a member of an institute is entitled to use CMC, such as Ireland, through to the USA with an aggregate points system covering education, experience and professional development, as well as an ethics examination and peer interview
There were a number of conclusions drawn from the survey. These were:
1. CMC is actively accepted and used by most ICMCI members as an international standard to signify experienced management consultants
2. There are policy statements in only six countries to reinforce CMC and these are generally based on ICMCI policy
3. The criteria for attainment of CMC have several common elements, such as minimum education and experience, but vary in terms of additional criteria
4. There is clearly no agreed approach to use or content of exams, peer interview panels, client references or assignment summaries to assess CMC's. There is the very real prospect of a parochial bias for admission as a CMC, in the absence of an agreed approach for assessment
5. There is an unresolved dichotomy between those countries promoting a strongly regulatory framework to control the consulting profession, versus others who prefer to rely on the marketplace as the regulator
6. There are few guidelines and considerable scope for improvement, in the use and promotion of the CMC mark and brand. To ensure international protection, the majority countries need to trademark or register the CMC mark
7. CMC tends to be used as a grade of membership, rather than as an indicator of competency. Scope exists to re-enforce the idea that CMC is a mark of competency, by approaches such as the annual issuing of a practising certificate or license, based on undertaking continuing education and minimum consulting practice hours
· The development and promotion of the CMC mark and its international protection against misuse are fundamental to the future of the ICMCI
· It is important to obtain agreement between member Institutes that ICMCI adopt the CMC mark as the international standard for management consulting that it will not be compromised in the long term
· If the ICMCI is to be relevant, it has to provide a certification process that major buyers of consulting services will respect. The monitoring of the mark may prove to be more important to some buyers than the mark itself
· There needs to be an objective methodology or process for admission to CMC which is seen as arms length by the wider market. The avoidance of a parochial bias appears to be the most important contribution that a CMC competency standard, governed by ICMCI, could make to the credibility of individual members throughout the world
· To do this, ICMCI will need to agree that CMC is the only accepted international competency qualification and determine minimum standards of admission and maintenance
· This may require sacrifice of certain requirements by some member Institutes and the raising of standards by others. For example, the introduction of a minimum of professional development hours requirement each year as a mechanism for holding a CMC Practising Certificate is one way to demonstrate to the market that CMC is a properly administered certification with proper standards
· CMC is the only standard for identifying experienced individuals, practising as professional management consultants, who are members of their country’s Institute
1. All member Institutes adopt CMC standards policy guidelines and fully implement them within two years.
2. All countries trademark CMC within the next two years.
3. All countries agree that if a CMC applicant has no degree, then eight years consulting experience be accepted.
4. CMC applicants with a recognised degree have a minimum of three years consulting experience prior to becoming eligible for CMC.
5. All countries will conduct a pre-admission seminar for CMC applicants as undertaken in Canada.
6. From 1999, all candidates for CMC will sit a suitable exam, similar to there developed by Canada and Australia, so as to ensure minimum CMC standards internationally. Until that time, existing admission rules will apply.
7. The examination papers will be prepared by ICMCI and provided to all future CMC candidates for a small fee.
The marking of the completed papers will be undertaken either by:
· ICMCI approved national organisations
· ICMCI program committee
It is further proposed that a fee will apply for: the taking of the examination paper by an individual member and its marking by an independent party.
8. The minimum number of consulting hours for a full time management consultant is defined as 1200 client related hours per annum.
9. All countries adopt a practising certificate for all CMCs, which requires a minimum number of 30 hours per annum, or 100 of professional development every three years.
10. An individual is entitled to use the CMC mark only while a member of a national Institute which is a member of ICMCI.
11. A CMC will enter into an agreement to use the mark responsibly and in good faith while a member of a national Institute that is a member of ICMCI.
12. Two program committees be formed to assist in the implementation of these proposals. One program committee will be responsible for the examination and professional development processes and the other for trademark and compliance requirements.
NOTE: The adoption of the Amsterdam model overrode some resolutions (example: 6,7,8 above) by agreeing to the use of the UK Model (Example Resolution 8, Page 21).
As a result of the acceptance of the twelve proposals above, a CMC Standards Implementation Committee was formed to establish an international standard. The project committee members were:-
Richard Elliott (Australia) - Committee Chair
Angelo Kehayas (South Africa) - Deputy Chair
Barry Curnow (United Kingdom)
Liz Mellish (Australia)
Geoffrey Kitt (United Kingdom)
Saidul Haq (Bangladesh)
Summary of the Committee Report of October/ November 1998:
LONG TERM OBJECTIVE: "To provide an unbiased and truly international standard which consultants wish to attain and which is recognised by all influential agencies."
SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE: "Develop policy and implementation strategy for the CMC Standards program approved in Cape Town and establish a competency based model for the examination process for member Institutes."
All relevant data was collected from various member Institutes where possible.
In essence, the Project Committee received several suitable papers and references. Material relating to CMC admission on a national basis falls into two main streams:
- CMC Admission by Examination (E.g. Canada)
- CMC Admission by Competency Assessment (E.g. United Kingdom)
· Admission by examination can be a rigorous, arms length process, which included the use of workshop manuals, and case studies, a written consulting report (test) and marked by an independent body (eg. University)
· This process was seen by some member Institutes as being intimidating and too broad to properly cover the various management consulting disciplines. This concern also related to those individuals who did not undertake regular professional development and saw such a process as threatening
· The member Institutes who use Examination were satisfied with their integrity, but agreed additional exam papers were required to properly cover more of the specialisations/ disciplines
· Elements relating to management consulting practice however were thought to be satisfactory
· The strengths of the written examination were that the criteria for assessment were clearly spelt out, it provided a comparable platform for university accreditation degree (eg. Australia), could have been independently measured and unbiased on an international basis
· Weaknesses were that the process did not do justice to specialist skills. There may have been a technical vulnerability and it may have been too generic a focus on overarching experiences
· The peer assessment depended on the quality of the assessor being even-handed and to have possessed sufficient qualifications to do the process justice. While the selection criteria may be objective, the interpretation could have been subjective or biased.
· IMC - UK had approved a Credit Accumulation and Transfer Framework (CATF) which attempted to introduce a national standard for management consultants. To achieve recognition as a management consultant, a mix of four different types of competence needed to have been demonstrated: management consultancy competence, management competence, relevant specialist technical competence (eg. Finance, IT, QA) and PESTLE (political, economic, social, technological, legal and environment); and ACT (acting, communicating and thinking) competence. For each area, credits were awarded mainly for work based experience supplemented by credits for training, study and personal CPD activities
· This concept had a number of suitable elements and seemed ideal as an alternative or replacement of the examination process
· A drawback may have been the high demand for assessors. The premise was that member Institutes had time to undertake interviews, but due to distance, culture and logistics, such a model needed low HR input to be effective
· IMC - Australia had a similar 'pathway' for competency development and recognition commencing with affiliate and culminating in CMC status. The integrated model included three training modules, a pre-CMC workshop which covered PESTLE/ ACT competency then an examination process. The examination was chosen because peer assessment was thought to be too time consuming and difficult to manager in a voluntary organisation
· Further, CMC examination provided members with valuable transferable credit points for post graduate/ masters’ level higher education. The market has a high regard for this process
· At Goa, the Committee and other interested parties workshopped the two models, together with the Kehayas model and adopted the Goa model
Barry Curnow arranged for Scottish undergraduate Daniel Shepherd to review the ICMCI Uniform Body of Knowledge. This process was carried out over a period of eighteen months and is contained in the agenda papers. Daniel was congratulated for his considerable efforts. In practice the Body of Knowledge reflects the common elements rather than uniform or universal ones so it may be sensible to revert to the earlier term of Common.
A summary of the Committee presentation slides in Goa are set out below:
· Rigorous
· Arms length
· Clearly defined
· Comparable
· Marketable
· Too generic
· Incomplete assessment
· Insufficient weight to technical skills
· Quality of local testing
· Consistency and bias of assessor
· Inclusive
· Recognises different levels of skills
· Acknowledges experience
· Specific focus of practice
· Interpretation subject to bias
· Not arms length
· High administration costs
· Dependent on volunteers
· Perceived exclusivity
· Examination only applicable to knowledge-based components
· Rest by peer review, assessment or relevant qualifications
· There cannot be single method
· What are the components (quadrants)
· Which elements are to be assessed
· To be reflected in CMC standards
· Uniform or Common?
· The Goa model included a combination of the UK & Kehayas models. The Committee will add subsequent developments in the market place after October 1998.
· Barry Curnow presented the revised UBK and the Competency Model report from Daniel Shepherd.
· Resolved: Approved in principle for further refinement and consultation prior to formal adoption in Amsterdam.
This Congress needs to approve the above recommendations and the Committee will present a summary list of propositions for delegates to vote upon. However, the test and proof of the standard as work in progress already exists in the work undertaken by major consulting firms and institutes based upon it in the last year since Goa. It is suggested that Congress can most usefully confirm the principles contained herein and authorise the Excom to proceed with monitoring and implementing them on an ongoing basis, subject of course to review at future Congresses.
LONG TERM OBJECTIVE: “To provide an unbiased and truly international standard which consultants wish to attain and which is recognised by all influential agencies.”
SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE: “Develop policy and implementation strategy for the CMC Standards program approved in Cape Town and establish a competency based model for the examination process for member Institutes.”
It was proposed that:
· A global standard based on a universally accepted common body of knowledge and competency framework (Ref: Section 7, Resolution 1, Page 21, adopted).
· Member status will be the minimum standard for international reciprocity between member Institutes (Ref: R2).
· That CMC will be the minimum international or global competency standard (Ref: R3).
In order to certify management consultants according to a globally acceptable standard, reference to a globally accepted framework is required.
The Committee referred to the various sources of reference material on this subject:
1. The Management Charter Initiative (MCI) in the UK, which seeks to set management consultants’ standards
2. The Uniform Body of Knowledge (UBK) of the ICMCI that identifies the elements of knowledge required for the profession
3. The CATF (Credit Accumulation and Transfer) model that establishes mutual recognition for competencies between accrediting bodies
4. The international consulting practices model, which sets standards of reciprocity for international practices. It also represents the application of the international standard in practice
5. The South African model, which aligns knowledge, competence and qualifications.
6. Various member nations CMC application processes.
Competence is taken to mean the ability to produce the desired outcomes and implies the knowledge and experience required to do so.
The global standard is to be set on competencies and outcomes and not simply knowledge.
The basic competency groupings are as follows:
· Specialist Technical and Industry
· Management
· The Practice of Management Consulting
· Practice Management -Managing a Professional Practice.
· Personal attributes, personal competencies and ethical behaviour, which underpin effective performance. Ethical behaviour can be separated into knowledge of what constitutes ethical behaviour and references from the marketplace indicating an individual’s good standing. (CATF – ACT and ethical behaviour).
· The IMCs should be requiring proof of competence in all of the areas defined in the global framework.
· The member IMCs should however focus on the over-arching capabilities which tie a consultant’s personal, functional /technical and industry competencies together in delivering the required professional result according to the global standard.
· The proposed model suggests (or implies) that a CMC possesses a certain (minimum) profile of competencies and can/should) still progress further (say to a super CMC).
· This argument is supported by Michael Shays in his document “A proposal to create an international certification examination” which in essence talks about a “super level” CMC designation.
· The agreed framework specifies a need to prove competence in two very different arenas namely:
1. Specialist, management and management consulting competence
2. Personal attributes which are personal competencies (ACT) and ethical behaviour according to accepted standards
· A CMC needs to satisfy minimum standards in each area.
· Determining proof of competence in each may require two very different approaches.
It is recommended that ICMCI adopt the terminology used in the Goa and UK models (Ref: R4), and that the field of management be split into management practice and practice management (Ref: R5). It is also recommended that proof of competence be required in all areas defined in the global framework (ref 6.3.1) (Ref: R6).
· There should be a distinction between inexperienced individuals (new to business) and individuals with a wealth of business experience (new to the profession). ICMCI should be in a position to accept proof of competence in business, management, industry etc from other accredited sources and not re-invent the wheel.
· A formal qualification/examination in management consulting could address the market for inexperienced individuals and provide proof of knowledge.
· An examination is a useful tool to circumvent or replace experience in certain areas and can be effectively used at an entry level, especially if the individual has no other academic qualifications. An examination is certainly not enough on its own.
It is recommended that those member Institutes who wish to continue to use only a written examination, rather than an assessment/ assignment process may do so, as ling as the agreed process meets with approval by ICMCI, but that the competence standard be demonstrated appropriately (Ref: R7).
· An examination can only test certain aspects of Knowledge and would not produce acceptable results in the area of Personal Attributes.
· Examination alone is thus insufficient on its own– it provides proof of knowledge and not competence
· The ACT component of a consultant’s overall competence cannot be suitably tested by examination.
· An approved psychometric assessment could be used for the ACT elements. (There is a pretty good correlation between certain psychometric assessments and the ACT elements).
· CMC examination provides its members with valuable transferable credit points for post graduate/ master’s level higher education. The market generally has a high regard for this process.
· What constitutes competence?
1. Academic prowess – passing an examination or previous qualifications
2. Experience – i.e. “I have done it before”
3. Outcomes – I can demonstrate the capability
4. A combination
· Assessment depends on the ability of the assessor to be even-handed and to possess sufficient qualifications to do the process justice. While the selection criteria may be objective, the interpretation can be subjective or biased.
· Assessment alone is therefore insufficient, unless it allows for the inclusion of an individual’s experience and track record.
· It is recommended that an assessment is indispensable in every application for CMC status but may be insufficient in many cases, especially for inexperienced candidates, who have an insufficient track record or experience.
It is recommended that the preferred CMC competency assessment process be a continuation of assessment (or the UK procedure) be adopted by ICMCI and its member Institutes (Ref: R8). Furthermore, it is recommended that the CMC competency standard recognise that each member Institute has unique challenges and legal responsibilities and that ICMCI acknowledges these differences in its global model (Ref: R9).
· A single method of assessing competence would not be achievable across the globe and that each institute would have to satisfy the ICMCI that its method of assessing competence would be adequate for all other member institutions and thus acceptable to all.
· Examination tests knowledge, not the application of knowledge, therefore proof of competence should override it.
· As a result, “proof of adherence to the global standard” is all that can be demanded; not “how adherence to the global standard is assessed”.
· Assessment and references should be an integral part of any application process. This would include client and personal references, projects completed, level of experience and potentially some psychometric assessment.
· Each country will have unique challenges and legal requirements and this must be allowed for.
· The ICMCI will need to accept a combination of examination and assessment and set minimum equivalent standards for each.
· The integrating component is the international equivalent of the “CATF” model, which basically allows an applicant to build up credits for CMC from various sources as opposed to a single prescribed source. (The work remaining is to determine how these credits should be weighted.)
· It remains for each member nation to prove that their weighting system is fair and impartial and that it meets the minimum standards of the ICMCI.
It is recommended that the ICMCI Congress agree to a global standard of CMC reciprocity which will be known as the Amsterdam model (Ref: R10). As an interim measure, those member Institutes not in a position to adopt the global standard be given time to comply (Ref: R11).
· The concepts of Membership and Certification are logically separate.
· Membership relates to “belonging” and adherence to a code of ethics and conduct and certification is required for proof of competence
· It is prudent to separate the concepts of :
1. Good standing – proposal, secondment, ethics; and
2. Competence – examination, assessment or experience
· Good standing includes ethics and reputation and is something relating to membership, compliance with a code of conduct and not to competence per se.
· It is recommended that CMC status (the minimum standard for reciprocity) is based on both good standing and competence.
It is proposed that the CMC competency standard include confirmation, proof of ethical behaviour and reputation as a prerequisite to attainment of the CMC designation and that this be confirmed by individual members and Certified Practices by signing a code of conduct declaration to this effect (Ref: R12).
· It is proposed that any approved training or qualification model should have a close correlation to the common body of knowledge and should therefore be superimposed on the competency framework.
· A lot of work is required to assess each applicable course and assign a (competency) grading or level to it. Each country could utilise the equivalent of the national education authority that assigns status to registered courses.
· Where courses are unregistered, they could be registered with the ICMCI and assigned a status related to the global competency framework.
· The above are to be fleshed out for presentation in Toronto in April 2000.
· The certification process must include:
· Assessment
· Knowledge and Signature of a code of conduct
· Examination
· An approved CATF model needs to be agreed. This model will allow for the substitution of :
· Examination/ Prior qualification
· Experience (track record)
· Proof of competence by some other form
· The Certification process in each country to be approved by ICMCI EXCOM.
· A Designated international panel of assessors is to be identified and approved by ICMCI.
· The ICMCI will focus on standards, not the legal issues relating to sovereign powers.
It is recommended by the Committee that the certification process for each member Institute be approved by ICMCI Executive Committee (Ref: R13). As part of this, a designated panel of assessors should manage the process (Ref: R14) and that ICMCI focus on standards not legal issues in any country (Ref: R15).
· Re-assessment of CMC competency is to be left out of the global process at the moment for resource and practical reasons, although the principle applies and the expectation is that continuing professional development will apply at national level.
The Committee recommends that reassessment of CMC competency be a regular program and considered every two years (Ref: R16). It is recommended the ICMCI adopt the Amsterdam model as the CMC Standard and that this model be implemented as soon as possible. (Ref: R17).
· As anticipated in Goa last year Shell Services International is now a provisionally certified training practice of IMC - UK and likely to become fully certified before 31 December 1999. A condition of SSI’s application was that the ICMCI should have global coverage within a reasonable period. A meeting of other UK certified practices with international coverage including PWC, KPMG, IBM Consulting was held on 29 September to hear of the ICMCI’s plans for international treatment of global practices, following the Amsterdam decisions.
· This therefore requires bold decisions with appropriate safeguards. The logic is that since the certification process within a country is subject to review and approval by ICMCI, (Ref: R13 - R17) then such approval would also cover arrangements, if any, for certified practices. Again, since the proposals in 5.6 envisage that training courses which cannot be dealt with at national level could be registered with the ICMCI, then it is suggested that this facility should also apply to certified practices. Consultants admitted to CMC in one country as through a globally certified practice, would of course be reciprocated and their memberships fees rebated, as appropriate back to the home country in accordance with the existing arrangements.
· Interim arrangements have already been agreed between UK and Australia to deal with existing senior SSI consultants on this basis and it is suggested that arrangements be developed to build on these initial precedents and that ICMCI ExCom be authorised to approve an appropriate mechanism that is consistent with the principles elsewhere in this paper.
The Committee recommends that the Certified Practice as developed by IMC - UK be approved in principle and considered on a country and/ or hub basis (Ref: R18).
And finally, the Committee recommends that the ICMCI adopt the principles of the Shell approach as a working model for practices seeking recognition as an international or global Certified Practice and that a committee be appointed to develop the concept as soon as possible (Ref: R19).
6 Final Resolutions for CMC Standards Competency Model for the Adoption of an International Competency Standard - ICMCI Business Meeting - Amsterdam - September 20, 1999
The Project Committee proposed that:
1. The ICMCI adopt a global standard based on a universally accepted uniform body of knowledge and related competency framework
Proposed: Bruce Crowe
Seconded: Richard Popple
Resolution: Passed by Congress
2. Professional (CMC) membership of a member Institute is the minimum requirement for international reciprocity between member Institutes
Proposed: Bruce Crowe
Seconded: Peter Thomas
Resolution: Passed by Congress
3. That Certified Management Consultant (CMC) is a minimum (threshold) international or global competency standard
Proposed: Richard Popple
Seconded: Brian Ing
Resolution: Passed by Congress
4. For the present ICMCI adopt the terminology used in the Goa and United Kingdom models
Proposed: Peter Tompkins
Seconded: Richard Popple
Resolution: Passed by Congress
5. That when dealing with CMC Standards issues, the field of management be split into:- management practise and practice management
Proposed: Angelo Kehayas
Seconded: Bruce Crowe
Resolution: Passed by Congress
6. That proof of competence is required in all areas defined in the global framework (ref; 6.3.1)
Proposed: Richard Popple
Seconded: Hani Shaka'a
Resolution: Passed by Congress
7. If a member Institute uses a model other than proposed, they must demonstrate the link between that model and the process they use
Proposed: Brian Ing
Seconded: Angelo Kehayas
Resolution: Passed by Congress
8. That the CMC competency assessment process be adopted as the preferred assessment method by ICMCI
Proposed: Peter Thomas
Seconded: Laddie Hutar
Resolution: Passed by Congress
9. That the CMC competency standard recognise that each member Institute has unique challenges and legal requirements and that ICMCI acknowledges these differences in its global model
Proposed: Hans-Jurgen Pollirer
Seconded: Gerd Prechtl
Resolution: Passed by Congress
10. That the global standard of CMC reciprocity be called the "Amsterdam" model
Proposed: Philip Verstraaten
Seconded: Hani Shaka'a
Resolution: Passed by Congress
11. That as an interim measure, those member Institutes not in a position to adopt the global standards immediately be given time to justify deviations or comply
Proposed: Angelo Kehayas
Seconded: Costas Konis
Resolution: Passed by Congress
12. That the competency standard include confirmation of commitment to the code of conduct and ethical behaviour of the ICMCI
Proposed: Bruce Crowe
Seconded: Richard Popple
Resolution: Passed by Congress
13. That the certification process for each member Institute be reviewed and accredited by ICMCI Executive Committee
Proposed: Bruce Crowe
Seconded: Peter Thomas
Resolution: Passed by Congress
14. That a designated panel of international assessors be created to help implement and monitor the process
Proposed: Denis Tindley
Seconded: Barry Curnow
Resolution: Passed by Congress
15. That the ICMCI focus be on standards and not legal issues which is the province of the member country
Proposed: Hans-Jurgen Pollirer
Seconded: Philip Verstraaten
Resolution: Passed by Congress
16. That re-assessment of CMC competency as a regular program be an issue for further consideration by ICMCI in two years time
Proposed: Angelo Kehayas
Seconded: Laddie Hutar
Resolution: Passed by Congress
17. That ICMCI adopt the Amsterdam model as the CMC standard and that this model be implemented as soon as possible
Proposed: Bruce Crowe
Seconded: Brian Ing
Resolution: Passed by Congress
18. That the concept of the Certified Practice as developed by IMC UK be approved in principle and considered on a country and/ or hub basis under 13 above
Proposed: Michael Shays
Seconded: Brian Ing
Resolution: Passed by Congress
19. That ICMCI adopt the principles of the "SHELL" approach as a working model for practices seeking recognition as an international or global Certified Practice and that a committee be appointed to develop the concept as soon as possible and to report to Excom in Toronto in April 2000
Proposed: Michael Shays
Seconded: Hani Shaka'a
Resolution: Passed by Congress
7 Final Proposal and Resolution of ICMCI Congress - Official Meeting - Amsterdam - September 21, 1999
It is proposed that ICMCI approve:
1. That the recommendations of the CMC Standards Committee (as attached) be adopted by ICMCI
Proposed: xxx
Seconded: xxx
Resolution: Passed by Congress
2. That the representatives of the member Institutes present the recommendations to their respective councils for ratification at the next council meeting
Proposed: xx
Seconded: xx
Resolution: Passed by Congress
8 Reference List
1. IMC – United Kingdom. CMC Pack Comment:. Four different types of competence need to be demonstrated. These include management consultancy competence (CC), management competence (MC), relevant specialist technical competence (ST) and Pestle and Act (political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental, action, communicating and thinking). The UK Model is based on competency assessment and derived from the MCI (Management Charter Initiative Management Standards published by the UK Government in conjunction with IMC and on the CATF framework which establishes mutual recognition of competencies for management consultants between accrediting bodies. Within the Framework, credits for training and education are awarded towards recognition of competence as a Management Consultant
2. Discussion Paper. Certified Management Consultant – An International Qualification Standard ICMCI Model – Version May 1998. Comment: Prepared by Gerd Prechtl, Austrian National Institute. Discusses background and need for standards and suggests three level competency model.
3. Kehayas Model. Angelo Kehayas is Vice Chair of the CMC Standards Committee and a member of IMC South Africa. Comment: Developed for the CMC Standards project. Outlines 13 level competency model in some detail with integrated PD training pathway. Provides strategy for holding members to IMC over long term.
4. ICMCI – Canada. Brief summary of both Introduction to Consulting and Comprehensive Seminars. Comment: Provides outline of current training programs and explanation of CAMC comprehensive examination procedure.
5. ICMCI – Canada. Introduction to Consulting exam. Comment: Example (fall 1994) and covers a number of key issues which form the philosophy for the competency model for CMC.
6. ICMCI – Canada. Comprehensive Examination Preparation Workshop. Comment: Provide guidelines for CMC exam and case study.
7. ICMCI – Canada. Comprehensive Exam for CMC. Comment: Eight hour case study.
8. IMC – Australia. Outline of CMC Competency Model Pathway. Colin Bryant. October 1998.
9. IMC - United Kingdom - Me - A Management Consultant?
10. IMC - United Kingdom - The Management Charter Initiative which seeks to set Management Consulting Standards
NOTE: This paper contains minor clarifications and references to the proposals put to the Amsterdam Congress on September 20/21, 1999
9 Appendix
1. IMC - United Kingdom - CMC Application Pack - Outline of the process of application and attainment of CMC in the United Kingdom]
2. IMC - United Kingdom - Certified Practices Information - ISSUE 3 - 10/9/99