CIPS Congress – we have the update

As well as our coverage (like this), there has been some heated debate on various CIPS LinkedIn groups around the lack of communication following the recent Congress meeting. It’s an important time for CIPS, with the discussions about the name change and, more significantly, the Chartered Member status.  So it is understandable that members who care about the Institute have got somewhat frustrated about the pace of communication, despite what I'm sure is a genuine desire from CIPS staff to help.

But I'm pleased to say we do now have a copy of the briefing document provided to Branch Chairs and (I think ) Congress members. You can have a look or download it here. Briefing_for_Branch_Chairs_CIPS_International_Congress

It does help, although clearly it can’t reflect all the debate. As well as the comments on Chartered status, such as concerns from Congress on the CPD aspect and about the positioning of Fellowship, I was interested to see this remark about  the licensing issue.

  • The importance of MCIPS as ‘the’ Professional Licence and ‘heartland of CIPS’ was stressed, outlining the work planned to restate and champion the MCIPS brand.
  • CIPS position was clarified in regards their focus on ‘self-regulation’ as opposed to ‘legal regulation’.

That bears out the theory that the Chief Executive promoted the idea of legal regulation (a ‘licence to buy’) before it had been fully cleared with Congress or even the Trustees. Anyway, it’s good to see that idea apparently dropped.

Back to the communication issue. There are three points CIPS needs to address if it wants to avoid similar issues after every Congress meeting.

  1. Getting a communication drafted and agreed faster – the target should be perhaps one week after the meeting?
  2. It is unrealistic to expect Congress members to communicate individually with every member! There needs to be a wider mechanism, so the update could / should be published on the CIPS website, by Supply Management and (of course) by Spend Matters.
  3. The fact that a group of Congress members covers a large region does not lend itself to effective member communications. Congress members aren’t clear who is responsible for what and for which members within the region. A regional basis is fine at election time (individual ‘constituencies’ would be too complex), but how about dividing up the region post-election so each Congress member agrees to take lead responsibility for an area within that region?

So anyway, it looks like both the name change and the Chartered Member status are progressing. We’ll give you regular updates as soon as we have them.

 

Voices (2)

  1. Lionel J. Botch:

    ‘The importance of MCIPS as ‘the’ Professional Licence and ‘heartland of CIPS’ was stressed, outlining the work planned to restate and champion the MCIPS brand’

    Am I the only person concerned by this? As MCIPS is not a qualification and is awarded at the discretion of the institute, how do we equate a member who came through 15 exams in the professional diploma, an NVQ, the management route or at their decision to award? How can you have a licence to practice be so unequal?
    For example, someone with 12 exams under their belt has no licence to practice, but someone who passes a telephone interview has?
    Is it just me?

    1. Secret Squirrel:

      Help! It’s the Hair Bear Bunch!

Discuss this:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *