Raising the bar on accreditation

Education is the CIOB’s raison d’etre and we have always striven to adapt to the needs of the day. Our examinations syllabus has long set the standard for accrediting universities. In the 1990s, professor Peter Clark led a radical redraft of the syllabus, launching the CIOB education framework, which set the membership standard clearly at the honours degree level.

In 2000, the framework was made more flexible, moving away from strict definitions of teaching methodology and more toward “learning outcomes”. Not afraid to provoke debate, the CIOB left 25% of the framework open to encourage education providers to propose new modes of learning and innovation. In other words, what mattered was what graduates could do, not how they learned to do it.

The mechanism for accrediting courses has also changed, the most radical coming in 2003 with the introduction of the accredited centre status (ACS) system. The difference is that now we look at the quality of the provider and its ability to meet standards, rather than just the content of its programme. CIOB teams began to assess staffing, facilities and management systems. This process has been subject to a rigorous testing regime and CIOB’s footprint now extends over the globe. Programmes from the UK, Ireland, Hong Kong, South Africa, Singapore and Malaysia are visited every five years by accreditation advisors, who are themselves academic and industrial leaders from around the world.

Now, another review is underway. Membership can expect more radical changes.

Pressure from within

Take health and safety. Last year the accreditation panel surveyed the 73 assessors on the role of health and safety in the framework. The findings were interesting. Many in industry thought our approach needed updating. All agreed that the framework should show a clear development in the subject from entry level to the point of graduation.

All agreed as well that a deep understanding of health and safety, along with its economic, managerial, and legal impacts, should be inherent to CIOB accredited graduates. But there was a marked split between those in education and those in industry on how you achieve this. The academics favoured an integrated approach, while their peers on site or in the office wanted a distinct health and safety module.

All respondents thought the CIOB should provide clearer advice on the subject, and make the quality of health and safety instruction a key to assessing universities.

And from outside

The Construction Industry Council (CIC) challenged us further by publishing statements on occupational standards and graduate learning outcomes last year. We found that while our framework mapped well in personal skills development and construction technology knowledge, it mapped less well with other new skills such as innovative procurement methods, integrating teams, meeting clients’ needs, using design information, managing quality, and learning and feedback in the construction process.

Graduates seeking CIOB recognition should possess wider professional knowledge

Andrew platten

The CIC’s approach raises the bar for us. Graduates seeking CIOB recognition should possess wider professional knowledge. Expertise in the above skills, as well as professional ethics, sustainable development and environmental legislation should be as common to all Chartered Builders as the use of Gantt charts and the Standard Method of Measurement.

So here’s what we’re going to do

In September 2005, 20 experienced CIOB accreditation advisers gathered to initiate the 2005 review of both the framework and the accreditation process. Among others, the following needs were identified:

• to achieve more consistency in the standards of submissions n to ensure the accreditation process and framework makes sense around the world
• to meet the needs of industry better
• to communicate the value of accreditation to teaching institution

There was a clear consensus on the need to embed progressive health and safety education through levels one to three in all accredited degrees. The thorny issue of the integrated versus distinct approach will require further consultation to resolve.

The accreditation process will undergo a radical change. A working party will set new standards for programmes seeking accreditation from 2006. Teaching institutions will need to answer a comprehensive questionnaire probing their institutional ethos, aims and outcomes, course structure and content, staffing and staff development, and links to industry. We will require evidence to see off any rhetoric. In rigour, this process will mirror prequalification questionnaires used in construction today.

In the future the whole process will go online to regulate the process review and limit the paperwork overload.

The panel will finalise proposals by May 2006. To help us, fill in the survey on the CIOB website, www.ciob.org.uk. It’s found in the Education section. Feedback by post is welcome, too.

Also, if you want to get actively involved in accreditation, the CIOB is currently seeking members for the panel.