Alignment of views_final_report

ALIGNMENT OFINDUSTRIAL

Northumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401January, 2011

LIGNMENT OF PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC ANDNDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

QUANTITYTHE POST RECESSION

Professor Srinath Perera

Northumbria UniversityNewcastle upon Tyne

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401January, 2011

CADEMIC AND

EVELOPMENT NEEDS FORUANTITY SURVEYORS:

ECESSION DYNAMICS

Professor Srinath PereraMr John Pearson

Alignment of Professional, Academic andIndustrial Development Needs for QuantitySurveyors: The Post Recession Dynamics


Mr John Pearson

Northumbria University

Newcastle upon Tyne

UK

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

January 2011

Main ContentsAcknowledgements

Abbreviations

Contents

Part 1. Executive Summary

Part 2. Main Report

Part 3. Analysis of Expert opinion

Part 4. Analysis of Perception of the academia

Part 5. Analysis of Perception of the Industry

Part 6. Competency Mapping Case Studies

Part 7. References

Part 8. Appendices

Appendix A. Expert forum interview questions

Appendix B. Academic survey questionnaire

Appendix C. Industry survey questionnaire

Appendix D. Competency mapping scores

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance they received from the following in thepreparation of this report and in the conduct of the research;

Lyn Dodds, Research Associate, School of the Built and Natural Environment, NorthumbriaUniversity, for her assistance in conducting and transcribing interviews and her analysis of the sameand for her assistance in the formulation of questionnaires,

Damilola Ekundayo, Graduate Tutor, School of the Built and Natural Environment, NorthumbriaUniversity, for his assistance with data analysis, unflinching support at all times,

Anushi Rodrigo, Doctoral Student, School of the Built and Natural Environment, NorthumbriaUniversity, for her assistance in the cover design,

Colleagues from the Quantity Surveying Subject Group and the Construction Management andEconomics Research Group (CEMRG) within the School of the Built and Natural Environment,Northumbria University, for piloting questionnaires,

All members of the Expert forum who gave time to be interviewed,

Academic staff from the four Schools of the Built Environment, comprising the Case Study Group,who completed detailed programme-related competency mapping exercises,

All respondents to both the nationwide Academic and Industry Surveys,

Mrs Vivian Small and all officials of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), for access toand permission to use their membership database,

Steve Hodgson, Dean of School and Professor David Greenwood, Associate Dean (Research) of theSchool of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for their help andencouragement with this work.

Srinath Perera and John Pearson

List of Abbreviations

RICS Royal Institution of Chartered SurveyorsQS Quantity SurveyingCIOB Chartered Institute of BuildingCIES Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering SurveyorsHND Higher National DiplomaAPC Assessment of Professional CompetencePQS Private sector consultant Quantity SurveyorCQS Contractors Quantity Surveyor

Part 1 Executive Summary1 BackgroundThe entry of graduates and others into any faculty of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors(RICS) as fully qualified Chartered surveyors comes only after they have successfully passed theAssessment of Professional Competence (APC). This is true of the Quantity Surveyor, the specificsubject of this study, as much as for any other. Key to this last is the demonstration, by thecandidate, of their having attained certain competencies determined by the Education andMembership Board of RICS. In the case of the graduate, these competencies will have been acquiredby the candidates as a result both of their formal university education and the workplace trainingwhich they have received, whether as Part time students in employment or during a work Placementundertaken. In either case, the applicant will have undertaken a period of full time employmentbeyond graduating, further adding to the in-service training element of their overall skills profile.

It will be appreciated that there is a balance to be struck between the level and type of competencewhich should be expected, and can be achieved, in the universities and that which arises out ofexposure to experience only available within the workplace. To some extent the two must becomplimentary, as they should be, and it has emerged over the years that both Academia andIndustry have certain expectations of one another, rightly or wrongly, as to what the other can andwill achieve as a vehicle for graduate learning. These last are encapsulated, for some, in thearguments within the education versus training debate that has dogged the relationship for asmany years as formal Quantity Surveying education has existed.

At this point , the RICS itself should be added as a third stakeholder, for it is they who set therequired Levels of competence referred to above and in this way are the drivers of the qualificationprocess. The RICS themselves make certain assumptions as to the interpretation andimplementation of the necessary education and/or training which is being carried out in their nameand which will lead to the acquisition of the correct levels. Their control over the process is in factlimited, as they do no direct delivery or assessment themselves, prior to the actual occasion of theAPC. They must rely upon activities both in the universities and in the workplace, trusting that theirown hoped-for standards are being met. Their chief input to the education process is through theRICS University Partnership scheme, whereby academic institutions seeking accreditation of theirdegrees have to maintain relations with the RICS through annual process of review ofdocumentation and a Partnership meeting. There is no such routine control over the activities oftrainers in industry, although the latter will, ultimately, have to sign to certify that the candidatefrom their workplace has indeed achieved the levels of competency sought.

From the above it will be seen that, at best, there is scope for misunderstandings between thestakeholders as to what is being required and what is being achieved. At worst there may be actualgaps in the education and/or training being offered and received or, at least, some discrepanciesbetween the levels of attainment.

Executive Summary

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part

1:Th

eSt

udy

2

2 The StudyThis study aimed at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyors within apost recession industrial environment that satisfies the aspirations of industrial, professional andacademic stakeholders. The research sought to review competencies and their application in thedelivery of QS programmes, the views of Industry and Academia aiming to deliver a framework foralignment of these different stakeholder views.

The research approached the problem from a multitude of angles; a literature review, the views ofan Expert Forum, four case studies of RICS accredited QS honour degree programmes and twosurveys, of Industry and Academia. The Expert forum consisted of 10 members representing PrivatePractice (consultants - 3), Contracting (3), academia (3) and the RICS (1). The surveys werecomprehensive with the academic survey receiving 45 complete responses representing all 26 RICSaccredited QS programmes and Industry survey receiving 301 complete responses representingconsultant, contractor, public sector and specialists quantity surveyors.

3 Key findingsThe primary areas investigated in the research is summarised in the following subsections.

3.1 The status of the RICS QS CompetenciesAll 24 QS competencies were examined to see their application in the RICS accredited QS honoursdegree programmes. The competency mapping case studies revealed that QS programmes doconsider competencies in the design of modules but are not systematically evaluated. There is oftenonly a cursory review of programme module specifications to determine the application ofcompetencies. Knowledge of competencies was limited and the mapping exercise was one ofrevelation to them as well. A scoring system and competency mapping matrix was created in orderto carry out a systematic numerical evaluation of extent of competency mapping to curricular (Part4). It revealed that there is high level of variation in the mapping of competencies betweenprogrammes especially at Level 1 (11 points- 29% difference between top and bottom end ofprogrammes). Based on the views of programme directors, the mapping indicated that most corecompetencies are well mapped but there are deficiencies in mandatory and optional competencies.

There is no standard threshold benchmark to state that persons must have achieved competenciesto a certain level or degree upon graduating from an RICS accredited programme. As such it is amatter of interpretation open for dispute and debate. . The result is considerably differing standardsright across QS programmes around the country. There is little guidance as to the interpretation ofhow mandatory and optional competencies should be dealt with in QS programmes. The RICScompetency documents are primarily designed for the use of APC candidates and therefore of littleuse in mapping to module specifications of QS degree programmes.

3.2 Views of AcademiaThe academics expected (or assumed) that their graduates would reach Level 2 of most Mandatorycompetencies, Level 2 (or 3 in some cases) of Core competencies and Level 1 or 2 of Optionalcompetencies. These far exceed the levels that can be practicably achieved by a graduate. Forexample a Level 3 competency would require experience in advising clients and exhibiting expertise.These certainly cannot be achieved in a university (classroom) environment.

Executive Summary


Part

1:Ke

yfin

ding

s

3

The student numbers have been increasing on QS programmes, often reflecting an average numberexceeding 293 full time and part time students with student to staff ratios falling to levels lower than39:1. There were average 7 to 8 members of staff out of which half would be full members of theRICS. The average number of student contact hours at a low 12 to 14 hours per week.

The RICS-University partnership agreement was seen as successful to some extent but with aconsiderable number dissatisfied with the process. There was a good level of satisfaction on theentry criteria for postgraduate programmes but mostly split opinion on entry levels forundergraduate programmes. The part time route was considered the best mode of education whileclosely followed by full time study with 1 year placements. The ethos of undergraduate studies wasone of education as opposed to training. Academics were very willing to collaborate with theindustry but saw that same levels were not reciprocated.

The RICS was seen to be performing moderately well in regulating QS education. The top levels ofsatisfaction were received for regulating the QS profession, worldwide representation of theprofession and developing standards with lowest satisfaction on member services and, moreimportantly, the Institutions ability to influence national policy. There were relatively poor levels ofoverall satisfaction with RICS services and poor levels of perceived value for money.

3.3 Views of IndustryThe competency level expectations of the Industry were more pragmatic for the most part. Butthere were significant levels of unrealistic expectations with over 35% expecting Level 2 forMandatory competencies, Level 3 for some Core competencies and Level 2 for some Optionalcompetencies.

There were considerably low levels of ranking of the current state of achievement of competenciesby new graduates. On a scale of 1 to 5 the overwhelming majority indicated the midpoint for mostcompetencies and a score of 2 for others. All Core competencies were ranked much lower with theleast satisfied Core competency being T074 Quantification and costing of construction worksfollowed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two most important competenciesranked highest in importance in another analysis.In relative ranking of competencies all Core competencies were ranked highest followed by aselection of Mandatory and Optional competencies. The rank order of the top competencies in eachcategory was:

1. T067 Project financial control and reporting2. T074 Quantification and costing of construction works3. T062 Procurement and tendering4. T017 Contract practice

The two highest ranking Mandatory competencies were (in order of mean scores):

1. M004 Communication and negotiation2. M003 Client care

The two highest ranking Optional competencies were (in order of mean scores):

1. T016 Contract administration2. T077 Risk management

Executive Summary


Part

1:Pr

opos

edA

lignm

ento

fvie

ws

fram

ewor

k

4

These were very similar to the views of academics.

There was significant discontent with the QS curricular perceived to be used. This might have beenborn of a poor knowledge of the curricular used as expressed elsewhere. Although there was goodlevel of confidence on academic ability/knowledge of lectures and the delivery of programmes therewas poor level of confidence in the knowledge of current QS practice. This is a dilemma where onthe one hand it is difficult to attract high calibre talent to the universities and on the other handretaining them in universities distances them from current practice. This dichotomy is one whichneeds to be resolved by industry academia collaboration at least for the sake of the profession.

Industry held similar views to academia on modes of study. There were poor levels of commitmentto collaboration with academia although the Industry has an ethos of Training graduates for industrypractice over Education. Their commitment to placement although good at other times dropped byto 30% during recession. Although the industry values structured training programme for APCcandidates only 56% has one in operation.

The RICS was seen to be performing poorly in regulating QS education. The top levels of satisfactionwere received for regulating the QS profession, continued professional development and developingstandards with lowest satisfaction on member services and more importantly ability to influencenational policy. There is strikingly poor level of overall satisfaction with the RICS with only 33%expressing satisfaction and28% expressing dissatisfaction. The figures worsen when state of valuefor money in RICS services is considered with 56% expressing discontent and only 15% seeingpositive value for money.

4 Proposed Alignment of views frameworkBorn directly out of this study it has become apparent that the education and training acrossacademia and the industry has perhaps to become more systematic. The diverse views of industryand academia can only be harmonised through active mediation of the RICS as the guardian of theprofession. This research therefore, proposes a framework for alignment of views based on 7 keyrecommendations. These are explained below.

4.1 Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB)A clearly defined graduate competency level achievement threshold should be created. This shouldclearly identify the expected level of achievement of Mandatory, Core and Optional competencies.This should clearly align with APC threshold benchmarks already established and should be definedwith graduate career progression in mind.

4.2 Competency mapping frameworkA competency mapping framework that describes the process of the mapping of competencies to QSprogramme curricular should be developed. This should form the basis of identifying whether aprogramme seeking accreditation will have the necessary mapping levels to produce a graduate thatwill achieve the Graduate Competency Threshold Benchmark (GCTB). It should contain a numeric orqualitative map scoring/assessment system with detailed guidelines for usage by universities toenable them to self evaluate their programmes on the occasion of programme validation andaccreditation.

Executive Summary


Part

1:Pr

opos

edA

lignm

ento

fvie

ws

fram

ewor

k

5

4.3 Detailed competency specificationEach QS competency should be further analysed to develop detailed specifications indicatingcoverage of knowledge at sufficient depth so that such content could be easily mapped againstmodule specifications of accredited programmes. These should expand Level 1 knowledgecomponents and define Level 2 practice and experience.

4.4 Re-evaluation of status of competenciesA detailed study should be undertaken to re-evaluate RICS QS competencies. The list ofcompetencies should effectively reflect the current professional service profile of the quantitysurveyor whilst also adequately considering their future role. The rate of development ofconstruction e-business activities (currently manifested as e-procurement, visualisation, buildinginformation modelling, could computing etc.) will have a profound impact on the role of the quantitysurveyor. These should be considered in re-evaluating QS competencies.

4.5 University-Industry collaborationGreater levels of university and industry collaboration should be made an essential part indeveloping and delivering QS programmes. Industry should take a more proactive role incollaborating with and actively providing feedback to the universities.

4.6 RICS-University-Industry partnershipThe current RICS-University partnership should take more of a tri partite relationship with regularindustry representatives forming part of the partnership. The current role of the industry partnersshould be increased and formalised through mandatory representations. All QS programmesaccredited by the RICS should conform to the Competency Mapping Framework (CMF) wherecompliance will be checked or confirmed at partnership meetings.

The industry should be made aware of the processes by which programmes are accredited and therole of RICS in this. This should alleviate current levels of industry dissatisfaction with suchprocesses.

4.7 Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilitiesA radical review must be undertaken of how a Chartered surveyor is developed from their earlystages to Chartered status. This should look at all stakeholders in the process (candidates orstudents, universities and other academic institutions, all types of employers and the RICS). The roleof each stakeholder needs to be identified and defined to avoid wrong interpretations andsubjugating responsibility.

The successful implementation of the framework for alignment of views proposed above requiresthe need for a concerted effort by all these three parties for the development of graduateQuantity Surveyors who are industrially relevant, professionally qualified and who have a soundacademic background.

Part 2 Main ReportAlignment of Professional, Academicand Industrial Development Needs forQuantity Surveyors: The PostRecession Dynamics


Mr John Pearson

Northumbria University

Newcastle upon Tyne

UK

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

January 2011

Part 2 Contents1. List of Contents

2. List of Figures

3. List of Tables

4. Main Report


Part

2:Li

stof

Cont

ents

ii

List of Contents1 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................1

2 THE STUDY ..............................................................................................................................................2

3 KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................2

3.1 THE STATUS OF THE RICS QS COMPETENCIES .................................................................................................. 23.2 VIEWS OF ACADEMIA .................................................................................................................................. 23.3 VIEWS OF INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................................... 3

4 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS FRAMEWORK....................................................................................4

4.1 GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................... 44.2 COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 44.3 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION........................................................................................................... 54.4 RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................ 54.5 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ......................................................................................................... 54.6 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ..................................................................................................... 54.7 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................... 5

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 11.2 AIM & OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................... 3

2 RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................................................................................3

3 THE SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILES.......................................................................................................5

4 ROLE OF THE QS & DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................................................................6

4.1 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 64.2 PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT .......................................................................... 74.3 LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM) INITIATIVES ...... 8

5 RICS QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES...........................................................................................8

5.1 RICS QS COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 85.2 MAPPING OF COMPETENCIES TO PROGRAMME CURRICULAR ............................................................................... 9

5.2.1 Coverage of Mandatory competencies ............................................................................................. 95.2.2 Coverage of Core competencies...................................................................................................... 105.2.3 Coverage of Optional competencies ............................................................................................... 115.2.4 Views of the Expert Forum.............................................................................................................. 125.2.5 Key findings of competency mapping ............................................................................................. 12

5.3 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYORS.................................... 135.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory Competencies.................................................................................. 145.3.2 Expected level for Core Competencies ............................................................................................ 155.3.3 Expected level for Optional Competencies...................................................................................... 16

5.4 PERCEIVED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYORS................................... 175.5 RANKING OF COMPETENCIES IN THE ORDER OF PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE .............................................................. 19

5.5.1 Ranking of Mandatory competencies ............................................................................................. 215.5.2 Ranking of Core competencies........................................................................................................ 215.5.3 Ranking of Optional competencies ................................................................................................. 21


Part

2:Li

stof

Cont

ents

iii

5.6 CROSS COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF EXPECTATION, ACHIEVEMENT AND IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES..................... 21

6 QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ......................................................................................................23

6.1 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS.................. 236.2 THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LECTURERS PROGRAMME DELIVERY CAPACITY........................................................ 246.3 THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR .................................................... 246.4 INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................. 256.5 RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 26

7 MODES OF STUDY & PLACEMENT..........................................................................................................27

7.1 PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY .................................................................................................... 277.2 INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION AND IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................... 287.3 PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT..................................................................... 297.4 ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RICS ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ........................................................................... 30

8 RICS ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP & TRAINING..........................................................................................31

8.1 LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................ 318.2 LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................... 318.3 IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................ 328.4 IMPORTANCE AND AVAILABILITY OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC .......................................... 33

9 RICS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................34

9.1 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS..................................................................... 349.2 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS........................................................ 359.3 INDUSTRY LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS .................................................................................. 359.4 APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO INDUSTRY................................................................ 369.5 VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES ........................................................................................................ 37

10 ALIGNMENT FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................38

10.1 GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................. 3910.2 COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................... 3910.3 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION......................................................................................................... 3910.4 RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES .............................................................................................. 3910.5 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ....................................................................................................... 3910.6 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 3910.7 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................... 40

11 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................40

11.1 SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES................................................................................... 4011.2 SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF ACADEMIA............................................................................................................. 41

11.2.1 QS Competencies ........................................................................................................................ 4111.2.2 QS Education & Development..................................................................................................... 4211.2.3 The role of RICS........................................................................................................................... 42

11.3 SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF INDUSTRY .............................................................................................................. 4311.3.1 QS Competencies ........................................................................................................................ 4311.3.2 QS Education & Development..................................................................................................... 4411.3.3 The role of RICS........................................................................................................................... 45

11.4 SUMMARY OF FRAMEWORK FOR ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS ................................................................................... 4511.5 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 4611.6 FURTHER RESEARCH AND DIRECTIONS ........................................................................................................... 46


Part

2:Li

stof

Cont

ents

iv


Part

2:Li

stof

Figu

res

v

List of FiguresFIGURE 1 KEY STAKEHOLDERS INFLUENCE ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................................................................... 1FIGURE 2 RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................................................................................................... 4FIGURE 3 RESPONDENT QS EXPERIENCE PROFILE: ACADEMIA ............................................................................................... 5FIGURE 4 RESPONDENT QS EXPERIENCE PROFILE: INDUSTRY ................................................................................................ 5FIGURE 5: ACADEMIC RESPONDENT WORK ...................................................................................................................... 6FIGURE 6: TYPE OF COMPANY........................................................................................................................................ 6FIGURE 7 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD: INDUSTRY ................................................................................................ 7FIGURE 8 AREAS OF FUTURE GROWTH ............................................................................................................................. 7FIGURE 9 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES......................................................................................................... 8FIGURE 10 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF NRM INITIATIVES ..................................................................................................... 8FIGURE 11 MANDATORY COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1..................................................................................... 10FIGURE 12 CORE COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1 ............................................................................................... 10FIGURE 13 CORE COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 2 ............................................................................................... 11FIGURE 14 OPTIONAL COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1......................................................................................... 12FIGURE 15: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (ACADEMIC) .......................................................................... 13FIGURE 16: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (INDUSTRY) ........................................................................... 13FIGURE 17: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ............... 14FIGURE 18: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ............... 14FIGURE 19: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC).......................... 15FIGURE 20: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY).......................... 15FIGURE 21: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ................... 16FIGURE 22: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ................... 16FIGURE 23: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION ON ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY QS GRADUATES .............................................. 18FIGURE 24 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS COMPETENCIES............................................................................................. 20FIGURE 25 CROSS COMPARISON OF COMPETENCY EXPECTED LEVEL, IMPORTANCE RANKING AND GRADUATE ACHIEVEMENT ............ 22FIGURE 26: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY (INDUSTRY) ............................ 23FIGURE 27 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS.............................................. 23FIGURE 28: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING (ACADEMIC) ............................................................................................... 24FIGURE 29: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY (INDUSTRY).................................................................................... 24FIGURE 30: ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING......................... 25FIGURE 31 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING (INDUSTRY DETAILS)

..................................................................................................................................................................... 25FIGURE 32: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (ACADEMIC) .................... 26FIGURE 33: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (INDUSTRY) ..................... 26FIGURE 34: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (ACADEMIC)............................................ 26FIGURE 35: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (INDUSTRY) ............................................. 26FIGURE 36 RICS-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT................................................................................................... 27FIGURE 37: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (ACADEMIC)..................................... 28FIGURE 38: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (INDUSTRY)...................................... 28FIGURE 39: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (ACADEMIC)....................................................................................... 29FIGURE 40: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY)........................................................................................ 29FIGURE 41: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (ACADEMIC)......................................................... 29FIGURE 42: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (INDUSTRY).......................................................... 29FIGURE 43: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY) ..................................................... 30FIGURE 44 SHOULD RICS DETERMINE AND REGULATE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES............................. 30FIGURE 45 APPROPRIATENESS RICS SET OF ENTRY LEVELS................................................................................................ 30


Part

2:Li

stof

Figu

res

vi

FIGURE 46: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)............................................................ 31FIGURE 47: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ............................................................. 31FIGURE 48: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)................................................................ 31FIGURE 49: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY)................................................................. 31FIGURE 50: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ........................................................... 32FIGURE 51: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (ACADEMIC) ........................................................................... 32FIGURE 52: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (INDUSTRY) ............................................................................ 32FIGURE 53 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ...................................................... 33FIGURE 54: AVAILABILITY OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC (INDUSTRY)....................................................... 33FIGURE 55 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS (MEAN SCORES) ................................................ 34FIGURE 56 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................. 35FIGURE 57 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS ................................................................................................... 36FIGURE 58 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 36FIGURE 59 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 37FIGURE 60 PERCEPTION OF VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES: INDUSTRY SURVEY BY SECTORS ........................................... 37FIGURE 61 NEED FOR A DEFINITION OF GRADUATE COMPETENCY LEVEL ............................................................................... 38


Part

2:Li

stof

Tabl

es

vii

List of TablesTABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR MANDATORY COMPETENCIES........................................................................... 14TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR CORE COMPETENCIES ..................................................................................... 16TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES............................................................................... 17TABLE 4 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES .......................................................... 33

Main Report


Part

2:In

trod

uctio

n

1

1 Introduction

1.1 BackgroundSignificant growth in undergraduate level education of Quantity Surveyors stems from the late1960s and early 1970s with the switch from Diplomas in Quantity Surveying, firstly to Ordinarydegrees and, within a few years, to Honours Degrees. From the 1971 RICS report The FutureRole of the Quantity Surveyor (RICS, 1971) identifying specific competencies of the time theprofession began to evolve rapidly, and in 1983 a further report was produced, The Future ofthe Chartered Quantity Surveyor (RICS, 1983) as if to further consolidate the professionalstatus of the QS. Nearly twenty years ago, with the publication of the document QS2000(Davis Langen Everest, 1999) there was recognition of a number of forces acting on the QSprofession, highlighting both the changes to the client body and to the construction industry.

Figure 1 Key stakeholders influence on Quantity Surveying education

Today, the academic, professional and training needs of Quantity Surveyors are pulled by threedifferent stakeholders in three different directions (Figure 1). Academics are interested inproducing a rounded graduate with the basic foundation in knowledge for further developmentwhereas professional bodies are interested in graduates who can be progressed to fullprofessional status through the achievement of the required core competencies (RICS, 2009).The industry is looking for a graduate who can straight away contribute both to the dailyfunctions of business activity and to its growth. Hence, there is a tripartite three directional pullon the development needs of the Quantity Surveyor. The present education system of theQuantity Surveyor does not recognise these multi-directional needs of the QS and hence oftenproduces a graduate whom the industry sees as not fulfilling their requirements. This leads tomany problems, with greater levels of employer and graduate dissatisfaction and obstacles toearly career development of the QS graduate.

QuantitySurveyingEducation

Academia

IndustryConsultantsContractorsPublic SectorOther

ProfessionalBody (RICS)

Main Report


Part

2:In

trod

uctio

n

2

These conflicting concerns have long fuelled the education versus training debate and someconflict between Educators and Employers through which the RICS steers a sometimes difficultpath. On the one hand it sends messages to the universities that it wishes to see programmeswhich lean more towards the academic rather than the technical, whilst on the other handit sends messages to employers that they should accept graduates issuing from its accrediteddegree programmes as being appropriately qualified to take positions at higher than techniciangrade (for which the RICS itself has a specific training route via the HND / Foundation Degree).For its own part, the RICS has created a set of Core Competencies which, if they are to be fullyachieved by candidates for membership, requires active cooperation between the academicsector (providers of basic subject knowledge and certain academic skills) and the industrialsector (providers of practical skills training) through the operation of their business.

Both the RICS and the educational sector show similarities in their lack of appreciation of thespecific requirements industry may have of its newly graduated student members. At the sametime the industry does not seem to appreciate that a graduate is a person with higherintellectual capacity to rapidly further develop their professional skills and technical knowledgeonce in employment. This conflict and lack of alignment of industry, academic and professionalperspectives create a barrier to the development of the profession as well as the careerdevelopment of the graduate Quantity Surveyor.

Added to this is a more fundamental failure on the part of all parties to appreciate the dynamicsof the market sector. The majority of new graduates appear to be entering more non-traditionalquantity surveying routes. It has been shown both through research (Perera, 2006) and throughrecords of 1st destination Surveys (UNN Returns, 2001 2008) that a large majority of newgraduates find employment not in Private Consultancy Practice (PQS) or the Public Sector, aswas the case until the mid 1980s, but with Main Contracting and specialised subcontractingorganisations. Perera (2006) shows that in the University of Ulster more than 80% of graduateseither seek employment or prefer to be employed in the non- PQS sectors of the industry. Thesituation is very similar at Northumbria University and in many other universities in the UK.Feedback from Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) workshops has noted a certainPrivate Practice bias within the presentation of advice and, indeed there is feedback atuniversity level suggesting this. Both much of the academic content and the structure of theRICS would seem directed at those employed in the PQS and Government Sector, paying lessattention to the skills inherent in the role of the Contractors Surveyor. For their part, thoseengaged in developing Quantity Surveying within the construction sector may see this asanother barrier to cooperating with the RICS when required. This is evident from the fact thatRICS membership does not grow in the same proportion to the growth in Quantity Surveyingstudent numbers (Perera, 2006). The emergence of Commercial Management (Lowe andLeiringer, 2006; Walker and Wilkie, 2002) as a distinct discipline encompassing the role of thecontractor Quantity Surveyor is a fact that RICS should consider in detail in its futuredevelopment of career paths for the Quantity Surveyor.

Leading Quantity Surveying professional bodies the world over have already begun to recognisethese developments and trends. For example, recently the Australian Institute of QuantitySurveyors (AIQS) established a separate pathway for contractors Quantity Surveyor forcompleting professional qualification.

Main Report


Part

2:Re

sear

chM

etho

d

3

In summary, it is suggested that the present education system of the Quantity Surveyor doesnot recognise the multi-directional needs of the Quantity Surveyor and hence often produces agraduate whom the industry sees as not fulfilling their requirements. A further factor in thewillingness on the part of the Industry to accept and train new graduates must be born of thefinancial insecurity being experienced by existing Members who might otherwise be morewilling to accept the risk of employing and training new recruits. The problem is compoundedand exacerbated by the resource constraints brought about by the economic recession beingexperienced severely by the construction industry in particular.

It is possible that through its most recent initiative, aimed at measuring the level of transferableskills built into degree programmes, there will be the roots of some agreement between theRICS, Academia and Industry (RICS 2009) (1). However, this process is a part of developing aneffective understanding of the issues referred to above.

1.2 Aim & ObjectivesThis research aims at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyorswithin a post recession industrial environment; one which satisfies the aspirations of industrial,professional and academic stakeholders.

This core aim of the research is further analysed into a set of objectives as follows:

Analyse the Core Competencies of Quantity Surveyors to establish their relevance to thecurrent and anticipated future needs of the industry.

Examine the curricula and the views of academic providers and its delivery in respect ofthe Core Competencies.

Examine the views of industry employers on QS education and the nature and contentof engagement between academic providers and industry.

Investigate the implications of RICS routes of membership and development pathwaysand their compatibility with QS education.

Make recommendations as to practical measures to coordinate the effective provisionof an appropriate balance of academic and professional skills through constructivecooperation between the academic and industry sectors.

Suggest a model in which the RICS can motivate and manage the input of both industryand academia, such that it maintains appropriate control of standards, thus upholdingits relevance in the process.

The following section provides details of the research method adopted for the study.

2 Research MethodThe research was carried out in 4 distinct data gathering phases culminating in data analysis andreporting. The key stages and process are illustrated in Figure 2.


Figure 2 Research Method

These stages are further detailed below:

1. A detailed literature review was carried outinterpretation.

2. Expert forum: was the catalystindustry and the RICS. A total of 10 interviews were carried out comprising 3 academics(programme leaders), 3 consultant quantity surveyors, 3 contractor quantity surveyors andone RICS official (member of the RICSAnalysis of Expert Opinion for a comprehensive report.

3. Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formedthe basis of the survey questionnairewas carried out covering academics representing all 26 RICS accredited quantity surveyingprogrammes. The survey was issued to 106 academics frreceived. Refer Part 4: Analysi

4. Survey of the Industry: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed thebasis of the survey questionnaire.was carried out coveringfirms in the UK. These included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICSmember database. A total of 615 responses were received.Perception of the Industry

Main Report

further detailed below:

A detailed literature review was carried out to identify the RICS QS competencies and their

was the catalyst for the identification of key issues related to academia,industry and the RICS. A total of 10 interviews were carried out comprising 3 academics(programme leaders), 3 consultant quantity surveyors, 3 contractor quantity surveyors and

(member of the RICS Education and Qualification StandardsAnalysis of Expert Opinion for a comprehensive report.

Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formedthe survey questionnaire. A comprehensive web-based survey with 41 questions

was carried out covering academics representing all 26 RICS accredited quantity surveyingprogrammes. The survey was issued to 106 academics from which 65 responses were

Analysis of Perception of the academia for a comprehensive report.

Survey of the Industry: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed thebasis of the survey questionnaire. A comprehensive web-based survey with 39 questions

covering quantity surveying industrial and professional community acrossThese included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICS

. A total of 615 responses were received. Refer Part 5:Industry for a comprehensive report.

Part

2:Re

sear

chM

etho

d

4

to identify the RICS QS competencies and their

for the identification of key issues related to academia,industry and the RICS. A total of 10 interviews were carried out comprising 3 academics(programme leaders), 3 consultant quantity surveyors, 3 contractor quantity surveyors and

Education and Qualification Standards). Refer Part 3:

Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formedbased survey with 41 questions

was carried out covering academics representing all 26 RICS accredited quantity surveying65 responses were

for a comprehensive report.

Survey of the Industry: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed thebased survey with 39 questions

quantity surveying industrial and professional community acrossThese included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICS

Refer Part 5: Analysis of

Main Report


Part

2:Th

esu

rvey

resp

onde

ntpr

ofile

s

5

5. Competency mapping case studies: All 24 RICS QS competencies were mapped againstcurricular for 4 RICS accredited QS Honours degree programmes and are reported as 4 casestudies. These provide a full picture of the extent of coverage of RICS QS competencies inthe programmes accredited by the RICS. Refer Part 6: Competency mapping case studies fora comprehensive report.

6. Alignment framework: this is an attempt to bring the key findings of the two surveys, 4 casestudies and expert forum to a conclusion directing activities that needs to be carried out toalign disparate views of the key stakeholders. This is provided in the Part 2: Main report (thisreport).

Both surveys reported were first piloted among a small sample of volunteers representing industryand academia. The review of feedback obtained through a discussion session lead to themodification of the questionnaires.

The following section provides a detailed account of the primary areas of investigation listed below:

1. The survey respondent profiles

2. Role of the QS & Developments

3. RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies

4. Quantity Surveying Education

5. Modes of study & placement

6. RICS Routes of Membership & Training

7. RICS Services

3 The survey respondent profilesThe survey respondents for both surveys were well experienced in QS work, there being over 90%with more than 10 years experience. The academic respondents included 44% programme leaders.

Figure 3 Respondent QS experience profile: Academia Figure 4 Respondent QS experience profile: Industry

Up to5

Years ,0.00%

6 - 10Years ,6.67%

11 - 20Years ,31.11%

21 - 30years ,35.56%

Over 30Years ,26.67%

Up to 5Years,0.70%

6 - 10Years,7.00%

11 - 20Years,

19.90%

21 - 30years,

29.20%

Over 30Years,

43.20%

Main Report


Part

2:Ro

leof

the

QS

&D

evel

opm

ents

6

Figure 5: Academic Respondent Work Figure 6: Type of Company

No direct comparison could be made between the nature of the workloads of each group. Theacademics spent roughly half of their time engaged in teaching and or assessment, the rest in eitheradministration (25%) or research (15%).

Just over half of the industry respondents were engaged in Private Practice, the rest being spread inequal measures over contracting (17%), the public sector (15%) or other (15%). In terms of thenumber of students enrolled at any one time, the age of the course and its student make-up thesemostly fell into similar ranges. This suggests that in its own way, each group was representative.

4 Role of the QS & DevelopmentsThe role of the QS is defined by current and future workloads and trends in development. Thissection evaluates the respondents views on both academic and industry surveys bringing in views ofthe expert forum where appropriate.

4.1 Organisations Current workloadThe industry survey indentified (Figure 7) the key areas of work presently important for the QS. Thetop 3 core competencies: T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control andreporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works directly maps to the highestworkloads identified.

Teachingand

LearningActivities,49.62%

Research,15.04%

AcademicEnterprise,

5.09%

Administration,

24.53%

Other,5.71%

PrivatepracticeQuantitySurveyor

(consultant), 51.80%

Contracting

organisation,

16.90%

PublicSector,14.60%

Specialistsub-

contractor,1.70%

Specialistsupplier,

0.00%

Other,15.00%


Figure 7 Organisations current workload

4.2 Perception of areas of work becoming more importantBoth professionals and academics appear to agreRefurbishment followed by Building construction and Building services (median scores together with low deviation suggests agreement amongst most academics.Professionals, for their part, show a wider variety of opinion over this.

Figure 8 Areas of future growth

Whole life costing

Performance management

Supply chain management

Managing claims

Value management

Risk management

Dispute resolution

Contract formulation and negotiation

Payments and cash flow management

Estimation and bidding

Tender documentation

Pre-contract cost control (preliminary estimating, cost

Project management

Post-contract cost control (Interim valuations to final

Activities which make up your organisations current workload

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Main Report

Organisations current workload: Industry

Perception of areas of work becoming more importantBoth professionals and academics appear to agree that the largest growth area will be that ofRefurbishment followed by Building construction and Building services (Figure 8). The similarity in

her with low deviation suggests agreement amongst most academics.Professionals, for their part, show a wider variety of opinion over this.

2.03%

2.23%

2.71%

3.14%

3.85%

3.94%

4.27%

4.58%

5.18%

5.70%

6.46%

12.19%

12.97%

13.39%

Whole life costing

Performance management

Supply chain management

Managing claims

Value management

Risk management

Dispute resolution

Contract formulation and negotiation

Payments and cash flow management

Estimation and bidding

Other

Tender documentation

contract cost control (preliminary estimating, cost

Project management

contract cost control (Interim valuations to final

Activities which make up your organisations current workload

Percentage

Mean - Ac

Mean - Ind

Part

2:Ro

leof

the

QS

&D

evel

opm

ents

7

e that the largest growth area will be that of). The similarity in

her with low deviation suggests agreement amongst most academics.

13.39%

17.36%


There was a strong feeling among the expert forumtaking more concepts such as sustainability and whole life costing into account.general indicated the need to up skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and its impact on theprofession. They also agreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skilldevelop. Sustainability and project management skills were seen as areas for further developmentwhile civil engineering construction, infrastructure development and mechanical a(energy related) projects were seen as growth sectors for the future.

4.3 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules ofMeasurement (NRM) Initiatives

Here, quite significant differences appear between the two groups of respondeseeming to be more aware generally of each element of the New Rules. Only in the area of WholeLife Costing documentation does industry appear to begin to match the awareness demonstrated bythe academics. Perhaps the industry representadocumentation mirrors their perception elsewhere (of client interest. In terms of their ratings for the importance of the various elements of thedocumentation academia afford far higher weightings than do industry to the first element(elemental cost planning, 67% to 46% respectively) and the last (whole life costing, 54% to 31%respectively). Only in the case of the proposed alternative to SMM7, not yet published, aregroups in approximate agreement as to

Figure 9 Level of awareness of NRM initiatives

5 RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies

5.1 RICS QS Competency RequirementsThe RICS Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceivedrelevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor:

1 Mandatory Competencies:common to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates.

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

Order of costestimating

andelemental

cost planning

Procurement an

alternative toSMM7

Mean - Ac Mean -

Main Report

among the expert forum that the role would become more complex,taking more concepts such as sustainability and whole life costing into account. Thegeneral indicated the need to up skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and its impact on the

agreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skilldevelop. Sustainability and project management skills were seen as areas for further developmentwhile civil engineering construction, infrastructure development and mechanical a(energy related) projects were seen as growth sectors for the future.

Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules ofMeasurement (NRM) Initiatives

Here, quite significant differences appear between the two groups of respondents, with academiaseeming to be more aware generally of each element of the New Rules. Only in the area of WholeLife Costing documentation does industry appear to begin to match the awareness demonstrated bythe academics. Perhaps the industry representatives apparent interest in WLC- relateddocumentation mirrors their perception elsewhere (Part 3 Expert Forum) of WLC as a growing areaof client interest. In terms of their ratings for the importance of the various elements of the

afford far higher weightings than do industry to the first element(elemental cost planning, 67% to 46% respectively) and the last (whole life costing, 54% to 31%respectively). Only in the case of the proposed alternative to SMM7, not yet published, aregroups in approximate agreement as to its importance.

Level of awareness of NRM initiatives Figure 10 Level of importance of NRM initiatives

RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies

RICS QS Competency RequirementsCompetencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived

relevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor:

personal, interpersonal and professional practice and businesscommon to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates.

Whole LifeCosting

- Ind

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Order of costestimating

and elementalcost planning

Procurement an

alternative toSMM7

Mean - Ac Mean

Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

8

the role would become more complex,The expert forum in

general indicated the need to up skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and its impact on theagreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skills to

develop. Sustainability and project management skills were seen as areas for further developmentwhile civil engineering construction, infrastructure development and mechanical and electrical

Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of

nts, with academiaseeming to be more aware generally of each element of the New Rules. Only in the area of WholeLife Costing documentation does industry appear to begin to match the awareness demonstrated by

related) of WLC as a growing area

of client interest. In terms of their ratings for the importance of the various elements of theafford far higher weightings than do industry to the first element

(elemental cost planning, 67% to 46% respectively) and the last (whole life costing, 54% to 31%respectively). Only in the case of the proposed alternative to SMM7, not yet published, are the two

of NRM initiatives

Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived

personal, interpersonal and professional practice and business skillscommon to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates.

Procurement

alternative to

Whole LifeCosting

Mean - Ind

Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

9

2 Core Competencies: primary skills of the candidates chosen [RICS] pathway3 Optional Competencies: selected as an additional skill requirement for the candidates chosen

[RICS] pathway from a list of competencies relevant to that pathway. In most cases there is anelement of choice, though driven, usually, by their employers specialism.

The RICS distinguish between three possible levels of attainment in each of a range of competenceswhen setting its requirements of those seeking membership. Briefly, these are as follows;

Level 1: Knowledge (theoretical knowledge)

Level 2: Knowledge and practical experience (putting it into practice)

Level 3: Knowledge, practical experience and capacity to advise (explaining and advising)

There are 10 Mandatory competencies, 7 Core competencies and 7 Optional competencies (two onlyof these last to be selected by the candidate). The RICS stipulates that an APC candidate needs toachieve all Mandatory competencies at Level 2 or above, all Core competencies at Level 3 (exceptone not relevant to specialisation depending on employment in consulting or contracting practicewhich is at Level 2) and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above.

The RICS QS competencies were analysed in 4 different ways:

1. Map competencies to RICS accredited programme curricular

2. Establish the expected level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors

3. Establish the perceived level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantitysurveyors

4. Ranking of competencies in the order of perceived importance to the role of quantitysurveyor

The outcomes related to each of these aspects are discussed in detail in the following sections.

5.2 Mapping of competencies to programme curricularThe research devised its own method of mapping competencies to curricular as there is not astandard systematic method by which to compare the level of attainment of competencies. Ascoring system was used to systematically analyse the extent of mapping of competencies toindividual module specifications of 4 RICS accredited QS honours degree programmes (Case studiesA, B, C, D).

The results revealed that there is considerable variation in the attainment of competencies acrossprogrammes (universities). There was 11points variation in cumulative scores between the highestscoring and lowest scoring universities at Level 1. The figure narrows to 2.25points at Level 2 and0.25 at Level 3.

5.2.1 Coverage of Mandatory competenciesMandatory competencies generally can be expected to be achieved at Level 1. Figure 11 shows howeach university performed in coverage at Level 1.

Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

10

Figure 11 Mandatory Competency mapping scores: Level 1

The yellow benchmark line has been set at 1 to indicate below standard coverage of competencies.It is clear that there are many competencies (M001, M002, M003, M005, M006 and M008) that havenot been adequately covered even at Level 1.

5.2.2 Coverage of Core competenciesThe coverage of the core competencies presents the most important analysis as these competenciesare vital for the function of quantity surveyor. Figure 12 illustrates the coverage of Corecompetencies by universities.

Figure 12 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Acc

ount

ing

prin

cipl

esan

dpr

oced

ures

Busi

ness

plan

ning

Clie

ntca

re

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

nego

tiatio

n

Cond

uctr

ules

,eth

ics

and

prof

essi

onal

prac

tice

Conf

licta

void

ance

,m

anag

emen

tan

ddi

sput

ere

solu

tion

proc

edur

es

Dat

am

anag

emen

t

Hea

lthan

dsa

fety

Sust

aina

bilit

y

Team

wor

king

M001 M002 M003 M004 M005 M006 M007 M008 M009 M010

A

B

C

D

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Com

mer

cial

man

agem

ent

ofco

nstr

uctio

n

Cons

truc

tion

tech

nolo

gyan

den

viro

nmen

tals

ervi

ces

Cont

ract

prac

tice

Des

ign

econ

omic

san

dco

stpl

anni

ng

Proc

urem

entt

ende

ring

Proj

ectf

inan

cial

cont

rola

ndre

port

ing

Qua

ntifi

catio

nan

dco

stin

gof

cons

truc

tion

wor

ks

T010 T013 T017 T022 T062 T067 T074

A

B

C

D


When using a benchmark score of 1 all universities have achieved that for all competencies.However, as a cumulative score is used this may not fully represent the required level ofachievement of competencies.

Figure 13 indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmarkscore of 1 there is inadequate coverage for all competenciesQuantification and Costing of Construction works. This is an aspect that needs further investigationas the survey opinions rank this competency achievement the lowest. The scoring for mapping wascarried out primarily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailedspecification to indicate what level of content coverage is required for a competency be achieved, itis difficult to have a uniformly interpreted outcome.

Figure 13 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2

5.2.3 Coverage of Optional competenciesOnly two Optional competencies areto cover many optional competencies in their curricular often as nonguidance from the RICS as to howshould be completed upon graduation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Com

mer

cial

man

agem

ent

ofco

nstr

uctio

n

Cons

truc

tion

tech

nolo

gyan

den

viro

nmen

tals

ervi

ces

T010 T013

Main Report

When using a benchmark score of 1 all universities have achieved that for all competencies.However, as a cumulative score is used this may not fully represent the required level of

indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmarkscore of 1 there is inadequate coverage for all competencies across all universities except for T074Quantification and Costing of Construction works. This is an aspect that needs further investigationas the survey opinions rank this competency achievement the lowest. The scoring for mapping was

arily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailedspecification to indicate what level of content coverage is required for a competency be achieved, itis difficult to have a uniformly interpreted outcome.

Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2

Coverage of Optional competenciesOnly two Optional competencies are required to be addressed for the APC. But, universities attemptto cover many optional competencies in their curricular often as non-optimal modules. There is noguidance from the RICS as to how many to what extent (which level) these optional competencies

upon graduation. This is again open to interpretation.

Cont

ract

prac

tice

Des

ign

econ

omic

san

dco

stpl

anni

ng

Proc

urem

entt

ende

ring

Proj

ectf

inan

cial

cont

rola

ndre

port

ing

Qua

ntifi

catio

nan

dco

stin

gof

cons

truc

tion

wor

ks

T017 T022 T062 T067 T074

Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

11

When using a benchmark score of 1 all universities have achieved that for all competencies.However, as a cumulative score is used this may not fully represent the required level of

indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmarkacross all universities except for T074

Quantification and Costing of Construction works. This is an aspect that needs further investigationas the survey opinions rank this competency achievement the lowest. The scoring for mapping was

arily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailedspecification to indicate what level of content coverage is required for a competency be achieved, it

for the APC. But, universities attemptptimal modules. There is no

these optional competencies

cons

truc

tion

wor

ks

T074

A

B

C

D

Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

12

Figure 14 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1

Figure 14 clearly indicates that all universities do not achieve optional competencies to a benchmarklevel score of 1.

5.2.4 Views of the Expert ForumMost experts were of the opinion that competencies in general should be achieved at Level 1 bygraduates (Part 3). However, some academic experts were of the view that universities achieve morethan Level 1 in some competencies and move greatly towards Level 2. One Consultant QS was of theview that both Mandatory and Core competencies should be achieved at Level 2.

These reflect the exact situation with respect to coverage of competencies. There is no uniformview and it is very much open to individual interpretation. These tensions of interpretation are wellevident in the competency mapping analysis carried out (Part 6).

5.2.5 Key findings of competency mappingThe main finding related to the competency mapping can be summarised as follows:

1. There is no prescribed threshold benchmark standard for achieving competencies atgraduate level.

2. There are no detailed specifications to indicate what content should be covered to achieve acompetency.

3. Different universities aim to achieve competencies at different levels, based on their owninterpretations.

4. In the absence of a detailed competency specification, the level of achievement ofcompetencies as judged by our own interpretation seems satisfactory for the most part.There are inadequacies in the level of coverage of some competencies.

5. Programme leaders tend to interpret levels of achievement of competencies differently toone another, resulting in apparent differing levels of achievement of competencies anddifferent levels of coverage.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Capi

talA

llow

ance

s

Cont

ract

adm

inis

trat

ion

Corp

orat

ere

cove

ryan

din

solv

ency

Due

dilig

ence

Insu

ranc

e

Prog

ram

min

gan

dpl

anni

ng

Proj

ectE

valu

atio

n

Risk

man

agem

ent

T008 T016 T020 T025 T045 T063 TO66 T077

A

B

C

D

Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

13

6. There is no standard way to interpret the actual achievement of competencies.7. There is no formal competency mapping process available for universities in curricular

development or revision.8. Most mandatory competencies are not achieved to a significant extent by the universities

studied to date.9. Core competencies are well achieved at Level 1 based on interpretations made by

universities and some attempt made at Level 2. There is greater scope towards achievingcore competencies to some extent at Level 2.

10. Optional competencies are not reasonably achieved at Level 1 by most universities. Somecompetencies are however dealt with to a considerably higher level by some universities.There is greater variation across universities.

5.3 Expected level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantitysurveyors

This section analyses the views of academics (Part 4) and industry (Part 5) to establish the expectedlevel of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors. It will also bring in views fromthe Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate.

In the absence of a threshold benchmark standard for graduate competencies it is important toascertain what key stakeholders perceive a graduate should achieve in competencies. This sectionaims to establish consensus view on which level each competency should be achieved by a graduatefrom a RICS accredited degree programme.

The overview comparison of all competencies between Academia and Industry is given in Figure 15and Figure 16 respectively.

Figure 15: Overview - Expected Graduate Competency(Academic)

Figure 16: Overview - Expected Graduate Competency(Industry)

In overall terms academics expectation of achievement seem much higher than industrys.Academics expected levels for all three types of competencies are higher.

37%

15%

52%

46%49%

37%

16%

36%

11%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

MandatoryCompetencies

Core Competencies OptionalCompetencies

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

52%

24%

70%

38%

50%

25%

10%

27%

6%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

MandatoryCompetencies

CoreCompetencies

OptionalCompetencies


Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

14

5.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory CompetenciesWhilst academic responses (Figure 17) to this section appear somewhat biased towards Level 2, theindustry response (Figure 18) appears more logical, expecting the highest level of experience to be atLevel 1, falling to the least being at Level 3. In both cases the highest ratings were given in the areasof M010 Team working and M004 Communication and negotiating and M007 Data management, allbeing transferable skills. Of those competencies that do feature at Level 3 within both industry andAcademic assessment M010 Team working appears once again. This acknowledged degree ofexpertise may stem from increased use of this as a vehicle of teaching and assessment withinuniversity programmes of study.

Figure 17: Expected Level of achievement of MandatoryCompetencies for New graduate QS (Academic)

Figure 18: Expected Level of Achievement of MandatoryCompetencies for New Graduate QS (Industry)

Final assessment of Mandatory competencies can be summarised as in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of expected levels for mandatory competencies

Mandatory Competencies LevelExpectedForum

LevelExpectedAcademic

LevelExpectedIndustry

LevelRecommended

M001 Accounting principles and procedures 1 1 1 1M002 Business planning 1 1 1 1M003 Client care 1 or 2 1 1 1M004 Communication and negotiation 1 or 2 2 2 2 (part)M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professionalpractice

1 2 1 1

M006 Conflict avoidance, management anddispute resolution procedures

2 2 1 1

M007 Data management 2 2 2 2 (part)M008 Health and safety 1 or 2 2 1 or 2 1M009 Sustainability 1 2 1 1M010 Team working 2 2 or 3 2 2 (part)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

M001Accounting

M002 Businessplanning

M003 Client care

M004Communicatio

M005 Conductrules, ethics

M006 Conflictavoidance,

M007 Datamanagement

M008 Health andsafety

M009Sustainability

M010 Teamworking


00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

M001Accounting

principles and

M002 Businessplanning

M003 Client care

M004Communicationand negotiation

M005 Conductrules, ethics and

professionalM006 Conflict

avoidance,management

M007 Datamanagement

M008 Health andsafety

M009Sustainability

M010 Teamworking


Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

15

The opinions from the expert forum do not provide a consensus view. However, the majority viewindicates that in general those Mandatory competencies are being achieved at Level 1 except forM006, M007 and M010. Therefore, it is recommended that Mandatory competencies be achieved atLevel 1 for the most part moving on to Level 2 in part for some competencies as indicated in Table 1.

5.3.2 Expected level for Core CompetenciesIn this, the most discipline-specific area, both the academics and those from industry look for themost frequent level of competency to be at Level 2. Thus, the pattern for Level2 skills as shown onFigure 6 is almost identical for the two sets of respondents. Respondents from academia display ahigher expectation of attainment at Level 3 than do those from industry. As above the Industry arebeing more realistic in their expectation, as a new graduate would be unlikely to be in a positionimmediately to be able to advise clients etc. as the acquisition of Level 3 suggests. Academia is eitherperhaps exhibiting wishful thinking, or else is unaware of the actual requirement for theachievement of Level 3.

Figure 19: Expected Level of achievement of CoreCompetencies for New graduate QS (Academic)

Figure 20: Expected Level of Achievement of CoreCompetencies for New Graduate QS (Industry)

What is disconcerting in both these analysis is that there is a considerable number expecting Corecompetencies to be achieved at Level 3. The academic survey indicates Level 3 expectancy from 36%where as comparative figure for the industry survey is 27%. Both these are very high and indicatepossible misinterpretation of level classifications or an unrealistic expectation.

The final assessment of core competencies that can be deduced from this analysis is given in below.

00.10.20.30.40.50.6

T010Commercial

managementof

T013Constructiontechnology

and

T017 Contractpractice

T022 Designeconomics

and costplanning

T062Procurementand tendering

T067 Projectfinancial

control andreporting

T074Quantificationand costing ofconstruction


00.10.20.30.40.50.6

T010Commercial

managementof construction

T013Construction

technology andenvironment

T017 Contractpractice

T022 Designeconomics andcost planning

T062Procurementand tendering

T067 Projectfinancial

control andreporting

T074Quantificationand costing ofconstruction


Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

16

Table 2 Summary of expected levels for core competencies

Core Competencies LevelExpectedForum

LevelexpectedAcademic

LevelExpectedIndustry

LevelRecommended

T010 Commercial management of construction 2 2 2 2 (part)T013 Construction technology andenvironmental services

2 2 2 2 (part)

T017 Contract practice 2 2 2 2 (part)T022 Design economics and cost planning 1 or 2 2 or 3 2 2 (part)T062 Procurement and tendering 2 2 or 3 2 2 (part)T067 Project financial control and reporting 2 2 2 2 (part)T074 Quantification and costing of constructionworks

1 or 3 2 or 3 2 2 (part)

Core competencies largely define the primary role of the quantity surveyor and therefore expertopinion ranks it very important. However, there is no consensus view on achievement of corecompetencies with some Industrial experts stating it should be at Level 1 and some academicsstating it should be at Level 2. Therefore, it is recommended that Core competencies be achieved atLevel 2 in part as indicated in Table 2. This also justified by the fact that most programmes currentlyproceed to Level 2 to some extent and have the full capacity to do so. The Expert Forum expressedsimilar views.

5.3.3 Expected level for Optional CompetenciesWith regards to Optional competencies the order of ratings of both respondent groups show muchthe same pattern, their most likely expectation being of the graduate having attained Level 1 only,expectation of Level 3 being by far the least. Again, the industry responses are far less at Levels 2and 3 than those of academia, reflecting a more realistic picture perhaps, one born of experience.With the exception of expectations of Level 2 attainment, the respective versions of Figure 21andFigure 22 mirror one another almost exactly. The specialisms of T008 Capital Allowances, T045Insurance, T025 Due Diligence and T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency each being the higheston both charts.

Figure 21: Expected Level of achievement of OptionalCompetencies for New graduate QS (Academic)

Figure 22: Expected Level of Achievement of OptionalCompetencies for New Graduate QS (Industry)

-0.10.10.30.50.70.9

T008 Capitalallowances

T016 Contractadministration

T020Corporate

T025 Duediligence

T045 Insurance

T063Programming

T077 Riskmanagement


-0.10.10.30.50.70.9

T008 Capitalallowances

T016 Contractadministration

T020Corporate

T025 Duediligence

T045Insurance

T063Programmin

T077 Riskmanagement


Main Report


Part

2:RI

CSQ

uant

itySu

rvey

ing

Com

pete

ncie

s

17

Date post:	16-Jul-2015
Category:	Engineering
Upload:	hlksd
View:	94 times
Download:	0 times