1 APC Content Review – Consultation Feedback Executive Summary • The questionnaire was answered by 789 respondents. 48% (378 responses) were RICS members, 31% (242) were assessors/assessor trainers, and 9% (73) were APC candidates. • Responses were largely dominated by members in the UK at 65% (513) and Europe at 16% (125). There was a relatively even spread amongst the remaining world regions. • Reponses were received from Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Canada, Cayman Islands, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, USA, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. • The highest pathway responses were for Quantity Surveying & Construction at 27% (212, 101 of these responses were from outside the UK), Commercial Property at 19% (153), Building Surveying at 13% (99), and Valuation at 12% (95). The remaining 16 pathways gathered between 0 and 5%. • Supporting the view that pathways and competencies overlap, 57% of respondents said candidates seem to be working across two or more possible pathways. • In terms of consistency across pathways, 33% said some pathways are harder to achieve than others. 15% answered no to this question. Over half of respondents were unsure or said the question was not applicable. • 33% said competencies cannot be selected without difficulty. 7% said they were unsure. • 40% felt candidates and their employers have difficulty choosing examples of work to demonstrate competencies.
Transcript
1
APC Content Review – Consultation Feedback
Executive Summary
• The questionnaire was answered by 789 respondents. 48% (378 responses) were RICS members, 31% (242) were assessors/assessor
trainers, and 9% (73) were APC candidates.
• Responses were largely dominated by members in the UK at 65% (513) and Europe at 16% (125). There was a relatively even spread
amongst the remaining world regions.
• Reponses were received from Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Canada, Cayman
Islands, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Hungary, India,
Ireland, Italy, Korea, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, USA, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.
• The highest pathway responses were for Quantity Surveying & Construction at 27% (212, 101 of these responses were from outside the
UK), Commercial Property at 19% (153), Building Surveying at 13% (99), and Valuation at 12% (95). The remaining 16 pathways
gathered between 0 and 5%.
• Supporting the view that pathways and competencies overlap, 57% of respondents said candidates seem to be working across two or
more possible pathways.
• In terms of consistency across pathways, 33% said some pathways are harder to achieve than others. 15% answered no to this
question. Over half of respondents were unsure or said the question was not applicable.
• 33% said competencies cannot be selected without difficulty. 7% said they were unsure.
• 40% felt candidates and their employers have difficulty choosing examples of work to demonstrate competencies.
2
• 47% said candidates do have to make special arrangements to achieve competencies, though many respondents highlighted this is not
necessarily negative as it allows candidates opportunities to develop further and gain networking opportunities.
• 35% said there are competencies/levels which candidates consistency have trouble achieving. Level 3 was highlighted as some
candidates are not exposed to the degree of experience required. The Valuation competency was referenced most often.
• 37% said practice has changed since their pathway was devised. In a related question, 85% believed the competencies reflect normal
practice in their World Region.
• 25% said candidates/employers have commented adversely on the selection of optional competencies. A further 25% said they were
either unsure or the question was not applicable.
• 74% felt the pathway in question reflected ‘day one outcomes.’
• Whilst 76% said the competencies could be achieved by a graduate with two years’ structured training, 28% also felt the pathway in
question required characteristics (such as leadership) that could only be acquired by someone relatively senior.
• 80% said the current mandatory competencies are still relevant and essential for all professionals, though 34% did feel there are other
‘soft skills’ needed. IT skills was raised most often.
• 13% of respondents said they have asked RICS to make changes to a pathway over the past five years.
• 18% said there are areas of recognised global standards covered by a particular pathway which are not made clear in the pathway. No
specific trends have been identified by the free text responses which indicates the question may not have been fully understood.
3
Section 1 – About you
1a) Which stakeholder group do you belong to?
4
1b) Which APC pathway do your responses relate to?
5
1c) Which RICS world region are you based in?
1d) Which country are you based in?
This was a free text answer. The responses are covered in the Executive Summary.
6
Section 2 – Be global
2a) Can candidates select their competencies without difficulty? If you are answering as an RICS
member or current APC candidate, did you experience any difficulty?
2b) Do the competencies reflect normal practice in your world region?
7
2c) Do candidates or employers suggest other skills are more relevant?
2d) Do candidates have to make special arrangements in order to achieve the competencies? For
example, undertake work-based secondment.
8
2e) Do employers, training managers or mentors comment on the requirements?
2f) How do the RICS pathway requirements compare with any local licensing requirements or
professional qualifications in your world region?
This was a free text answer
“In terms of rural surveying, passing the CAAV is regarded as the benchmark for rural knowledge. The general
mantra in Rural APC tutorials is "if you don't know this, how are you ever going to pass the CAAV"”
“In Queensland Australia, they are simply useless as the RICS are not fully integrated into Australian professions.
This is because an Australian Building Surveyor is classified as a Building Certifier (Similar to Building Control). It
therefore does not appreciate the full skill set of a RICS Chartered Building Surveyor.”
“THE PATHWAYS THAT RELATE TO QUANTITY SURVEYING, PROPERTY VALUATION, AND LAND
SURVEYING WOULD ALIGN FAIRLY WELL WITH THE THREE DIVISIONS OF THE GHANA INSTITUTE OF
SURVEYORS. THERE IS NO LOCAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SURVEYORS.”
“In the USA it is relatively compatible for most competencies, including Commercial Property”
“In the UK they match up well. in the likes of the Philippines they do not. there are different approaches to
Valuation and methodology, that’s not to say they do not produce a good valuation standard in that part of the
world. I note the RICS are losing out to the US Property Standard in the Philippines.”
9
Section 3 – Represent the level expected on the day of qualification
3a) How appropriate are the pathway requirements for a candidate just entering profession?
This was a free text answer.
“It depends of what your job is. If you are entering the profession as a commercial lease manager, they are
appropriate. If you are entering the profession as a residential property manager, they are not. This is an historic
problem. It is only in recent years that the RICS has taken residential property seriously. How are the new breed
of residential property managers that will be needed to manage the new PRS developments gain the relevant
experience to manage the block at an institutional level AND gain the relevant experience to pass their APC
when the requirements are so different?”
“Not very - in my own profession as a QS, it is very unlikely that you would be exposed to all area's of the project
to gain knowledge in the mandatory competencies when at year out or graduate level.”
“The industry as a whole is changing constantly, with new technology, and contracting process etc.
I feel that the Chartered QS would benefit greatly from learning the doctrine and principles of project
management. It would benefit the QS enormously, too understand the applications, interpersonal skills and
interdependency needs of all the parties on a project and know the team dynamic that's required as a group
rather than working independently from the rest of team.”
“I found it very difficult to gain the knowledge I needed, particularly as I work in the public sector and the rural
pathway is very geared up to those in private practice. It took me 6 years to pass (first attempt with a 2 year
break for maternity leave in the middle). I didn't feel confident taking the final assessment any earlier, and I
couldn't have passed it first time if I was on the standard 2 year conveyor belt approach.”
“As stated previously the pathway is generally satisfactory as preparing a candidate for their professional life with
the glaring exception of building construction. The APC can be passed with no building construction knowledge.
That cannot be a sound way to proceed. It is the consequence of too rigid an approach to the competencies so a
candidate could select say national taxation, local taxation, landlord & tenant and valuation and pass without any
idea of basic construction. Previously candidates had a more "rounded" experience that covered this aspect.”
“Fairly good. The main ones are current, it is perhaps areas like "Sustainability" where there needs to be more
thought. At present is not a major issue in the Commercial pathway, but with the advent of more "Sustainable
initiatives" etc. it will come more into focus, including in terms of valuation work. The other point is that at Level 3
a candidate is declaring an "ability to give reasoned advise a client". In reality this is hard to accept as being
something that will happen in practice. Often the "Sustainability" aspect is in the hands of a particular expert in
their field and it is they who are best qualified to give "reasoned advice".”
10
3b) Does the pathway reflect ‘day one' outcomes? i.e. the standard required of a chartered surveyor on
the day of qualification.
3c) Would the competencies be achievable by someone with a relevant or accredited degree and two
years of training/five years of experience?
11
3d) Does the pathway require characteristics (such as leadership) that could be acquired only by
someone relatively senior?
3e) Are there any necessary skills which do not appear in the pathway?
12
Section 4 – Clearly set out what professional roles/tasks are covered
4a) Do candidates or their employers have difficulty choosing examples of work to demonstrate their
competencies?
4b) Do candidates ever seem to be working across two or more possible pathways?
13
Section 5 – Be flexible enough to adapt to changing work environments
5a) Do candidates or employers ever comment that their practice has changed since their particular
pathway was devised?
Section 6 – Use plain language; easy to understand for both practitioners and public
6a) For RICS employees – how much extra explanation is needed before candidates are ready for
assessment? Please provide some idea of volume of queries. It need not be scientific; simply does it
happen frequently?
This was a free text answer.
“In my previous employment with another company a time table was prepared to assist candidates. This slowly
built up their experience and knowledge as well as providing advice on areas requiring improvement. This
coincided with their diary until they achieved the necessary standard to sit their APC. The company had a specific
team responsible for assisting candidates who ensured that the candidates understood clearly the requirements
of the APC as well as passing on any information with regard to changes made to the APC procedure. This team
was aided by mentors who were the day to day contacts of the candidates . The procedure worked very well.
However some candidates are not so lucky and have to rely on everything supplied through RICS. While the
information supplied is good it can through wording appear more complicated than necessary.”
“Not an employee perspective, but I have lost count of the number of submissions I saw where things were
wrong. Wrong number/Level of competencies declared. And the word count is often a joke. How a
Candidate/Supervisor/Counsellor can feel upwards of 3,400 words (3,700 in one case) PLUS Appendices with
other words not copy documents etc. is OK given the 3,000 limit is beyond belief.”
“My role as an RTA is to assist employers, supervisors and counselors with the process, the level of support I
need to give to candidates is dependant on how good the support is within a company, that is why I aim too get
straight to the supervisors and Counselors to ensure they have the support they need. That said most of my initial
queries come from candidates, and I use this to involve the supervisors and counselors. I can get between 10
14
and 25 emails or telephone calls a week asking for support, and my APC surgeries usually have between 8 and
15 people turning up for free advice followed by one on one support.”
6b) For mentors, counsellors and employers – how much extra explanation do you have to provide for
candidates?
This was a free text answer.
“I relied on a lot of additional explanation in order to pass, and to 'interpret' the competencies in a way which fitted
my work load. I am now an APC doctor and I have not really been asked to provide any additional guidance. this
may be because the candidates have access to so much good information, or they are not knowing to ask
questions.”
“I find the critical analysis is a something which always requires further explanation as to what is actually required
and what it is trying to achieve; it is so different from the academic papers candidates are used to producing and
there is little guidance available on structure and content.”
“None - read what the document says - making the application and going through the process is part of the test! if
the candidate can not understand simple instructions, you must ask yourself if the are the right person to join.”
“A huge amount. The APC is a personal process in that candidates meet the levels in their own way. Many
candidates receive poor advice from supervisors and counsellors which often isn't relevant to the candidates
experience. As an APC doctor and assessor, I spend a lot of time speaking with candidates who have become
despondent with the process as they think obtaining MRICS is unachievable, due to poor advice received from
their employers, supervisors and counsellors. Consequently, the candidates preparation focuses in irrelevant
areas and leads to referral on the day and criticism of the process. Training should be compulsory for employers,
supervisors and counsellors.”
6c) Are there any particular competencies or pathways where this happens more often?
15
6d) For RICS employees and licensed assessor trainers – do assessors, when undergoing assessor
training, often ask for clarification?
6e) Are there many appeals or disputes about assessments?
16
6f) For RICS employees – do you receive many applications from people who do not have relevant
experience?
6g) For RICS employees – are there particular pathways where you see more ‘mismatched’ applicants
than others? (i.e. for which the skill set is not so clearly defined?)
17
Section 7 – Have clear benchmarks
7a) On a scale of 1-10 how ‘scientific’ is the assessment in particular pathways. [1 being not at all, 10
being extremely]. For example, is there more to measure in the more technical pathways? Please state
'N/A' if the question does not relate to you or if you are unsure.
This was a free text answer. Those who gave a score typically said between 6 and 8.
7b) For assessors – do you use any scoring system or is there an element of ‘feel’ or ‘impression’. If so,
is this more often the case for some pathways than others?
18
Section 8 – Not try to cover every possible eventuality
8a) Do candidates/employers ask why a certain competency is required?
8b) Do candidates/employers ever comment adversely on the list of optional competencies?
19
Section 9 – Be consistent with our existing pathways in terms of the level of difficulty and depth of
knowledge/experience required
9a) Are some pathways harder to achieve than others? If yes, which would you consider harder and
which easier?
9b) Are candidates coming forward in some pathways older and more experienced than in others?
20
9c) Are there competencies/levels in the pathway that candidates consistently have difficulty achieving?
Section 10 – Describe practical experience (actual or simulated) in all the essential areas, rather than
theoretical knowledge
10a) For assessors – do you find you have to ask theoretical or hypothetical questions in the
assessment interview?
21
10b) For candidates – could you cover all the competencies from your practical experience?
Section 11 – Describe a professional level of ‘soft skills’ (‘mandatory’ or ‘business’ competencies)
11a) Are the current mandatory competencies still relevant? Are they all essential for all professional
surveyors?
22
11b) Are there other soft skills which are not in the mandatory competencies list but which
professionals today must have?
11c) Are candidates ever referred principally because of the mandatory competencies?
23
Section 12 – Be reviewed at least every five years
12a) Have there been changes to the pathway in the last five years?
12b) Have you ever made representations to RICS asking for changes to the pathway?
24
Section 13 – Reflect any international standards in place at the time
13a) Are there recognised global standards in the area covered by this particular pathway? If so, is their
