Full final report here - Construction Economics & Management

Microsoft Word - cover finalJanuary, 2011
NDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
January, 2011
CADEMIC AND
Professor Srinath Perera
Mr John Pearson
January 2011
Main Contents
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 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 the
preparation of this report and in the conduct of the research;
Lyn Dodds, Research Associate, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria
University, for her assistance in conducting and transcribing interviews and her analysis of the same
and for her assistance in the formulation of questionnaires,
Damilola Ekundayo, Graduate Tutor, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria
University, for his assistance with data analysis, unflinching support at all times,
Anushi Rodrigo, Doctoral Student, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria
University, for her assistance in the cover design,
Colleagues from the Quantity Surveying Subject Group and the Construction Management and
Economics 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 to
and permission to use their membership database,
Steve Hodgson, Dean of School and Professor David Greenwood, Associate Dean (Research) of the
School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for their help and
encouragement with this work.
List of Abbreviations
RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors QS Quantity Surveying CIOB Chartered Institute of Building CIES Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors HND Higher National Diploma APC Assessment of Professional Competence PQS Private sector consultant Quantity Surveyor CQS Contractor’s Quantity Surveyor
Part 1 Executive Summary
1 Background The 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 the
Assessment of Professional Competence (APC). This is true of the Quantity Surveyor, the specific
subject of this study, as much as for any other. Key to this last is the demonstration, by the
candidate, of their having attained certain competencies determined by the Education and
Membership Board of RICS. In the case of the graduate, these competencies will have been acquired
by the candidates as a result both of their formal university education and the workplace training
which they have received, whether as Part time students in employment or during a work Placement
undertaken. In either case, the applicant will have undertaken a period of full time employment
beyond 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 competence
which should be expected, and can be achieved, in the universities and that which arises out of
exposure to experience only available within the workplace. To some extent the two must be
complimentary, as they should be, and it has emerged over the years that both Academia and
Industry have certain expectations of one another, rightly or wrongly, as to what the other can and
will achieve as a vehicle for graduate learning. These last are encapsulated, for some, in the
arguments within the “education versus training “debate that has dogged the relationship for as
many 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 the
required Levels of competence referred to above and in this way are the drivers of the qualification
process. The RICS themselves make certain assumptions as to the interpretation and
implementation of the necessary education and/or training which is being carried out in their name
and which will lead to the acquisition of the correct levels. Their control over the process is in fact
limited, as they do no direct delivery or assessment themselves, prior to the actual occasion of the
APC. They must rely upon activities both in the universities and in the workplace, trusting that their
own hoped-for standards are being met. Their chief input to the education process is through the
RICS –University Partnership scheme, whereby academic institutions seeking accreditation of their
degrees have to maintain relations with the RICS through annual process of review of
documentation and a Partnership meeting. There is no such routine control over the activities of
trainers in industry, although the latter will, ultimately, have to sign to certify that the candidate
from 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 the
stakeholders as to what is being required and what is being achieved. At worst there may be actual
gaps in the education and/or training being offered and received or, at least, some discrepancies
between the levels of attainment.
Executive Summary
y
2
2 The Study This study aimed at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyors within a
post recession industrial environment that satisfies the aspirations of industrial, professional and
academic stakeholders. The research sought to review competencies and their application in the
delivery of QS programmes, the views of Industry and Academia aiming to deliver a framework for
alignment of these different stakeholder views.
The research approached the problem from a multitude of angles; a literature review, the views of
an Expert Forum, four case studies of RICS accredited QS honour degree programmes and two
surveys, of Industry and Academia. The Expert forum consisted of 10 members representing Private
Practice (consultants - 3), Contracting (3), academia (3) and the RICS (1). The surveys were
comprehensive with the academic survey receiving 45 complete responses representing all 26 RICS
accredited QS programmes and Industry survey receiving 301 complete responses representing
consultant, contractor, public sector and specialists quantity surveyors.
3 Key findings The primary areas investigated in the research is summarised in the following subsections.
3.1 The status of the RICS QS Competencies All 24 QS competencies were examined to see their application in the RICS accredited QS honours
degree programmes. The competency mapping case studies revealed that QS programmes do
consider competencies in the design of modules but are not systematically evaluated. There is often
only a cursory review of programme module specifications to determine the application of
competencies. Knowledge of competencies was limited and the mapping exercise was one of
revelation to them as well. A scoring system and competency mapping matrix was created in order
to carry out a systematic numerical evaluation of extent of competency mapping to curricular (Part
4). It revealed that there is high level of variation in the mapping of competencies between
programmes especially at Level 1 (11 points- 29% difference between top and bottom end of
programmes). Based on the views of programme directors, the mapping indicated that most core
competencies 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 competencies
to a certain level or degree upon graduating from an RICS accredited programme. As such it is a
matter of interpretation open for dispute and debate. . The result is considerably differing standards
right across QS programmes around the country. There is little guidance as to the interpretation of
how mandatory and optional competencies should be dealt with in QS programmes. The RICS
competency documents are primarily designed for the use of APC candidates and therefore of little
use in mapping to module specifications of QS degree programmes.
3.2 Views of Academia The academics expected (or assumed) that their graduates would reach Level 2 of most Mandatory
competencies, Level 2 (or 3 in some cases) of Core competencies and Level 1 or 2 of Optional
competencies. These far exceed the levels that can be practicably achieved by a graduate. For
example 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
gs
3
The student numbers have been increasing on QS programmes, often reflecting an average number
exceeding 293 full time and part time students with student to staff ratios falling to levels lower than
39:1. There were average 7 to 8 members of staff out of which half would be full members of the
RICS. 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 a
considerable number dissatisfied with the process. There was a good level of satisfaction on the
entry criteria for postgraduate programmes but mostly split opinion on entry levels for
undergraduate programmes. The part time route was considered the best mode of education while
closely followed by full time study with 1 year placements. The ethos of undergraduate studies was
one of education as opposed to training. Academics were very willing to collaborate with the
industry but saw that same levels were not reciprocated.
The RICS was seen to be performing moderately well in regulating QS education. The top levels of
satisfaction were received for regulating the QS profession, worldwide representation of the
profession and developing standards with lowest satisfaction on member services and, more
importantly, the Institution’s ability to influence national policy. There were relatively poor levels of
overall satisfaction with RICS services and poor levels of perceived value for money.
3.3 Views of Industry The competency level expectations of the Industry were more pragmatic for the most part. But
there were significant levels of unrealistic expectations with over 35% expecting Level 2 for
Mandatory competencies, Level 3 for some Core competencies and Level 2 for some Optional
competencies.
There were considerably low levels of ranking of the current state of achievement of competencies by new graduates. On a scale of 1 to 5 the overwhelming majority indicated the midpoint for most competencies and a score of 2 for others. All Core competencies were ranked much lower with the least satisfied Core competency being T074 Quantification and costing of construction works followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two most important competencies ranked highest in importance in another analysis. In relative ranking of competencies all Core competencies were ranked highest followed by a
selection of Mandatory and Optional competencies. The rank order of the top competencies in each
category was:
2. T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
3. T062 Procurement and tendering
4. T017 Contract practice
The two highest ranking Mandatory competencies were (in order of mean scores):
1. M004 Communication and negotiation
2. M003 Client care
The two highest ranking Optional competencies were (in order of mean scores):
1. T016 Contract administration
2. T077 Risk management
These were very similar to the views of academics.
There was significant discontent with the QS curricular perceived to be used. This might have been
born of a poor knowledge of the curricular used as expressed elsewhere. Although there was good
level of confidence on academic ability/knowledge of lectures and the delivery of programmes there
was poor level of confidence in the knowledge of current QS practice. This is a dilemma where on
the one hand it is difficult to attract high calibre talent to the universities and on the other hand
retaining them in universities distances them from current practice. This dichotomy is one which
needs 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 commitment
to collaboration with academia although the Industry has an ethos of Training graduates for industry
practice over Education. Their commitment to placement although good at other times dropped by
to 30% during recession. Although the industry values structured training programme for APC
candidates only 56% has one in operation.
The RICS was seen to be performing poorly in regulating QS education. The top levels of satisfaction
were received for regulating the QS profession, continued professional development and developing
standards with lowest satisfaction on member services and more importantly ability to influence
national 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 value
for money in RICS services is considered with 56% expressing discontent and only 15% seeing
positive value for money.
4 Proposed Alignment of views framework Born directly out of this study it has become apparent that the education and training across
academia and the industry has perhaps to become more systematic. The diverse views of industry
and academia can only be harmonised through active mediation of the RICS as the guardian of the
profession. This research therefore, proposes a framework for alignment of views based on 7 key
recommendations. These are explained below.
4.1 Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB) A clearly defined graduate competency level achievement threshold should be created. This should
clearly 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 defined
with graduate career progression in mind.
4.2 Competency mapping framework A competency mapping framework that describes the process of the mapping of competencies to QS
programme curricular should be developed. This should form the basis of identifying whether a
programme seeking accreditation will have the necessary mapping levels to produce a graduate that
will achieve the Graduate Competency Threshold Benchmark (GCTB). It should contain a numeric or
qualitative map scoring/assessment system with detailed guidelines for usage by universities to
enable them to self evaluate their programmes on the occasion of programme validation and
accreditation.
4.3 Detailed competency specification Each QS competency should be further analysed to develop detailed specifications indicating
coverage of knowledge at sufficient depth so that such content could be easily mapped against
module specifications of accredited programmes. These should expand Level 1 knowledge
components and define Level 2 practice and experience.
4.4 Re-evaluation of status of competencies A detailed study should be undertaken to re-evaluate RICS QS competencies. The list of
competencies should effectively reflect the current professional service profile of the quantity
surveyor whilst also adequately considering their future role. The rate of development of
construction e-business activities (currently manifested as e-procurement, visualisation, building
information modelling, could computing etc.) will have a profound impact on the role of the quantity
surveyor. These should be considered in re-evaluating QS competencies.
4.5 University-Industry collaboration Greater levels of university and industry collaboration should be made an essential part in
developing and delivering QS programmes. Industry should take a more proactive role in
collaborating with and actively providing feedback to the universities.
4.6 RICS-University-Industry partnership The current RICS-University partnership should take more of a tri partite relationship with regular
industry representatives forming part of the partnership. The current role of the industry partners
should be increased and formalised through mandatory representations. All QS programmes
accredited by the RICS should conform to the Competency Mapping Framework (CMF) where
compliance will be checked or confirmed at partnership meetings.
The industry should be made aware of the processes by which programmes are accredited and the
role of RICS in this. This should alleviate current levels of industry dissatisfaction with such
processes.
4.7 Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities A radical review must be undertaken of how a Chartered surveyor is developed from their early
stages to Chartered status. This should look at all stakeholders in the process (candidates or
students, universities and other academic institutions, all types of employers and the RICS). The role
of each stakeholder needs to be identified and defined to avoid wrong interpretations and
subjugating responsibility.
The successful implementation of the framework for alignment of views proposed above requires
the need for a concerted effort by all these three parties for the development of graduate
Quantity Surveyors who are industrially relevant, professionally qualified and who have a sound
academic background.
Quantity Surveyors: The Post
January 2011
3.2 VIEWS OF ACADEMIA .................................................................................................................................. 2
3.3 VIEWS OF INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................................... 3
4 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS FRAMEWORK....................................................................................4
4.1 GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................... 4
4.3 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION........................................................................................................... 5
4.5 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ......................................................................................................... 5
4.6 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ..................................................................................................... 5
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
4.1 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 6
4.2 PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT .......................................................................... 7
4.3 LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM) INITIATIVES ...... 8
5 RICS QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES...........................................................................................8
5.2 MAPPING OF COMPETENCIES TO PROGRAMME CURRICULAR ............................................................................... 9
5.2.1 Coverage of Mandatory competencies ............................................................................................. 9
5.2.2 Coverage of Core competencies...................................................................................................... 10
5.2.4 Views of the Expert Forum.............................................................................................................. 12
5.3 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYORS.................................... 13
5.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory Competencies.................................................................................. 14
5.3.3 Expected level for Optional Competencies...................................................................................... 16
5.4 PERCEIVED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYORS................................... 17
5.5 RANKING OF COMPETENCIES IN THE ORDER OF PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE .............................................................. 19
5.5.1 Ranking of Mandatory competencies ............................................................................................. 21
5.5.2 Ranking of Core competencies........................................................................................................ 21
©Perera & Pearson, 2011
ts
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.................. 23
6.2 THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LECTURERS’ PROGRAMME DELIVERY CAPACITY........................................................ 24
6.3 THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR .................................................... 24
6.4 INDUSTRY – ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................. 25
6.5 RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 26
7 MODES OF STUDY & PLACEMENT..........................................................................................................27
7.2 INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION AND IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................... 28
7.3 PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT..................................................................... 29
7.4 ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RICS ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ........................................................................... 30
8 RICS ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP & TRAINING..........................................................................................31
8.1 LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................ 31
8.2 LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................... 31
8.3 IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................ 32
8.4 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..................................................................... 34
9.2 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS........................................................ 35
9.3 INDUSTRY LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS .................................................................................. 35
9.4 APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO INDUSTRY................................................................ 36
9.5 VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES ........................................................................................................ 37
10 ALIGNMENT FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................38
10.1 GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................. 39
10.3 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION......................................................................................................... 39
10.5 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ....................................................................................................... 39
10.6 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 39
11 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................40
11.2 SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF ACADEMIA............................................................................................................. 41
11.3.1 QS Competencies ........................................................................................................................ 43
11.5 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 46
FIGURE 1 KEY STAKEHOLDERS INFLUENCE ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................................................................... 1
FIGURE 2 RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 3 RESPONDENT QS EXPERIENCE PROFILE: ACADEMIA ............................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 4 RESPONDENT QS EXPERIENCE PROFILE: INDUSTRY ................................................................................................ 5
FIGURE 5: ACADEMIC RESPONDENT WORK ...................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 6: TYPE OF COMPANY........................................................................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 9 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES......................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 11 MANDATORY COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1..................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 14 OPTIONAL COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1......................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 15: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (ACADEMIC) .......................................................................... 13
FIGURE 16: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (INDUSTRY) ........................................................................... 13
FIGURE 17: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ............... 14
FIGURE 18: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ............... 14
FIGURE 19: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC).......................... 15
FIGURE 20: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY).......................... 15
FIGURE 21: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ................... 16
FIGURE 22: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ................... 16
FIGURE 23: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION ON ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY QS GRADUATES .............................................. 18
FIGURE 24 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS COMPETENCIES............................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 25 CROSS COMPARISON OF COMPETENCY EXPECTED LEVEL, IMPORTANCE RANKING AND GRADUATE ACHIEVEMENT ............ 22
FIGURE 26: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY (INDUSTRY) ............................ 23
FIGURE 27 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS.............................................. 23
FIGURE 28: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING (ACADEMIC) ............................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 29: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY (INDUSTRY).................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 30: ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING......................... 25
FIGURE 31 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING (INDUSTRY DETAILS)
..................................................................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 32: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (ACADEMIC) .................... 26
FIGURE 33: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (INDUSTRY) ..................... 26
FIGURE 34: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (ACADEMIC)............................................ 26
FIGURE 35: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (INDUSTRY) ............................................. 26
FIGURE 36 RICS-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT................................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 37: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (ACADEMIC)..................................... 28
FIGURE 38: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (INDUSTRY)...................................... 28
FIGURE 39: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (ACADEMIC)....................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 40: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY)........................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 41: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (ACADEMIC)......................................................... 29
FIGURE 42: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (INDUSTRY).......................................................... 29
FIGURE 43: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY) ..................................................... 30
FIGURE 44 SHOULD RICS DETERMINE AND REGULATE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES............................. 30
FIGURE 45 APPROPRIATENESS RICS SET OF ENTRY LEVELS................................................................................................ 30
FIGURE 46: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)............................................................ 31
FIGURE 47: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ............................................................. 31
FIGURE 48: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)................................................................ 31
FIGURE 49: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY)................................................................. 31
FIGURE 50: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ........................................................... 32
FIGURE 51: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (ACADEMIC) ........................................................................... 32
FIGURE 52: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (INDUSTRY) ............................................................................ 32
FIGURE 53 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ...................................................... 33
FIGURE 54: AVAILABILITY OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC (INDUSTRY)....................................................... 33
FIGURE 55 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS (MEAN SCORES) ................................................ 34
FIGURE 56 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................. 35
FIGURE 57 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS ................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 58 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 36
FIGURE 59 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 37
FIGURE 60 PERCEPTION OF VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES: INDUSTRY SURVEY BY SECTORS ........................................... 37
FIGURE 61 NEED FOR A DEFINITION OF GRADUATE COMPETENCY LEVEL ............................................................................... 38
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR CORE COMPETENCIES ..................................................................................... 16
TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES............................................................................... 17
TABLE 4 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES .......................................................... 33
Main Report
1.1 Background Significant growth in undergraduate level education of Quantity Surveyors stems from the late
1960’s and early 1970’s with the switch from Diplomas in Quantity Surveying, firstly to Ordinary
degrees and, within a few years, to Honours Degrees. From the 1971 RICS report “ The Future
Role of the Quantity Surveyor” (RICS, 1971) identifying specific competencies of the time the
profession began to evolve rapidly, and in 1983 a further report was produced, “The Future of
the Chartered Quantity Surveyor” (RICS, 1983) as if to further consolidate the professional
status 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 QS
profession, 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 three
different stakeholders in three different directions (Figure 1). Academics are interested in
producing a rounded graduate with the basic foundation in knowledge for further development
whereas professional bodies are interested in graduates who can be progressed to full
professional 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 daily
functions of business activity and to its growth. Hence, there is a tripartite three directional pull
on the development needs of the Quantity Surveyor. The present education system of the
Quantity Surveyor does not recognise these multi-directional needs of the QS and hence often
produces a graduate whom the industry sees as not fulfilling their requirements. This leads to
many problems, with greater levels of employer and graduate dissatisfaction and obstacles to
early career development of the QS graduate.
Quantity Surveying Education
These conflicting concerns have long fuelled the “education versus training” debate and some
conflict between Educators and Employers through which the RICS steers a sometimes difficult
path. On the one hand it sends messages to the universities that it wishes to see programmes
which lean more towards the “academic” rather than the “technical”, whilst on the other hand
it sends messages to employers that they should accept graduates issuing from its accredited
degree programmes as being appropriately qualified to take positions at higher than technician
grade (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 fully
achieved by candidates for membership, requires active cooperation between the academic
sector (providers of basic subject knowledge and certain academic skills) and the industrial
sector (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 the
specific requirements industry may have of its newly graduated student members. At the same
time the industry does not seem to appreciate that a graduate is a person with higher
intellectual capacity to rapidly further develop their professional skills and technical knowledge
once in employment. This conflict and lack of alignment of industry, academic and professional
perspectives create a barrier to the development of the profession as well as the career
development of the graduate Quantity Surveyor.
Added to this is a more fundamental failure on the part of all parties to appreciate the dynamics
of the market sector. The majority of new graduates appear to be entering more non-traditional
quantity surveying routes. It has been shown both through research (Perera, 2006) and through
records of 1st destination Surveys (UNN Returns, 2001 – 2008) that a large majority of new
graduates find employment not in Private Consultancy Practice (PQS) or the Public Sector, as
was the case until the mid 1980’s, but with Main Contracting and specialised subcontracting
organisations. Perera (2006) shows that in the University of Ulster more than 80% of graduates
either seek employment or prefer to be employed in the non- PQS sectors of the industry. The
situation 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 certain
Private Practice bias within the presentation of advice and, indeed there is feedback at
university level suggesting this. Both much of the academic content and the structure of the
RICS would seem directed at those employed in the PQS and Government Sector, paying less
attention to the skills inherent in the role of the Contractor’s Surveyor. For their part, those
engaged in developing Quantity Surveying within the construction sector may see this as
another barrier to cooperating with the RICS when required. This is evident from the fact that
RICS membership does not grow in the same proportion to the growth in Quantity Surveying
student numbers (Perera, 2006). The emergence of Commercial Management (Lowe and
Leiringer, 2006; Walker and Wilkie, 2002) as a distinct discipline encompassing the role of the
contractor Quantity Surveyor is a fact that RICS should consider in detail in its future
development of career paths for the Quantity Surveyor.
Leading Quantity Surveying professional bodies the world over have already begun to recognise
these developments and trends. For example, recently the Australian Institute of Quantity
Surveyors (AIQS) established a separate pathway for contractors’ Quantity Surveyor for
completing professional qualification.
3
In summary, it is suggested that the present education system of the Quantity Surveyor does
not recognise the multi-directional needs of the Quantity Surveyor and hence often produces a
graduate whom the industry sees as not fulfilling their requirements. A further factor in the
willingness on the part of the Industry to accept and train new graduates must be born of the
financial insecurity being experienced by existing Members who might otherwise be more
willing to accept the risk of employing and training new recruits. The problem is compounded
and exacerbated by the resource constraints brought about by the economic recession being
experienced severely by the construction industry in particular.
It is possible that through its most recent initiative, aimed at measuring the level of transferable
skills built into degree programmes, there will be the roots of some agreement between the
RICS, Academia and Industry (RICS 2009) (1). However, this process is a part of developing an
effective understanding of the issues referred to above.
1.2 Aim & Objectives This research aims at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyors
within 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 the current and anticipated future needs of the industry.
Examine the curricula and the views of academic providers and its delivery in respect of the Core Competencies.
Examine the views of industry employers on QS education and the nature and content of engagement between academic providers and industry.
Investigate the implications of RICS routes of membership and development pathways and their compatibility with QS education.
Make recommendations as to practical measures to coordinate the effective provision of an appropriate balance of academic and professional skills through constructive cooperation between the academic and industry sectors.
Suggest a model in which the RICS can motivate and manage the input of both industry and academia, such that it maintains appropriate control of standards, thus upholding its relevance in the process.
The following section provides details of the research method adopted for the study.
2 Research Method The research was carried out in 4 distinct data gathering phases culminating in data analysis and
reporting. The key stages and process are illustrated in Figure 2.
1. A detailed literature review was carried out
interpretation.
2. Expert forum: was the catalyst
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
one RICS official (member of the RICS
Analysis of Expert Opinion for a comprehensive report.
3. Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed
the basis of the survey questionnaire
was carried out covering academics representing all 26 RICS accredited quantity surveying
programmes. The survey was issued to 106 academics fr
received. Refer Part 4: Analysi
4. Survey of the Industry: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed the
basis of the survey questionnaire.
was carried out covering
firms in the UK. These included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICS
member database. A total of 615 responses were received.
Perception of the Industry
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,
(member of the RICS Education and Qualification Standards
Analysis of Expert Opinion for a comprehensive report.
Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed
the survey questionnaire. A comprehensive web-based survey with 41 questions
programmes. 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 the
basis of the survey questionnaire. A comprehensive web-based survey with 39 questions
covering quantity surveying industrial and professional community across
These included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICS
. A total of 615 responses were received. Refer Part 5:
Industry for a comprehensive report.
P ar
t 2
:R e
se ar
ch M
et h
o d
for the identification of key issues related to academia,
Education and Qualification Standards). Refer Part 3:
Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed
based survey with 41 questions
65 responses were
for a comprehensive report.
Survey of the Industry: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed the
based survey with 39 questions
quantity surveying industrial and professional community across
These included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICS
Refer Part 5: Analysis of
Main Report
s
5
5. Competency mapping case studies: All 24 RICS QS competencies were mapped against
curricular for 4 RICS accredited QS Honours degree programmes and are reported as 4 case
studies. These provide a full picture of the extent of coverage of RICS QS competencies in
the programmes accredited by the RICS. Refer Part 6: Competency mapping case studies for
a comprehensive report.
6. Alignment framework: this is an attempt to bring the key findings of the two surveys, 4 case
studies and expert forum to a conclusion directing activities that needs to be carried out to
align disparate views of the key stakeholders. This is provided in the Part 2: Main report (this
report).
Both surveys reported were first piloted among a small sample of volunteers representing industry
and academia. The review of feedback obtained through a discussion session lead to the
modification 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
6. RICS Routes of Membership & Training
7. RICS Services
3 The survey respondent profiles The 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 to 5
6 - 10 Years, 7.00%
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. The
academics spent roughly half of their time engaged in teaching and or assessment, the rest in either
administration (25%) or research (15%).
Just over half of the industry respondents were engaged in Private Practice, the rest being spread in
equal measures over contracting (17%), the public sector (15%) or other (15%). In terms of the
number of students enrolled at any one time, the age of the course and its student make-up these
mostly fell into similar ranges. This suggests that in its own way, each group was representative.
4 Role of the QS & Developments The role of the QS is defined by current and future workloads and trends in development. This section evaluates the respondents’ views on both academic and industry surveys bringing in views of the expert forum where appropriate.
4.1 Organisations Current workload The industry survey indentified (Figure 7) the key areas of work presently important for the QS. The top 3 core competencies: T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control and reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works directly maps to the highest workloads identified.
Teaching and
Figure 7 Organisations current workload
4.2 Perception of areas of work becoming more important Both professionals and academics appear to agre
Refurbishment 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
Estimation and bidding
Project management
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
Organisations current workload: Industry
Perception of areas of work becoming more important Both professionals and academics appear to agree that the largest growth area will be that of
Refurbishment 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%
Estimation and bidding
Project management
Activities which make up your organisations current workload
Percentage
e that the largest growth area will be that of
). The similarity in
13.39%
17.36%
There was a strong feeling among the expert forum
taking 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 the
profession. They also agreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skill
develop. Sustainability and project management skills were seen as areas for further development
while 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 of
Measurement (NRM) Initiatives Here, quite significant differences appear between the two groups of responde
seeming to be more aware generally of each element of the New Rules. Only in the area of Whole
Life Costing documentation does industry appear to begin to match the awareness demonstrated by
the academics. Perhaps the industry representa
documentation mirrors their perception elsewhere (
of client interest. In terms of their ratings for the importance of the various elements of the
documentation 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, are
groups in approximate agreement as to
Figure 9 Level of awareness of NRM initiatives
5 RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies
5.1 RICS QS Competency Requirements The RICS Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived
relevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor:
1 Mandatory Competencies:
common to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
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. The
agreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skill
while 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 of
Measurement (NRM) Initiatives Here, quite significant differences appear between the two groups of respondents, with academia
the academics. Perhaps the industry representatives apparent interest in WLC- related
documentation mirrors their perception elsewhere (Part 3 – Expert Forum) of WLC as a growing area
afford far higher weightings than do industry to the first element
respectively). Only in the case of the proposed alternative to SMM7, not yet published, are
groups 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 Requirements Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived
relevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor:
personal, interpersonal and professional practice and business
Whole Life Costing
The expert forum in
agreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skills to
while civil engineering construction, infrastructure development and mechanical and electrical
Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of
nts, with academia
related
) of WLC as a growing area
afford far higher weightings than do industry to the first element
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 skills
Procurement
s
9
2 Core Competencies: primary skills of the candidate’s chosen [RICS] pathway
3 Optional Competencies: selected as an additional skill requirement for the candidate’s chosen
[RICS] pathway from a list of competencies relevant to that pathway. In most cases there is an
element of choice, though driven, usually, by their employer’s specialism.
The RICS distinguish between three possible levels of attainment in each of a range of competences
when 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 only
of these last to be selected by the candidate). The RICS stipulates that an APC candidate needs to
achieve all Mandatory competencies at Level 2 or above, all Core competencies at Level 3 (except
one not relevant to specialisation depending on employment in consulting or contracting practice
which 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 quantity surveyors
4. Ranking of competencies in the order of perceived importance to the role of quantity surveyor
The outcomes related to each of these aspects are discussed in detail in the following sections.
5.2 Mapping of competencies to programme curricular The research devised its own method of mapping competencies to curricular as there is not a
standard systematic method by which to compare the level of attainment of competencies. A
scoring system was used to systematically analyse the extent of mapping of competencies to
individual module specifications of 4 RICS accredited QS honours degree programmes (Case studies
A, B, C, D).
The results revealed that there is considerable variation in the attainment of competencies across
programmes (universities). There was 11points variation in cumulative scores between the highest
scoring and lowest scoring universities at Level 1. The figure narrows to 2.25points at Level 2 and
0.25 at Level 3.
5.2.1 Coverage of Mandatory competencies
Mandatory competencies generally can be expected to be achieved at Level 1. Figure 11 shows how
each university performed in coverage at Level 1.
Main Report
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 have
not been adequately covered even at Level 1.
5.2.2 Coverage of Core competencies
The coverage of the core competencies presents the most important analysis as these competencies
are vital for the function of quantity surveyor. Figure 12 illustrates the coverage of Core
competencies by universities.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
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
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 of
achievement of competencies.
Figure 13 indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmark
score of 1 there is inadequate coverage for all competencies
Quantification and Costing of Construction works. This is an aspect that needs further investigation
as the survey opinions rank this competency achievement the lowest. The scoring for mapping was
carried out primarily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailed
specification to indicate what level of content coverage is required for a competency be achieved, it
is difficult to have a uniformly interpreted outcome.
Figure 13 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2
5.2.3 Coverage of Optional competencies
Only two Optional competencies are
to cover many optional competencies in their curricular often as non
guidance from the RICS as to how
should be completed upon graduation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
C o
m m
er ci
al m
an ag
em en
t o
f co
n st
ru ct
io n
C o
n st
ru ct
io n
te ch
n o
lo gy
an d
en vi
ro n
m en
ta ls
er vi
ce s
T010 T013
Main Report
indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmark
score of 1 there is inadequate coverage for all competencies across all universities except for T074
arily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailed
is difficult to have a uniformly interpreted outcome.
Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2
Coverage of Optional competencies
Only two Optional competencies are required to be addressed for the APC. But, universities attempt
to cover many optional competencies in their curricular often as non-optimal modules. There is no
guidance from the RICS as to how many to what extent (which level) these optional competencies
upon graduation. This is again open to interpretation.
C o
n tr
ac t
p ra
ct ic
P ar
t 2
:R IC
S Q
u an
ti ty
Su rv
ey in
g C
o m
p e
te n
ci e
s
11
indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmark
across all universities except for T074
arily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailed
for the APC. But, universities attempt
ptimal modules. There is no
these optional competencies
Figure 14 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1
Figure 14 clearly indicates that all universities do not achieve optional competencies to a benchmark
level score of 1.
5.2.4 Views of the Expert Forum
Most experts were of the opinion that competencies in general should be achieved at Level 1 by
graduates (Part 3). However, some academic experts were of the view that universities achieve more
than Level 1 in some competencies and move greatly towards Level 2. One Consultant QS was of the
view 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 uniform
view and it is very much open to individual interpretation. These tensions of interpretation are well
evident in the competency mapping analysis carried out (Part 6).
5.2.5 Key findings of competency mapping
The main finding related to the competency mapping can be summarised as follows:
1. There is no prescribed threshold benchmark standard for achieving competencies at
graduate level.
2. There are no detailed specifications to indicate what content should be covered to achieve a
competency.
3. Different universities aim to achieve competencies at different levels, based on their own
interpretations.
4. In the absence of a detailed competency specification, the level of achievement of
competencies 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 to
one another, resulting in apparent differing levels of achievement of competencies and
different levels of coverage.
A
B
C
D
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 achieving
core competencies to some extent at Level 2.
10. Optional competencies are not reasonably achieved at Level 1 by most universities. Some
competencies 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 quantity
surveyors This section analyses the views of academics (Part 4) and industry (Part 5) to establish the expected level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors. It will also bring in views from the Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate.
In the absence of a threshold benchmark standard for graduate competencies it is important to ascertain what key stakeholders perceive a graduate should achieve in competencies. This section aims to establish consensus view on which level each competency should be achieved by a graduate from a RICS accredited degree programme.
The overview comparison of all competencies between Academia and Industry is given in Figure 15
and 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%
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%
Main Report
5.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory Competencies
Whilst academic responses (Figure 17) to this section appear somewhat biased towards Level 2, the
industry response (Figure 18) appears more logical, expecting the highest level of experience to be at
Level 1, falling to the least being at Level 3. In both cases the highest ratings were given in the areas
of M010 Team working and M004 Communication and negotiating and M007 Data management, all
being transferable skills. Of those competencies that do feature at Level 3 within both industry and
Academic assessment M010 Team working appears once again. This acknowledged degree of
expertise may stem from increased use of this as a vehicle of teaching and assessment within
university programmes of study.
Figure 17: Expected Level of achievement of Mandatory Competencies for New graduate QS (Academic)
Figure 18: Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory Competencies 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 Level Expected Forum
Level Expected Academic
Level Expected Industry
M002 Business planning 1 1 1 1
M003 Client care 1 or 2 1 1 1
M004 Communication and negotiation 1 or 2 2 2 2 (part)
M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice
1 2 1 1
2 2 1 1
M007 Data management 2 2 2 2 (part)
M008 Health and safety 1 or 2 2 1 or 2 1
M009 Sustainability 1 2 1 1
M010 Team working 2 2 or 3 2 2 (part)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
M001 Accounting…
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
M001 Accounting
principles and…
professional… M006 Conflict
Main Report
s
15
The opinions from the expert forum do not provide a consensus view. However, the majority view
indicates that in general those Mandatory competencies are being achieved at Level 1 except for
M006, M007 and M010. Therefore, it is recommended that Mandatory competencies be achieved at
Level 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 Competencies
In this, the most discipline-specific area, both the academics and those from industry look for the
most frequent level of competency to be at Level 2. Thus, the pattern for Level2 skills as shown on
Figure 6 is almost identical for the two sets of respondents. Respondents from academia display a
higher expectation of attainment at Level 3 than do those from industry. As above the Industry are
being more realistic in their expectation, as a new graduate would be unlikely to be in a position
immediately to be able to advise clients etc. as the acquisition of Level 3 suggests. Academia is either
perhaps exhibiting wishful thinking, or else is unaware of the actual requirement for the
achievement of Level 3.
Figure 19: Expected Level of achievement of Core Competencies for New graduate QS (Academic)
Figure 20: Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies for New Graduate QS (Industry)
What is disconcerting in both these analysis is that there is a considerable number expecting Core
competencies 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 indicate
possible 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.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
T010 Commercial
management of…
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
T010 Commercial
T062 Procurement and tendering
Main Report
Core Competencies Level Expected Forum
Level expected Academic
Level Recomme nded
T010 Commercial management of construction 2 2 2 2 (part)
T013 Construction technology and environmental 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 construction works
1 or 3 2 or 3 2 2 (part)
Core competencies largely define the primary role of the quantity surveyor and therefore expert
opinion ranks it very important. However, there is no consensus view on achievement of core
competencies with some Industrial experts stating it should be at Level 1 and some academics
stating it should be at Level 2. Therefore, it is recommended that Core competencies be achieved at
Level 2 in part as indicated in Table 2. This also justified by the fact that most programmes currently
proceed to Level 2 to some extent and have the full capacity to do so. The Expert Forum expressed
similar views.
5.3.3 Expected level for Optional Competencies
With regards to Optional competencies the order of ratings of both respondent groups show much
the 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 2
and 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 21and
Figure 22 mirror one another almost exactly. The specialism’s of T008 Capital Allowances, T045
Insurance, T025 Due Diligence and T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency each being the highest
on both charts.
Figure 21: Expected Level of achievement of Optional Competencies for New graduate QS (Academic)
Figure 22: Expected Level of Achievement of Optional Competencies for New Graduate QS (Industry)
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
T008 Capital allowances
T016 Contract administration
Main Report
Both academia and industry attach greater significance to T016 Contract administration giving it an
expected ranking of Level 2. This is born out of the fact that it is often considered a key function of
quantity surveyors.
The final assessment of optional competencies that can be deduced from this analysis is given in
Table 3 below.
Optional Competencies Level Expected Forum
Level expected Academic
T016 Contract administration 1 or 2 2 2 2 part
T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency 1 1 1 1
T025 Due diligence 1 1 1 1
T045 Insurance 1 1 1 1
T063 Programming and planning 1 2 1 1 or 2 part
T077 Risk management 1 2 1 1 or 2 part
Expert opinion with regard to optional competencies for the most part is closer than for other two
types of competencies. Most expect it to be achieved at Level 1. However, there is considerable
argument for T016 Contract administration, T063 Programming and planning and T077 Risk
management be achieved at Level 2 mostly arising from academics. Therefore, it is recommended
that Optional competencies be achieved at Level 1 for all competencies and extending in part to
Level 2 for competencies as indicated in Table 3. This is again consistent with the competency
mapping which indicates high level of achievement for these 3 competencies.
5.4 Perceived level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity
surveyors This section analyses the views of industry (Part 5) to establish their perceptions of the level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors. The survey did not evaluate the perspective of academics here as they are intricately involved in the development of graduates. It will also bring in views from the Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate.
Noticeably (Figure 23), the industry respondents’ graduate competency achievement scores against
all competencies lie within the median value range of 2.00 to 3.00, that is, between “partially
satisfied” and “undecided”, hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the graduates’ skill levels.
Industrialists award the lowest score of all to T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
(Measurement has always regarded as a key QS skill).
This resonates more with general industry perceptions, often reported in different forums.
However, the expert opinion was not so critical as that although measurement related inadequacy in
knowledge was clearly reported by many.
Main Report
s
18
Figure 23: Employers' Perception on achievement of Competencies by QS Graduates
The highest satisfaction levels are indicated for 4 Mandatory competencies. The top 5 competencies
are:
1. M007 Data management 2. M010 Team working 3. M009 Sustainability 4. M008 Health and safety 5. T022 Design economics and cost planning
The Core competency with which respondents are least satisfied is T074 Quantification and costing of construction works followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two competencies ranked most important in the previous analysis. This clearly indicates that there is high degree of non satisfaction with graduate quality across the industry. In the expert forum one PQS felt that some courses do not deliver what employers want and one academic stated “students are going out without the necessary skills to undertake their basic job
2.05
2.05
2.07
2.11
2.27
2.28
2.38
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.40
2.46
2.46
2.48
2.51
2.52
2.55
2.57
2.58
2.59
2.60
2.77
2.90
2.96
T045 Insurance
T074 Quantification and costing of construction…
T063 Programming and planning
T067 Project financial control and reporting
M004 Communication and negotiation
M008 Health and safety
s
19
and that is where employees feel that the universities are letting the system down”. This being said the general view was that it is not easy to generalise and some courses are better than others and also it is down to other factors such as the student, mode of study, and employer.
5.5 Ranking of competencies in the order of perceived importance This section analyses the views of academics (Part 4) and industry (Part 5) to establish the perceived level of importance of competencies in quantity surveying. It will also bring in views from the Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate. Figure 24 illustrates the median values scored for each competency by both groups.
The results from professionals and academia both display low standard deviation. Both the Mean
and Median against competencies were higher for academic respondents than for those in industry
in the majority of cases. In both cases the Optional are scored low. This is particularly so in the case
of the Industry figures. Perhaps the industry respondents have a much clearer view of what is of
importance to the profession.
When considering the relative order of importance of the full list of skills far more are given as 5, the
top score, by academics than by respondents from industry (9 academics, 3 industrialists). Much of
the balance, in the case of the industrialists, falls into the range 4. Roughly the same number of skills
are rated 3 by both parties, but the industrialists then drop to 2 for the rating which they give to 3
skills. There is some consistency here, for both the industrialists and academics agree that the same
three skills should be awarded the same rating (Corporate recovery and insolvency, Capital
allowances and Accounting principles and procedures – this last a surprise rather to a profession
dealing so much in financial matters and whose members do require a certain basic understanding
of and ability in this area).
The competency rankings provided resonate very well with current industry workload profile for quantity surveyors (Figure 7).
Main Report
3.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.00
4.00
M002 Business planning
M003 Client care
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures
M007 Data management
T017 Contract practice
T025 Due diligence
5.5.1 Ranking of Mandatory competencies
Academics rank M010 Team working, M004 Communication and negotiation and M005 Conduct
rules, ethics and professional practice above other mandatory competencies and award them the
highest score of 5.
Industry also rank these and M003 Client care, M004 Communication and negotiation and M006
Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures higher than others but with a
maximum score of 4.
Both groups generally have a similar perspective on the relative status of mandatory competencies
for the most part.
5.5.2 Ranking of Core competencies
Academics have ranked all core competencies equal with the highest rating of 5. The industry respondents have ranked T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control and reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works the highest with a score of 5. All other core competencies received a ranking of 4.
This reflects a more pragmatic ranking considering industry needs.
5.5.3 Ranking of Optional competencies
Academics have ranked all optional competencies between 3 and 4. Both the industry respondents and academics have ranked T016 Contract administration and T077 Risk management highest in this category with a score of 4. The least important optional competencies noted are T008 Capital allowances and T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency receiving of score of 2.
5.6 Cross comparison of levels of expectation, achievement and
importance of competencies A cross comparison of industry survey respondents views on Expected level of competency,
Importance of competency and Level of achievement of competency by graduates is cross plotted to
evaluate relationship with these criteria (Figure 25).
Note: Expected level has been re-scaled to a 1 to 5 scale to graphically compare with Importance
ranking (scaled 1 to 5) and perceived Achievement (scaled 1 to 5).
Main Report
s
22
Figure 25 Cross comparison of competency expected level, importance ranking and graduate achievement
From this comparison it is clear that whilst there is high importance attached to a competence there
may be a comparatively lower level of achievement. This is clearly evident with T067 Project
financial control and reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
competencies.
M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
M001 Accounting principles and procedures
M002 Business planning
M003 Client care
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute…
M007 Data management
T017 Contract practice
T025 Due diligence
Main Report
T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T016 Contract administration T045 Insurance T077 Risk management
Those competencies highlighted in bold in the list above show the greatest gap between achievement and importance. These include 9 of the 24 competencies (3 mandatory, 4 core and 2 optional competencies) which have a significantly high importance in the role of the quantity surveyor.
6 Quantity Surveying Education The surveys probed in detail with respect to the views of both academia and industry as to their
level of understanding and awareness of aspects of education, university industry collaboration and
other. These are summarised in the following sections. Full detailed discussion of these issues can
be found in Part 4 & 5 of the full report.
6.1 Level of awareness of and satisfaction with the curriculum used to
produce graduate QSs Only half of the respondents from industry felt themselves to be either reasonably or fully aware of
the content of the curricula. As to their satisfaction with curricula content 60% expressed
dissatisfaction or partial dissatisfaction with the curriculum. This begs the question as to whether
their dissatisfaction might be linked in any way to their self confessed lack of awareness of the
detail.
Figure 26: Level of awareness of the content of the curriculum taught in University (Industry)
Figure 27 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce a graduate QS
The expert forum identified several subject areas that need greater attention:
Construction Technology
n
24
One consultant QS expressed the view that there was too much mass teaching, with a mismatch
where the learning outcome does not map to the industry requirement. One consultant QS also felt
that the RICS had less than adequate involvement in regulating curricular while one Contractor’s QS
felt that although there are so many RICS accredited programmes they are not comparable in most
respects.
6.2 The level of confidence in Lecturers’ programme delivery capacity On the part of the industry representatives there is generally reasonable to full confidence with the
level of lecturers’ academic knowledge, QS Practice and use of teaching materials. The academics
themselves indicate a very high level of confidence in the programme delivery capacity.
Figure 28: Confidence levels in teaching (Academic) Figure 29: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability (Industry)
The Expert forum identified they feel that as class sizes get bigger to make courses more
economically viable the ability of tutors to spend more contact time and give more feedback will be
compromised by the numbers of students they have to work with.
6.3 The role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor There was, perhaps understandably, a clear difference in perceptions between the two sets of
respondents here. Respondents from industry were almost equally split (57% 43%) as to whether
universities should be producing surveyors for immed

Documents

Full final report here - Construction Economics & Management