qs-alignment of views final report

8/13/2019 qs-Alignment of Views Final Report

1/255

ALIGNMENT OFINDUSTRIAL

Northum

Newcastl

UK

RICS Trus

January, 2

LIGNMENT OFPROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC ANDNDUSTRIALDEVELOPMENT

QUANTITYTHE POST RECESSI

Profess

ria University

upon Tyne

Grant Project No: 401

11

CADEMIC ANDEVELOPMENTNEEDS FOR

UANTITY SURVEYORSN DYNAMICS

or Srinath Perera

Mr John Pearson


2/255

Alignment of Professional, Academic and

Industrial Development Needs for Quantity

Surveyors: The Post Recession Dynamics

Professor Srinath Perera

Mr John Pearson

Northumbria University

Newcastle upon Tyne

UK

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

January 2011


3/255

Main Contents

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Contents

Part 1. Executive Summary

Part 2. Main Report

Part 3. Analysis of Expert opinion

Part 4. Analysis of Perception of the academia

Part 5. Analysis of Perception of the Industry

Part 6. Competency Mapping Case Studies

Part 7. References

Part 8. Appendices

Appendix A. Expert forum interview questions

Appendix B. Academic survey questionnaire

Appendix C. Industry survey questionnaire

Appendix D. Competency mapping scores


4/255

Ac kno wled ge men ts

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, NorthumbriaUniversity, 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.

Srinath Perera and John Pearson


5/255

List of Abbreviations

RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

QS Quantity Surveying

CIOB Chartered Institute of Building

CIES Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering SurveyorsHND Higher National Diploma

APC Assessment of Professional Competence

PQS Private sector consultant Quantity Surveyor

CQS Contractors Quantity Surveyor


6/255

Part 1 Executive Summary

1 BackgroundThe entry of graduates and others into any faculty of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

(RICS) as fully qualified Chartered surveyors comes only after they have successfully passed 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 ofdocumentation 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.


7/255

Executive Summary

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part1:Th

eStudy

2

2 The StudyThis 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 foralignment 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 ofrevelation 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 standardsright 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.


8/255

Executive Summary

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part1:Keyfindings

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 Institutions 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 competenciesby 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:

1. T067 Project financial control and reporting

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


9/255

Executive Summary

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part1:ProposedAlignmentofviewsframe

work

4

These were very similar to the views of academics.

There was significant discontent with the QS curricular perceived to be used. This might have 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 frameworkBorn 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.


10/255

Executive Summary

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part1:ProposedAlignmentofviewsframe

work

5

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.


11/255

Part 2 Main Report

Alignment of Professional, Academic

and Industrial Development Needs for

Quantity Surveyors: The Post

Recession Dynamics

Professor Srinath Perera

Mr John Pearson

Northumbria University

Newcastle upon Tyne

UK

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

January 2011


12/255

Part 2 Contents

1. List of Contents

2. List of Figures

3. List of Tables

4. Main Report


13/255

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:ListofContents

ii

List of Contents

1 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................1

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

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

3.1 THE STATUS OF THE RICSQS COMPETENCIES..................................................... ............................................. 2

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

4.2 COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK ..................................................... ....................................................... 4

4.3 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION.................................................... ....................................................... 5

4.4 RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES.............................................................. .................................. 5

4.5 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ............................................................ ............................................. 5

4.6 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ........................................................ ............................................. 5

4.7 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................ ......................... 5

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

1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................... ............................................................ ......................... 1

1.2 AIM & OBJECTIVES.......................................................... ............................................................ ............... 3

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

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

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

4.1 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD.............................................................. ............................................ 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

5.1 RICS QS COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS............................................................ ............................................. 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

5.2.3 Coverage of Optional competencies............................................................................................... 11

5.2.4 Views of the Expert Forum .............................................................................................................. 12

5.2.5 Key findings of competency mapping .............................................................................................12

5.3 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYORS....................................13

5.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory Competencies.................................................................................. 14

5.3.2 Expected level for Core Competencies ............................................................................................15

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........................................................................................................ 215.5.3 Ranking of Optional competencies ................................................................................................. 21


14/255


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 .................................................... 246.4 INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION I N QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY .......................................................... ... 25

6.5 RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT .................................................... ........................................... 26

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

7.1 PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY .......................................................... .......................................... 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 .................................................... ........................ 318.2 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

10.2 COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK ..................................................... ..................................................... 39

10.3 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION.................................................... ..................................................... 39

10.4 RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES.............................................................. ................................ 39

10.5 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ............................................................ ........................................... 39

10.6 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ........................................................ ........................................... 39

10.7 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................ ....................... 40

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

11.1 SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF RICSQS COMPETENCIES............................................................ ....................... 40

11.2 SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF ACADEMIA........................................................ ..................................................... 41

11.2.1 QS Competencies........................................................................................................................ 41

11.2.2 QS Education & Development.....................................................................................................42

11.2.3 The role of RICS...........................................................................................................................42

11.3 SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF INDUSTRY .......................................................... .................................................... 43

11.3.1 QS Competencies........................................................................................................................ 43

11.3.2 QS Education & Development.....................................................................................................44

11.3.3 The role of RICS...........................................................................................................................45

11.4 SUMMARY OF FRAMEWORK FOR ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS ............................................................ ....................... 45

11.5 LIMITATIONS ........................................................ ............................................................ ....................... 4611.6 FURTHER RESEARCH AND DIRECTIONS ...................................................... ..................................................... 46


15/255


iv


16/255

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:ListofFigures

v

List of Figures

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 7 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD: INDUSTRY.............................................................. .................................. 7

FIGURE 8 AREAS OF FUTURE GROWTH............................................................ ............................................................ ..... 7

FIGURE 9 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES............................................................ ............................................. 8

FIGURE 10 LEVEL OF I MPORTANCE OF NRM INITIATIVES ........................................................ ............................................. 8

FIGURE 11 MANDATORY COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1............ ........................................................... .............. 10

FIGURE 12 CORE COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1 .................................................... ........................................... 10

FIGURE 13 CORE COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 2 .................................................... ........................................... 11FIGURE 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) ..................... 26FIGURE 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


17/255

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:ListofFigures

vi

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) .................................................... ....................... 32FIGURE 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


18/255

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:ListofTables

vii

List of Tables

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR MANDATORY COMPETENCIES.................................................... ....................... 14

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


19/255

Main Report

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:In

troduction

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Significant growth in undergraduate level education of Quantity Surveyors stems from the late1960s and early 1970s with the switch from Diplomas in Quantity Surveying, firstly to 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 toearly career development of the QS graduate.

Quantity

SurveyingEducation

Academia

Industry

Consultants

Contractors

Public Sector

Other

ProfessionalBody (RICS)


20/255

Main Report

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:In

troduction

2

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 1980s, 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 Contractors Surveyor. For their part, those

engaged in developing Quantity Surveying within the construction sector may see this asanother barrier to cooperating with the RICS when required. This is evident from the fact 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 forcompleting professional qualification.


21/255

Main Report

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:ResearchMethod

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 MethodThe 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.


22/255

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Figure 2 Research Method

These stages are further detaile

1. A detailed literature rev

interpretation.

2. Expert forum: was the c

industry and the RICS.

(programme leaders), 3

one RICS official (memb

Analysis of Expert Opini

3. Survey of the academia:

the basis of the survey q

was carried out coverinprogrammes. The surve

received. Refer Part 4:

4. Survey of the Industry: t

basis of the survey ques

was carried out coverin

firms in the UK. These in

member database. A to

Perception of the Indus

Main Report

below:

iew was carried out to identify the RICS QS com

atalyst for the identification of key issues relate

total of 10 interviews were carried out compris

consultant quantity surveyors, 3 contractor qua

er of the RICS Education and Qualification Stand

n for a comprehensive report.

the issues identified from the literature and exp

uestionnaire. A comprehensive web-based surv

academics representing all 26 RICS accreditedy was issued to 106 academics from which 65 re

nalysis of Perception of the academia for a com

he issues identified from the literature and expe

tionnaire. A comprehensive web-based survey

quantity surveying industrial and professional c

cluded 2946 chartered surveyors randomly sele

al of 615 responses were received. Refer Part 5:

ry for a comprehensive report.

Part2:ResearchMethod

4

etencies and their

to academia,

ing 3 academics

tity surveyors and

rds). Refer Part 3:

ert forum formed

y with 41 questions

uantity surveyingsponses were

prehensive report.

rt forum formed the

ith 39 questions

ommunity across

ted from the RICS

Analysis of


23/255

Main Report

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:Th

esurveyrespondentprofiles

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

5. Modes of study & placement

6. RICS Routes of Membership & Training

7. RICS Services

3 The survey respondent profilesThe survey respondents for both surveys were well experienced in QS work, there being over 90%

with more than 10 years experience. The academic respondents included 44% programme leaders.

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

Up to

5

Years ,

0.00%

6 - 10

Years ,

6.67%

11 - 20

Years ,

31.11%

21 - 30

years ,

35.56%

Over 30

Years ,26.67%

Up to 5

Years,

0.70%

6 - 10

Years,

7.00%

11 - 20

Years,

19.90%

21 - 30

years,

29.20%

Over 30Years,

43.20%


24/255

Main Report

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:RoleoftheQS&Developments

6

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

No direct comparison could be made between the nature of the workloads of each group. 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 & DevelopmentsThe 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.

Teachingand

Learning

Activities,

49.62%

Research,

15.04%

Academic

Enterprise,

5.09%

Administration,

24.53%

Other,

5.71%

Privatepractice

Quantity

Surveyor

(consultan

t), 51.80%Contractin

g

organisati

on,

16.90%

Public

Sector,

14.60%

Specialist

sub-

contractor,

1.70%

Specialist

supplier,

0.00%

Other,

15.00%


25/255


Figure 7 Organisations current worklo

4.2 Perception of areas

Both professionals and academi

Refurbishment followed by Buil

median scores together with lo

Professionals, for their part, sho

Figure 8 Areas of future growth

Wh

Performance

Supply chain

M

Value

Risk

Disp

Contract formulation a

Payments and cash flow

Estimatio

Tender d

Pre-contract cost control (preliminary esProject

Post-contract cost control (Interim valu

Activities which

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Main Report

d: Industry

of work becoming more important

s appear to agree that the largest growth area

ing construction and Building services (Figure 8)

deviation suggests agreement amongst most a

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

le life costing

management

management

naging claims

management

management

ute resolution

d negotiation

management

n and bidding

Other

ocumentation

timating, costmanagement

ations to final

make up your organisations current workload

Percentage

Mean - Ac

Mean - Ind

Part2:RoleoftheQS&Developments

7

ill be that of

. The similarity in

ademics.

17.36%


26/255


There was a strong feeling amo

taking more concepts such as su

general indicated the need to u

profession. They also agreed tha

develop. Sustainability and proj

while civil engineering construct

(energy related) projects were s

4.3 Level of Awareness

Measurement (NR

Here, quite significant differenc

seeming to be more aware gene

Life Costing documentation doe

the academics. Perhaps the ind

documentation mirrors their peof client interest. In terms of th

documentation academia afford

(elemental cost planning, 67% t

respectively). Only in the case o

groups in approximate agreeme

Figure 9 Level of awareness of NRM in

5 RICS Quantity Surv

5.1 RICS QS Competenc

The RICS Competencies are arra

relevance to the Role of the Qu

1 Mandatory Competencies:common to all pathways [i

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.002.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Order of cost

estimating

and

elemental

cost planning

Procurement

an

alternative to

SMM7

Mean - A c Mean -

Main Report

g the expert forum that the role would become

stainability and whole life costing into account.

skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and it

t collaboration and team working should be mo

ct management skills were seen as areas for fur

ion, infrastructure development and mechanical

een as growth sectors for the future.

and Importance of the three RICS N

) Initiatives

s appear between the two groups of responden

rally of each element of the New Rules. Only in

s industry appear to begin to match the awaren

stry representatives apparent interest in WLC- r

ception elsewhere (Part 3 Expert Forum) of Wir ratings for the importance of the various ele

far higher weightings than do industry to the fir

46% respectively) and the last (whole life costi

the proposed alternative to SMM7, not yet pub

nt as to its importance.

itiat ives Figure 10 L evel of importance of N

eying Competencies

y Requirements

nged into three groupings, depending upon thei

ntity Surveyor:

personal, interpersonal and professional practicto membership] and compulsory for all candida

Whole Life

Costing

Ind

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Order of cost

estimating

and elemental

cost planning

Procurem

an

alternative

SMM7

Mean - Ac M

Part2:RICSQuantitySurveyingCompeten

cies

8

more complex,

he expert forum in

impact on the

e important skills to

ther development

and electrical

w Rules of

ts, with academia

he area of Whole

ss demonstrated by

elated

LC as a growing areaents of the

st element

g, 54% to 31%

lished, are the two

RM initiatives

perceived

e and business skillses.

nt

to

Whole Life

Costing

ean - Ind


27/255

Main Report

Perera & Pearson, 2011Part2:RICSQuantitySurveyingCompeten

cies

9

2 Core Competencies: primary skills of the candidates chosen [RICS] pathway

3 Optional Competencies:selected as an additional skill requirement for the candidates chosen

[RICS] pathway from a list of competencies relevant to that pathway. In most cases there is an

element of choice, though driven, usually, by their employers 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 practicewhich is at Level 2) and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above.

The RICS QS competencies were analysed in 4 different ways:

1. Map competencies to RICS accredited programme curricular

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

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


28/255

Main Report


cies

10

Figure 11 Mandatory Competency mapping scores: Level 1

The yellow benchmark line has been set at 1 to indicate below standard coverage of competencies.

It is clear that there are many competencies (M001, M002, M003, M005, M006 and M008) that 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.

Figure 12 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Accountingprinciplesand

procedures

Businessplanning

Clientcare

Communicationand

negotiation

Conductrules,

ethicsand

professionalpractice

Conflictavoidance,

managementanddispute

resolutionprocedures

Datamanagement

Healthandsafety

Sustainability

Teamworking

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

Commercialmanagementof

construction

Constructiontechnologyand

environmentalservices

Contractpractice

Designeconomicsandcost

planning

Procurementtenderin

Projectfinancialcontroland

reporting

Quantificationandcostingof

constructionworks

T010 T013 T017 T022 T062 T067 T074

AB

C

D


29/255


When using a benchmark score

However, as a cumulative score

achievement of competencies.

Figure 13 indicates the core co

score of 1 there is inadequate c

Quantification and Costing of Co

as the survey opinions rank this

carried out primarily based on s

specification to indicate what le

is difficult to have a uniformly in

Figure 13 Core Competency mapping s

5.2.3 Coverage of Optional

Only two Optional competencie

to cover many optional compet

guidance from the RICS as to ho

should be completed upon grad

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Comm

ercialmanagementof

construction

Constr

uctiontechnologyand

env

ironmentalservices

T010 T013

Main Report

of 1 all universities have achieved that for all co

is used this may not fully represent the required

petency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set

verage for all competencies across all universiti

nstruction works. This is an aspect that needs f

competency achievement the lowest. The scori

oring by programme leaders. In the absence of

el of content coverage is required for a compet

terpreted outcome.

ores: Level 2

competencies

are required to be addressed for the APC. But,

ncies in their curricular often as non-optimal m

many to what extent (which level) these optio

ation. This is again open to interpretation.

Contractpractice

Designeconomicsandcost

planning

P

rocurementtendering

Projectfinancialcontroland

reporting

Quantificationandcostingof

T017 T022 T062 T067 T07

Part2:RICSQuantitySurveyingCompeten

cies

11

petencies.

level of

gainst a benchmark

s except for T074

rther investigation

g for mapping was

a detailed

ncy be achieved, it

universities attempt

dules. There is no

nal competencies

A

B

C

D


30/255

Main Report


cies

12

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 theview that both Mandatory and Core competencies should be achieved at Level 2.

These reflect the exact situation with respect to coverage of competencies. There is no 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 anddifferent levels of coverage.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

CapitalAllowances

Contractadministration

Corporaterecoveryand

insolvency

Duediligence

Insurance

Programmingandplanning

ProjectEvaluation

Riskmanagement

T008 T016 T020 T025 T045 T063 TO66 T077

A

B

C

D


31/255

Main Report


cies

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%

46%49%

37%

16%

36%

11%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Mandatory

Competencies

Core Competencies Optional

Competencies

Le ve l 1 Lev el 2 Lev el 3

52%

24%

70%

38%

50%

25%

10%

27%

6%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Mandatory

Competencies

Core

Competencies

Optional

Competencies

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3


32/255

Main Report


cies

14

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

Level

Recommended

M001 Accounting principles and procedures 1 1 1 1

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

M006 Conflict avoidance, management and

dispute resolution procedures

2 2 1 1

M007 Data management 2 2 2 2 (part)

M008 Health and safety 1 or 2 2 1 or 2 1

M009 Sustainability 1 2 1 1

M010 Team working 2 2 or 3 2 2 (part)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

M001

Accounting

M002 Businessplanning

M003 Client care

M004

Communicatio

M005 Conduct

rules, ethics

M006 Conflict

avoidance,

M007 Data

management

M008 Health and

safety

M009

Sustainability

M010 Teamworking


00.10.20.30.40.50.6

0.70.80.9

M001

Accounting

principles and

M002 Business

planning

M003 Client care

M004

Communication

and negotiation

M005 Conduct

rules, ethics and

professionalM006 Conflict

avoidance,

management

M007 Data

management

M008 Health and

safety

M009

Sustainability

M010 Team

working



33/255

Main Report


cies

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

What is disconcerting in both these analysis is that there is a considerable number expecting 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.

00.10.20.3

0.40.50.6

T010

Commercial

management

ofT013

Construction

technology

and

T017 Contract

practice

T022 Design

economics

and cost

planning

T062

Procurement

and tendering

T067 Project

financial

control and

reporting

T074

Quantification

and costing of

construction


00.10.20.30.40.50.6

T010

Commercial

management

of construction

T013

Construction

technology and

environment

T017 Contract

practice

T022 Design

economics and

cost planning

T062

Procurement

and tendering

T067 Project

financial

control and

reporting

T074

Quantification

and costing of

construction



34/255

Main Report


cies

16

Table 2 Summary of expected levels for core competencies

Core Competencies Level

Expected

Forum

Level

expected

Academic

Level

Expected

Industry

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 specialisms 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

0.30.5

0.7

0.9

T008 Capital

allowances

T016 Contract

administration

T020

Corporate

T025 Due

diligenceT045 Insurance

T063

Programming

T077 Risk

management


-0.1

0.1

0.30.5

0.7

0.9

T008 Capital

allowances

T016 Contract

administration

T020

Corporate

T025 Due

diligence

T045

Insurance

T063

Programmin

T077 Risk

management



35/255

Main Report


cies

17

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.

Table 3 Summary of expected levels for optional competencies

Optional Competencies Level

Expected

Forum

Level

expected

Academic

Level

Expected

Industry

Level

Recommended

T008 Capital allowances 1 1 1 1

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 1T063 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 competencymapping 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 partiallysatisfied 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.

qs-alignment of views final report

Documents