|
(pressing HOME will start a new search)
|
|
Professionalism through Certification
|
Success is all about image in today's world. Unfortunately, the construction industry seems to have a poor public image. Freshmen students’ answers to the question, what is the first thing that comes to your mind when the word "construction," "contractor," or "constructor" is mentioned? indicate that we still have a long way to go to achieve the accepted status of a professional on a par with architects, engineers, etc. It appears that in the eyes of the general public, hard hats, detour signs, and construction delays represent the constructor. This paper discusses the importance of voluntary certification, as opposed to mandatory licensing, for improving the industry’s image. Because the process of improving the image of the construction industry should begin at the educational level, this paper gives suggestions as to how the ASC and its associated schools can promote the certification process.
Keywords: Certification, Certified Professional Constructor Examinations, Construction Industry Image, Constructors’ Examinations, Licensure, Measuring Construction Knowledge
Introduction
Success is all about image in today's world. Politicians are elected based on the image they project. Products like Beanie Babies and Barbie Dolls sell because of their image. Personal reputations are at stake if our image is in any way tarnished. Unfortunately, the construction industry seems to have a poor public image.
Each semester we ask the following question of our freshman-level students in a humanities class in which almost every discipline on campus is represented: what is the first thing that comes to your mind when the word "construction," "contractor," or "constructor" is mentioned? The answers are sometimes downright embarrassing. Examples from a similar poll taken at Texas A&M University about three years ago (AIC Newsletter, Oct/Nov 1995) yielded the following responses:
Construction: "Sitting in traffic for hours due to construction delays" and "Orange signs and people standing in the road."
Contractor: "A big, fat, mean, bald headed guy named Butch." Constructor, which is a new term to most people: "The guy who does the work for the contractor," "A piece of equipment like a crane used to lift completed wall panels up into place," or finally, "I don't know, but it sounds like a funny name for a contractor."
The above answers mean that we still have a long way to go to achieve the accepted status of a professional on a par with architects, engineers, etc. It appears that in the eyes of the general public, hard hats, detour signs, and construction delays represent the constructor.
Nine years ago, Mulligan (1990) published an article entitled "Professionalism," in The American Professional Constructor, the journal of the American Institute of Constructors (AIC). A statement was made that "each constructor should be individually certified….to achieve the highest status and image of professionalism." When this paper was published there was no mechanism to achieve this. Today, thanks to the hard work and persistence of some dedicated construction professionals, that dream is a reality.
In our judgment, there are two levels of professionals that exist in our society. One is the group known as the trade professionals and the other is the group known as the learned professionals. Education is the major difference between the two. The former group includes those people who follow their vocation as a means to produce their livelihood. Carpenters, masons, plumbers, electricians, musicians, athletes, etc., do not require a college degree to do what they do for a living. Yet we recognize Tiger Woods and Garth Brooks as professionals, as well as that elusive plumber. They obtain their expertise based on years of practice plus an inherent natural ability or talent to do what they do better than the average person. For example: as much as we might like to play golf, most of us would never consider using golf as our primary source of income.
The latter group, the learned professionals, includes doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, accountants, etc.--those who have achieved their professional status through education and examinations. In addition to the degrees these professionals need, they also go on to become in someway "certified " or "registered." In most cases this process requires some type of rigorous examination and generally is administered in two phases. The first, early in the career, following a formal education and the second, after gaining several years of experience in the chosen field.
Defining Professional Certification
Much has been written about professional certification for a multitude of organizations. We found such diverse certifications as Certified Marine Chemist offered by the National Fire Protection Association and the Certified Professional Chemist offered by the National Certification Commission in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. There are Certified Industrial Hygienists, Certified Public Managers, Certified Safety Professionals, and Certified Marine Surveyors. In fact, there are 70 professional associations who have either an approved certification process for their members or are establishing such a process. (Gilley and Galbraith, 1988) One of the most accepted definitions of certification seems to be, "a voluntary process by which a professional association or organization measures the competencies of individual practitioners." (Galbraith and Gilley, 1986).
In all of our research of professional associations and organizations that subscribe to a certification process, Galbraith and Gilley’s (1986) description best fits what constructor certification is all about. The process is voluntary, and it certainly measures the competencies of individual practitioners. The difference between "certification" and "licensure" focuses on the voluntary aspect. Those within a profession who require licensure cannot practice unless they have a license. An obvious example is the medical profession, where obtaining a license is mandatory. The licensing "process is administered by a political body whose primary objective is to protect the public from incompetent practitioners." (Galbraith & Gilley 1). The commonality between certification and licensure is that they both target the individual rather than an organization or a program.
One of the best-known certification programs is the Certified Public Accountant (CPA), which was first offered in 1917. Due to its broad acceptance by the public as the mark of a professional group, it has come to signify a much broader range of financial services than just financial statement auditing. In recent years, the CPA exam has sections on auditing, accounting practice, accounting theory, and business law. (Goldwater & Fogarty, 1995). In this same area, the Certified Management Accountant (CMA) is not very well known, even though the first examination was given in 1972. The formation of a second professional exam reflected the growth of accountancy as a corporate function. (Goldwater and Fogarty, 1995). The point is that there are two distinct certification processes for the same basic group of professionals¾ accountants.
Why would an organization or association want to consider certification for its members? Probably the most compelling reason is that the organization or association desires to enhance the image of their profession and have their members accepted as professionals by the public at large. If their members' competencies are quantified, and qualified, then this somehow sets them apart from all the other practitioners in the industry that are not certified. The individual members, successfully completing a rigorous examination in their area of expertise, receive a great deal of self-satisfaction. Even more important, they will be an accepted as an expert by clients, employers, peers, and regulatory bodies. "Certification is a long-term investment in your professional career which you can present with pride!" (Differt, l998).
Constructor Certification
The framework for the certification process was developed by a group of dedicated individuals who wanted to improve the image of construction and of constructors. These individuals were members of the American Institute of Constructors (AIC) and considered themselves professionals. The major element lacking was a method for measuring a person's knowledge (competency). After several years of discussions, plus a tremendous amount of effort and personal expense on the part of these individuals and members of 11 other trade and professional organizations, the Certified Professional Constructor (CPC) designation became a reality in 1996. The Constructor Certification Commission (CCC) was formed, adopting "Qualifying the Professional Constructor" as its motto. The initial certification exams were administered in a pilot study to university students enrolled in construction programs across the country. The results were positive and modifications were made to the exams based on the input from this "dry run."
According to the AIC (Constructor Certification Commission, 1998), the first "real" examinations were administered on November 9, 1996. Eighty candidates sat for the Level 1, Associate Constructor exam, which covers the body of knowledge that students enrolled in a college-based, four-year construction program should obtain. Five candidates sat for the Level II, Certified Professional Constructor (CPC) exam, which covers more advanced areas of the managing of the construction process and which are related to an experience level. Seventy-one percent passed the Associate Constructor exam, and all five candidates passed the CPC exam. Since this time, the examinations have been offered every spring and fall at more than 65 test sites in the U.S. The program reached a milestone in May 1998 with the certification of the 1,000th candidate.
The results of the certification exams over the past two years have been generally favorable. Sixty eight percent of those sitting for the Associate Constructor exam have successfully passed and 89% of the CPC candidates have passed. The latest results from the April 1998 test indicated that the passage rate for the Associate Constructors was at 73% and at 76% for the CPC (Constructor Certification Commission, 1998). We believe these results are an excellent indication of the validity, the authenticity, and the rigor of the examinations' content.
Certification Acceptance
Even more important than the numbers of candidates and passage rates is the rapidly growing recognition and acceptance of the certification process as a viable construction knowledge measurement tool by both industry and academia. T. J. Ferrantella (1998), CPC and principal of the Hammond, Indiana based Engineered Companies reported, "I was so impressed by the certification process that I asked three others from our firm to sit for the April 1998 exam. Since the exam covers such a broad range of experience, we had several study sessions to prepare for it. The exam and the study sessions were great opportunities to improve the skills of these very experienced project managers. That's what professional standards are all about - not only past education and experience - but a commitment to on-going education as well."
Dave Hall, Vice President at Geupel DeMars, Inc. has said: "Certification for the professional constructor is long overdue. With construction projects and project relationships becoming more complex, and with the project delivery process often being driven by the construction entity, there is a need to recognize the constructor for what he or she is ... a truly professional member of the project delivery team." (Constructor Certification Commission, undated).
The CPC is gaining such widespread industry acceptance because it hits squarely on the knowledge areas that a middle manager, on the way to upper-management, should understand. One cannot sit for the CPC exam without having a minimum of seven years of additional A
"Acceptable Professional Experience" beyond that required for the Level I, Associate Constructor (AC) exam. The Acceptable Professional Experience must include a minimum of two years of experience managing the execution of construction work. This experience must be attested to by each employer and notarized. The primary areas tested in the CPC Level II exam are project planning, developing staffing requirements, creating & enhancing working relationships, establishing & maintaining support operations, monitoring & controlling the use of project resources, controlling project costs, closing out the project, safety, and last but not least, ethics (Certified Professional Constructor Candidate Handbook, 1998).
The Associate Constructor (AC) exam is gaining recognition in schools and among employers as a useful outcome assessment tool (Dorsey, 1998). In academia, several construction management programs have mandated the Associate Constructor exam for all graduating seniors and many of the programs are strongly encouraging the seniors to take it in their final semester. We believe that the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) should move certification to the top of their list as an issue to be discussed at 1999 Annual Meeting. What better way to validate a program's effectiveness than to subject the students to a nationally recognized test which covers the essential topic areas defined by the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE). A partial list of these topics that are tested on the Level I Associate Constructor exam include communications, safety, estimating, scheduling, cost control, materials and methods, design and engineering, mathematics and science, surveying, and project administration.
A few years ago the most widely used professional qualification for obtaining a faculty position in a construction management program was to hold a P.E. (Professional Engineer) license. We now see more and more faculty position qualifications requiring "Certified Professional Constructor, or ability to become certified within one year of employment." (Milwaukee School of Engineering, 1998). Certification is certainly the right direction in which to move. The constructors, not the engineers or architects, are the managers of the construction process in which approximately 90% of all project dollars are expended.
Promotion of Certification within ASC Schools
It is clear that it will take both faculty and industry "champions" to have a successful participation level in our university programs. The most frequently asked questions by the students when briefed on constructor certification are, "Why do I need to take it?" "What good will it do me?" "Will I start out with a higher salary if I pass it?" We tell these students that although today (1998) there are probably few tangible benefits that can be immediately gained from becoming certified, they must look to the future. It is our opinion that, over time, the CPC will be on a level equal with the PE and AIA professionals. Holding a certified professional constructor designation will become mandatory for promotions and holding key positions with construction firms, as it already has for certain faculty positions. Other examples of certification impact in the construction industry include the fact that the California State Architect now requires all construction cost estimates that are a part of their contracts be stamped by a Certified Cost Engineer (CCE). Also, the State of Idaho now requires licensing of construction managers on state projects, and the Associate Constructor exam is being considered for use as the means to achieve this licensing. (Dorsey, Lehrer and Cecre, 1998).
Both authors of this paper have administered/proctored the examinations. One of the most impressive things we have noticed is the professional procedure of administering the exam established by the Commission. This professionalism is evident throughout the process, from the time the candidates are certified as eligible until the boxes with the completed exams are sealed and shipped back to the Commission. Every detail in administering the exam has been covered. The accountability and security of the exams is paramount such that not even a hint of compromise can be considered. Candidates sitting for the exam must present valid picture ID when signing in on exam day, and this is checked against photos furnished by the Commission. Instructions are read verbatim on the procedures to be followed and an assigned seating arrangement is prepared in advance. Permission to leave the room must be given by the proctor and a "hall pass" issued. The exams start promptly and end on time with a wall clock to govern the exact time of day. No food or drink is allowed during the testing, etc. This is exactly what an examination for certification should require if it is to become accepted as an instrument for determining professional qualifications. The Associate Constructor and CPC examinations were created and are administered by professionals who insure the validity of these examinations.
However, selling a mandatory testing procedure to administrators is a relatively easy task. One reason is that the Associate Constructor exam is an ideal outcome assessment tool and all programs subject to periodic reviews need to demonstrate as many "outcome assessments" as possible. The hardest "sell" of all is to the students themselves. Yet there has been a slow but steady increase in numbers over the past three exams. What is more heartening is that more students are beginning to talk about certification and ask questions other than "what's in it for me." A general enthusiasm and acceptance is emerging as they see their professors and mentors and their peers become certified. In fact, after the November 1998 exam, two graduating students who did not take the exam asked if they could sit for it in April 1999!
In an effort to further promote the certification process and facilitate the preparation phase, a Study Guide for the Associate Constructor exam is in the process of being written and should be available for use late in 1999.
If the construction industry is going to improve its public image, then certification of the individuals in the industry must be one of our goals. For the certification process to be taken seriously by the construction industry, the certification process must earn the respect of the industry by distinguishing itself as a true measure of accomplishment. This cannot be achieved until certification becomes a common objective of those at the highest levels of the construction industry.
This process of improving the image of the construction industry should begin at the educational level. Two things must happen to start this process. First, construction faculty members associated with ASC schools need to promote CPC certification. It will become readily apparent to our students the value we place on certification if we lead by example. Second, the ASC charter should require their member schools to include the Associate Constructor exam as part of the construction program. In addition to providing a useful outcome assessment tool for any construction education programs, this will add value to the students' degrees and improve the image of the program and the construction industry.
The impact of certification and/or registration on image or status is evident on any university campus, but it depends on what academic area or discipline is considered. According to Hastings (1998), in the authors’ home state, the College of Law on one campus requires all tenure track faculty to be practicing attorneys. More than 80% of the faculty in the School of Accountancy on the same campus are CPAs. At another campus in the state, all of the associate or adjunct faculty in the College of Architecture are registered architects. Yet, it should be noted that rarely is more than 25% of an engineering faculty registered as professional engineers (P.E.) (Hastings, 1998). We urge each of you to check the certification or registration of the appropriate colleges, schools, and departments on your campus.
We need the ASC to help push this effort even further. If educators really want to promote construction education, they should jump on the bandwagon of "constructor certification." Faculty members need to become certified if they hope to gain acceptance of the certification concept within their own program. Most faculty will find convincing engineering-oriented faculty to do a mandatory testing procedure is much harder than using the volunteer approach as the P.E.’s do.
In closing, we would like to emphasize that as educators we have an obligation to also support our alumni in their efforts to continue their professional development. Advocating that they achieve CPC status is an excellent way to do this.
The authors would like to acknowledge Vern Hastings, Professor Emeritus, for his insightful comments during the preparation of this paper. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments improved both the content and the presentation of this paper.
References
AIC Newsletter, (Oct/Nov 1995).
Constructor Certification Commission. (Jan. 1998). Certified Professional Constructor Candidate Handbook. American Institute of Constructors. St. Petersburg, FL.
Constructor Certification Commission. Promotional flyer.
Constructor Certification Commission. (August 1998). Letter.
Differt, D. H. (l998). ITE Journal, July, 2l-22.
Dorsey, R. W. (Dec. 1998). A letter to construction educators.
Dorsey, R. W., Lehrer, G. and Cecere, J. (Aug. 1998). A letter to construction educators.
Ferrantella, T. J. (May 1998). Quoted in a press release by the Constructor Certification Commission.
Gilley, J. and Galbraith, M. (Sept.1988). Commonalties and Characteristics of Professional Certification: Implications for Adult Education. Lifelong-Learning. 12 (1), 11-14.
Galbraith, M. and Gilley, J. (June 1986). Examining professional certification. Training and Development Journal. 40 (6), 60-61.
Goldwater, P. and Fogarty, T. J. (March/April, 1995). Journal of Education for Business. 207-214.
Hastings, V. (Dec. 1998). Personal conversation.
Milwaukee School of Engineering (1998). E-mail advertising a fall 1999 position.
Mulligan, D. E. (February 1990). Professionalism. The American Professional Constructor, the Journal of the American Institute of Constructors, 14, (1), 15-18.
