IPDS - Promotion

[BraveNewWorld]

Please could anyone explain to something to me: IPDS.CO.UK states that NVQs are valuable to individuals as they are a "nationally recognised qualification" but they are not recognised at ADC within the IPDS ... WHY?

I am a supervisory manager looking for a middle manager post. I hold a Masters of Business Administration degree and a NVQ level 7 in leadership and management, both received within the last 6 months, but these are not recognised by IPDS. So I must sit an Initial Test of Potential and Assessment and Development Centre to determine whether I have the calibre to train toward NVQ level 4 (or is it 5) in leadership and management ... which I will not have to do because my existing qualifications exceed these. Because I enjoy my job so much I have also a degree in Fire Safety Engineering but again this is not recognised.

I would use the IPDS site for this discussion but this is so heavily moderated that the smallest sniff of dissent is apparently omitted.

[fireftrm]

IPDS would recognise them, IPDS is a system of personal development, not a promotion tool. The basis is that you are developed for the role you are required to do, but personally and not simply on an assumption that you need any training. So you are made a Middle Manager and you are then assessed for your development needs, these would be personal to you and differ from others in the same position. Looking at your existing qualifications I would suggest that a TNA would come out with no management training, but that assessment of your skills int he workplace would be required to determine competence once in the role. You would probably need higher level ICS training, but little else.

The ADC is to test potential to move to the next role and has no 'get outs'. Your qualifications are for levels above that you presently work at, so there is some evidence that you can cary out higher roles. However the national requirement is for an ADC to get you there. What you have is existing knowledge/skills that will mean you are requiring less/no development once there and should be much better prepared for the ADC than your peers.

I am a little unsure about a couple oft he points you raise, however. Firstly a qualification does not mean you can do the job, the MBA is academic not practically based. NVQs are based on practical demonstration of skill, together with underpinning knowledge, however there is no level 7 NVQ. So was your qualification in Leadership and Management not a Level 7 Diploma from the ILM? If so once againt here is no evidence of assessment of you doingt he job, it is primarily based on knowing with personal refelctive accounts. As Level 7 is a strategic management qualification I would also question what occupation you used for your qualification as Supervisory Management would not be suitable.

You have clearly done a lot of work to develop yourself, which should stand you in great stead when you go for an ADC, unfortunatley having a qualification does not exempt you, and then again will be of great assistance once in the next role.

[docfin]

Probably one of the best ADC answers I have seen on this forum. Thanks FIREFTRM. I still think that there should be some sort of credit allowed for someone like BraveNewWorld who clearly shows potential. Is there really anything to be gained from his / her sitting an ADC to prove what can only be described as obvious potential. Remember the ADC is after all a tool for identifying those who are ready to be developed in the next role to that which they already occupy and does not test practical ability, a weakness which many have had reason to challenge.

[fireftrm]

Thanks for that Docfin.

Omn the point of any credit for bnmw's potential, well maybe, however he has only shown potential in terms of study and academic skill. He has not been practically tested in the mangerial role, as an ADC simulates. As to the test of practical skill, operational, then that should be tested as part of the promotion process. Those who have challenged services that have failed to do this are quite right. The ADC tests potential for the role it was set at, but it is not a promotion tool. Following an ADC the service should run role related assessments (RRA) to determine which roles those successful from ADC are best suited for. This would include operational assessments for any roles that were to be ops. Many FRS simply promoted off the ADC lists and some of them are regretting their failing now.

[docfin]

Fair point FIREFTRM, but I suspect your proposal would mean that the promotion process would be so long winded and time consuming that it would be impractical and too costly. I think on balance the best way forward will turn out to be something along the lines of an ITOP then a practical course not unlike the Moreton managers managing incidents courses. When I was in the Army (about a million years ago) we did a selection test for which you were nominated by your CO and this was followed by a development course (JMC SMC etc) which gave you the rudimentary skills which you would require as a commander / manager. During this you were continually assessed and ejected if found wanting. There then followed a probationary period during which you were mentored and allowed to build on what you had learned. I dont know if this still goes on but it seemed to work at the time. The present system is pretty much bereft of any credibility with the troops and is being abandoned by some brigades to greater or lesser degrees but that does not mean that it could not be improved with a bit of imagination and courage at the top.

[fireftrm]

Mine isn't actually a propsal - it is how the system is supposed to be running now. The RRA is an integral part of the promotion process, which is now ADC part 1 (was IToP) then ADC part 2, idenitfies potential. Serivce then runs RRA to promote. It is THE process. The promotion off the ADC lists was due to services not understanding how the system is supposed to work and then blaming it, rather than their own failure to comprehend and apply it.
Your suggestion of running courses for people before identifying them as suitable for promotion would actually be far too expensive. Running ADC then RRA a lot less so. At Moreton it is at least £1000 per week per person, not including their wages, their subsistence, their accomodation while away, or to pay those needed to cover them while away. So the CMMI and a management course would mean investing a bare minimum of £1500 (assuming the nominee is ejected in the MI course) on anyone BEFORE decing that they are suitbale for promotion. This makes the ADC and RRA process the considerably cheaper option.

[docfin]

Cant dispute your figures so I will concede the point on cost. I do however dispute the point about running courses before identifying people as suitable for promotion. What I actualy said was that people were identified as suitable by their CO and then forwarded for assessment. I have to accept though, the cost was never much of a consideration in the military so possibly that particular model would be inappropriate. I admit that I would be reluctant to try to propose a suitable system for the identification and development of those who will manage the service into the future as at the moment the water is very muddy and to be honest, in my brigade at least, there is so little goodwill available for the current system that any proposals are likely to be met with hostility and mistrust. It will be some time I feel before any real credibility is restored in the eyes of the grass root Ffs. I have to say though that I have heard that many Brigades are looking into the re-introduction of IFE exams into the promotional assessment (not development) system. I think this is a good idea and would address the technical skills issue. It will be interesting to see how it is done whilst still keeping to the PQA model.

[toidi]

Strathclyde recently ran an ADC for ADO's (sorry station Managers now) and my mate who was involved in the marking explained the process!
Now this conversation was at a retiral night and there was drink involved so I hope my numbers are accurate.
around 120 applicants sat a written test with each paper being marked by 2 assessors and then the assessors conferring on an agreed mark.
this took around 1 hour to mark each paper which equates to 240 hours of assessors time.
The assessors ranged from station to area managers so if we take the average wage as £18 per hour this first part would cost £4320

around 90 were successful at this stage and went on to the next part which involved a group exercise, a one-to one exercise and an operational simulation. these were run over about 15 days and required 6 assessors plus actors for the role playing exercises as well as guys to run the operational simulation.

If we break that down we have 15 days x 6 assessors x 8 hours per day=720 assessor hours= £12960
plus 15 days x 2 guys to run the operational simulation  so 15 x 2 x 8 hours=240 hours= £4320

plus 6 actors (i think) for 15 days at 8 hours per day= 720 hours at around £15 per hour (conservative estimate in my opinion)- this equates to  £10,800 just for actors

The next part involves 2 area managers interviewing around 30 successful candidates over 4 days which equates to 2 x 8 hours per day x 4 days = 64 hours at £20 per hour? =£1280

So by my calculations, the marking of the assessment part alone will cost £33,680

This does not include the work put into designing the ADC, writing the scenarios and the support staff who work their butts off trying to make sure the assessors are where they should be when they should be.
it also excludes catering for all and any overtime incurred as a result of people being unavailable  as they were taking part in the ADC.
I have been out the job for a number of years now but I estimate this whole process would cost around £50,000 !

As people have said previously, the ADC process is a test of potential so they have just spent £50,000 to test the potential of Station Managers!

Bring back the old days when they lined you up and went good guy, good guy, w*nker! (just kidding, but it would be a lot cheaper)

Docfin- you mentioned goodwill within your brigade, and my mates at station level say that morale has never been so low as it is now but some of the guys who work in Castle Coward(my mates name for HQ which I think is fantastic) think everything is great!

[fireftrm]

Oh for those old days back eh?

Back when we had written exams, then we had the FSEB ( a full tiem job for some), someone to write the questions, printing of papers, distribution, run examinations (including invigilators), cover for staff while away taking them, DOs to FSC to  mark them. Then the practicals, ADOs and DOs as examiners, staff in (here on OT) to make up the exercise crews, cover for the attendees, meetings to mark and moderate results. Then we had assessment centres where the applicants for jobs, those holding the qualifications, were tested for suitability. This involved ADOs, DOs, or higher (depending on the rank of the post) to run the sessiosn and interviews.

Yes, the good old days, no costs then at all.....................

[toidi]

Fireftrm
Where did I ever say there were no costs at all?
I just thought it was a lot cheaper which is the exact phrase I used!
And while you mentioned the exams, I personally feel that they should never have been scrapped in the first place as they never done me any harm, especially the L/ff and Subs.
Yes, the good old days when you got examined on Fire related subjects like signs of building collapse and how to deal with incidents.
You also got asked about building construction and how certain structures reacted in a fire.
And then you had to deal with an operational incident in the L/ff and Subs and had to think for yourself when you were presented with problems.
You now all have IPDS and PQA's to take the place of the exams- Glad I have no part in them!!!!

I cannot believe anyone still in the job and seeing what is happening in relation to practical knowledge trying to slag off the old exams but you sound part of the new regime where everything is wonderful ( do you work in another Castle Coward down South?) but you never mentioned morale in your Brigade - how is it down there?

[fireftrm]

Hey I never slagged off the old exams, now ay. I was pointing out that the exams cost a lot of money to run and that your post did not address the issue. You did not say that there were no caosts before, but by failing to include the prior system expenses you made a case that the new system was so expensive. Unless you compare them then there is no point going on, in depth, about how much it cost to identify the potential of someone in the new system. Out of interest there is nothing to stop any FRS including technical knowledge and command skill in the RRA.

I happen to think that practical knowledge has dropped, however I do not put this entirely at the feet of the IPDS and PQAs, rather the failure of managers to accurately identify and deal with such gaps. If you read the K&U within each role you will see that a great deal of knowledge is required, but just how many supervisor assessors actually test this? This is also for EVERY member of staff, not just those who want to take the exams. Ask your mate when he last asked his Ffs the building collapse question, or building construction, or the temperature at which steel will lose its structural strenght, or when he checked their understanding of the FRS Act...... Before you come back and say that isn't int he PQAs, you are right, if you say it isn't covered by IPDS then again you may be right, but as IPDS is personal it only isn't in it if the individual already knows and has been recorded as knowing. If not then it definitley is in, see FF 4, element 1 K&U:

Health and Safety:   
Hazards and risks of the workplace affecting people and the environment   (so building construction covered here)
How to make and apply decisions based on the assessment of risk     (DRA)
How to apply practices that maximise the health, safety and welfare of yourself and others in the workplace (DRA)

Organisational:   
Applicable Fire Service or other legislation   (FRS Act Fire Safety Regs HASAW etc)
Record systems and their use   (such as GRAs SOPS Hydrnat routes etc)   
Sources and availability of information (as above)

Personal and Interpersonal:   
How to communicate clearly and effectively with the range of people involved    
How to treat colleagues and members of the public with respect and consideration, taking account of and accepting diversity   
Lines and methods of communication/reporting in the workplace (ICS general role levels etc)   
Roles, responsibilities and limits of authority of yourself, others and other agencies

Technical:
Capabilities and limitations of personal and operational equipment (know about all equipment and PPE)
How to select and use personal and operational equipment (how to use it)   
Roles and responsibilities within the incident command system    
How to identify and preserve evidence  (basic FI and building construction, affects of fire on buildings)   
Types of evidence and its importance (as above)   
Methods of controlling and extinguishing fires§   
Causes, effects and behaviour of fire (how long can this be........... inc building construction and affect of fire on building components)   
The methods employed to gain access, effect entry and maintain egress  (again how long.........)

and that is just one element of the (minimum) 7 units that a Ff must be competent in.

[toidi]

Fireftrm

I take all these things you quote in the above post relating to FF4 element 1 k&u are broken down into specifics and tell you exactly what they are looking for in each one?
If not, you will get nearly 60 brigades measuring this knowledge in a different way and using different standards to apply it.

You said ,Quote:"Ask your mate when he last asked his Ffs the building collapse question, or building construction, or the temperature at which steel will lose its structural strenght, or when he checked their understanding of the FRS Act...... Before you come back and say that isn't int he PQAs, you are right, if you say it isn't covered by IPDS then again you may be right, but as IPDS is personal it only isn't in it if the individual already knows and has been recorded as knowing. If not then it definitley is in, see FF 4, element 1 K&U"

If you concede that it isn't covered by IPDS and this system seems to be the Standard for all brigades, why would you ask something that isn't in the syllabus and your example doesn't give any specifics where you would ask this question?
I could imagine  a huge variation in the standards throughout the UK which will lead to a drop in practical knowledge, but thankfully, it is not my problem- it is the ones who created it and in my opinion, are welcome to it!

[fireftrm]

I did not so concede, what I said was that these areas are only not requiring development (through IPDS) if the prson did not already, or had no requirement to, know them. As to specifics from the K&U, no they aren't there, nor should they be. FOr example asking about equipment use would HAVE to mean different things in different services! The wording I gave (except in parentheses) is that of the NOS, it is the defined role of the supervisor to ensure that they apply these to their workplace. If they werre so specific as you seem to suggest then they would not be national, they would be service, or station only. It seem squite obvious to me, however, that areas such as building construction and what fire does to a structure must be covered, but the way that applies to high rises in city centres, to crofts on the outer islands, to airport terminal buildings, to MOD premises and to aircraft themselves will need to be specified by the assessor (i.e. the supervisor, CM or WM - it is explicit that this is their job, see WM 5). It is this failure to adopt the new responsibility that now sits at this role, that is the primary reason for the loss of knowledge and skill, I have asked many WMs about how they carry this out, usually with the reply that it isn't their job and even if it is, when I show them that it is, , or their ownthey do not know the Ff standards (they haven't looked at them in the last 8 years since they became THE standards). Head in sand mode. Of course while you bury your head in the sand, which is impossible to do bent over backwards, something else is exposed to the world.

[jokar]

GMC are now requiring their candidates to undertake exams through the IFE process as part of developing their underpinning knowledge.  Where does that leave the candidate above who has better qualifications already but will have to do the IFE bits to ensure promotion.  I believe that other Brigades are watching this closely.

[fireftrm]

It's a way of dealing with the failure of managers to do their job,  but it is simply papering over the cracks rather than dealing with the issues head on. Having said that as an IFE proponent it is great news for the Institution.