Qs-Alignment of Views Final 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
Alignment of Professional, Academic and Industrial Development Needs for Quantity Surveyors: The Post Recession Dynamics
RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

January 2011
Main Contents
Acknowledgements Abbreviations Contents Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Part 6. Part 7. Part 8. Executive Summary Main Report Analysis of Expert opinion Analysis of Perception of the academia Analysis of Perception of the Industry Competency Mapping Case Studies References Appendices Expert forum interview questions Academic survey questionnaire Industry survey questionnaire Competency mapping scores
Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance they received from the following in the preparation of this report and in the conduct of the research; Lyn Dodds, Research Associate, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for her assistance in conducting and transcribing interviews and her analysis of the same and for her assistance in the formulation of questionnaires, Damilola Ekundayo, Graduate Tutor, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for his assistance with data analysis, unflinching support at all times, Anushi Rodrigo, Doctoral Student, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for her assistance in the cover design, Colleagues from the Quantity Surveying Subject Group and the Construction Management and Economics Research Group (CEMRG) within the School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for piloting questionnaires, All members of the Expert forum who gave time to be interviewed, Academic staff from the four Schools of the Built Environment, comprising the Case Study Group, who completed detailed programme-related competency mapping exercises, All respondents to both the nationwide Academic and Industry Surveys, Mrs Vivian Small and all officials of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), for access to and permission to use their membership database, Steve Hodgson, Dean of School and Professor David Greenwood, Associate Dean (Research) of the School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for their help and encouragement with this work.
Srinath Perera and John Pearson
List of Abbreviations
RICS QS CIOB CIES HND APC PQS CQS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Quantity Surveying Chartered Institute of Building Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors Higher National Diploma Assessment of Professional Competence Private sector consultant Quantity Surveyor Contractors Quantity Surveyor
Part 1 Executive Summary

1 Background
The entry of graduates and others into any faculty of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) as fully qualified Chartered surveyors comes only after they have successfully passed the Assessment of Professional Competence (APC). This is true of the Quantity Surveyor, the specific subject of this study, as much as for any other. Key to this last is the demonstration, by the candidate, of their having attained certain competencies determined by the Education and Membership Board of RICS. In the case of the graduate, these competencies will have been acquired by the candidates as a result both of their formal university education and the workplace training which they have received, whether as Part time students in employment or during a work Placement undertaken. In either case, the applicant will have undertaken a period of full time employment beyond graduating, further adding to the in-service training element of their overall skills profile. It will be appreciated that there is a balance to be struck between the level and type of competence which should be expected, and can be achieved, in the universities and that which arises out of exposure to experience only available within the workplace. To some extent the two must be complimentary, as they should be, and it has emerged over the years that both Academia and Industry have certain expectations of one another, rightly or wrongly, as to what the other can and will achieve as a vehicle for graduate learning. These last are encapsulated, for some, in the arguments within the education versus training debate that has dogged the relationship for as many years as formal Quantity Surveying education has existed. At this point , the RICS itself should be added as a third stakeholder, for it is they who set the required Levels of competence referred to above and in this way are the drivers of the qualification process. The RICS themselves make certain assumptions as to the interpretation and implementation of the necessary education and/or training which is being carried out in their name and which will lead to the acquisition of the correct levels. Their control over the process is in fact limited, as they do no direct delivery or assessment themselves, prior to the actual occasion of the APC. They must rely upon activities both in the universities and in the workplace, trusting that their own hoped-for standards are being met. Their chief input to the education process is through the RICS University Partnership scheme, whereby academic institutions seeking accreditation of their degrees have to maintain relations with the RICS through annual process of review of documentation and a Partnership meeting. There is no such routine control over the activities of trainers in industry, although the latter will, ultimately, have to sign to certify that the candidate from their workplace has indeed achieved the levels of competency sought. From the above it will be seen that, at best, there is scope for misunderstandings between the stakeholders as to what is being required and what is being achieved. At worst there may be actual gaps in the education and/or training being offered and received or, at least, some discrepancies between the levels of attainment.
Executive Summary
2 The Study
This study aimed at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyors within a post recession industrial environment that satisfies the aspirations of industrial, professional and academic stakeholders. The research sought to review competencies and their application in the delivery of QS programmes, the views of Industry and Academia aiming to deliver a framework for alignment of these different stakeholder views. The research approached the problem from a multitude of angles; a literature review, the views of an Expert Forum, four case studies of RICS accredited QS honour degree programmes and two surveys, of Industry and Academia. The Expert forum consisted of 10 members representing Private Practice (consultants - 3), Contracting (3), academia (3) and the RICS (1). The surveys were comprehensive with the academic survey receiving 45 complete responses representing all 26 RICS accredited QS programmes and Industry survey receiving 301 complete responses representing consultant, contractor, public sector and specialists quantity surveyors.
3 Key findings
The primary areas investigated in the research is summarised in the following subsections.
3.1 The status of the RICS QS Competencies

All 24 QS competencies were examined to see their application in the RICS accredited QS honours degree programmes. The competency mapping case studies revealed that QS programmes do consider competencies in the design of modules but are not systematically evaluated. There is often only a cursory review of programme module specifications to determine the application of competencies. Knowledge of competencies was limited and the mapping exercise was one of revelation to them as well. A scoring system and competency mapping matrix was created in order to carry out a systematic numerical evaluation of extent of competency mapping to curricular (Part 4). It revealed that there is high level of variation in the mapping of competencies between programmes especially at Level 1 (11 points- 29% difference between top and bottom end of programmes). Based on the views of programme directors, the mapping indicated that most core competencies are well mapped but there are deficiencies in mandatory and optional competencies. There is no standard threshold benchmark to state that persons must have achieved competencies to a certain level or degree upon graduating from an RICS accredited programme. As such it is a matter of interpretation open for dispute and debate. . The result is considerably differing standards right across QS programmes around the country. There is little guidance as to the interpretation of how mandatory and optional competencies should be dealt with in QS programmes. The RICS competency documents are primarily designed for the use of APC candidates and therefore of little use in mapping to module specifications of QS degree programmes.
3.2 Views of Academia

Part 1: The Study
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. Perera & Pearson, 2011
Executive Summary 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 competencies by new graduates. On a scale of 1 to 5 the overwhelming majority indicated the midpoint for most competencies and a score of 2 for others. All Core competencies were ranked much lower with the least satisfied Core competency being T074 Quantification and costing of construction works followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two most important competencies ranked highest in importance in another analysis. In relative ranking of competencies all Core competencies were ranked highest followed by a selection of Mandatory and Optional competencies. The rank order of the top competencies in each category was: 1. 2. 3. 4. T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T062 Procurement and tendering 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 Perera & Pearson, 2011
Part 1: Key findings
Executive Summary These were very similar to the views of academics. There was significant discontent with the QS curricular perceived to be used. This might have been born of a poor knowledge of the curricular used as expressed elsewhere. Although there was good level of confidence on academic ability/knowledge of lectures and the delivery of programmes there was poor level of confidence in the knowledge of current QS practice. This is a dilemma where on the one hand it is difficult to attract high calibre talent to the universities and on the other hand retaining them in universities distances them from current practice. This dichotomy is one which needs to be resolved by industry academia collaboration at least for the sake of the profession. Industry held similar views to academia on modes of study. There were poor levels of commitment to collaboration with academia although the Industry has an ethos of Training graduates for industry practice over Education. Their commitment to placement although good at other times dropped by to 30% during recession. Although the industry values structured training programme for APC candidates only 56% has one in operation. The RICS was seen to be performing poorly in regulating QS education. The top levels of satisfaction were received for regulating the QS profession, continued professional development and developing standards with lowest satisfaction on member services and more importantly ability to influence national policy. There is strikingly poor level of overall satisfaction with the RICS with only 33% expressing satisfaction and28% expressing dissatisfaction. The figures worsen when state of value for money in RICS services is considered with 56% expressing discontent and only 15% seeing positive value for money.
4 Proposed Alignment of views framework

Born directly out of this study it has become apparent that the education and training across academia and the industry has perhaps to become more systematic. The diverse views of industry and academia can only be harmonised through active mediation of the RICS as the guardian of the profession. This research therefore, proposes a framework for alignment of views based on 7 key recommendations. These are explained below.
4.1 Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB)

Part 1: Proposed Alignment of views framework
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. Perera & Pearson, 2011
Executive Summary
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.
Perera & Pearson, 2011
Part 1: Proposed Alignment of views framework
Part 2 Main Report

Alignment of Professional, Academic and Industrial Development Needs for Quantity Surveyors: The Post Recession Dynamics
RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401 January 2011
Part 2 Contents
1. List of Contents 2. List of Figures 3. List of Tables 4. Main Report
List of Contents
1 2 3 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................1 THE STUDY ..............................................................................................................................................2 KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................2 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 THE STATUS OF THE RICS QS COMPETENCIES .................................................................................................. 2 VIEWS OF ACADEMIA .................................................................................................................................. 2 VIEWS OF INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................................... 3
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS FRAMEWORK....................................................................................4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................... 4 COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 4 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION........................................................................................................... 5 RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................ 5 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ......................................................................................................... 5 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ..................................................................................................... 5 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1 AIM & OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2 3 4
RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................................................................................3 THE SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILES.......................................................................................................5 ROLE OF THE QS & DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................................................................6 4.1 4.2 4.3 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 6 PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT .......................................................................... 7 LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM) INITIATIVES ...... 8
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........................................................................................................ 21 5.5.3 Ranking of Optional competencies ................................................................................................. 21
ii
Part 2: List of Contents
5.6 6
CROSS COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF EXPECTATION, ACHIEVEMENT AND IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES ..................... 21
QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ......................................................................................................23 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS.................. 23 THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LECTURERS PROGRAMME DELIVERY CAPACITY........................................................ 24 THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR .................................................... 24 INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................. 25 RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 26
MODES OF STUDY & PLACEMENT..........................................................................................................27 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY .................................................................................................... 27 INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION AND IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................... 28 PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ..................................................................... 29 ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RICS ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ........................................................................... 30
RICS ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP & TRAINING..........................................................................................31 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................ 31 LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................... 31 IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................ 32 IMPORTANCE AND AVAILABILITY OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC .......................................... 33
RICS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................34 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS..................................................................... 34 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS........................................................ 35 INDUSTRY LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS .................................................................................. 35 APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO INDUSTRY ................................................................ 36 VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES ........................................................................................................ 37
10
ALIGNMENT FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................38 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................. 39 COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................... 39 DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION......................................................................................................... 39 RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES .............................................................................................. 39 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ....................................................................................................... 39 RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 39 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................... 40
11
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................40 11.1 SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF RICS QS 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 ........................................................................................................................................... 46 11.6 FURTHER RESEARCH AND DIRECTIONS ........................................................................................................... 46
iii
iv
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 IMPORTANCE 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 ............................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 14 OPTIONAL COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1......................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 15: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (ACADEMIC) .......................................................................... 13 FIGURE 16: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (INDUSTRY) ........................................................................... 13 FIGURE 17: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ............... 14 FIGURE 18: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ............... 14 FIGURE 19: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC).......................... 15 FIGURE 20: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY).......................... 15 FIGURE 21: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ................... 16 FIGURE 22: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ................... 16 FIGURE 23: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION ON ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY QS GRADUATES .............................................. 18 FIGURE 24 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS COMPETENCIES............................................................................................. 20 FIGURE 25 CROSS COMPARISON OF COMPETENCY EXPECTED LEVEL, IMPORTANCE RANKING AND GRADUATE ACHIEVEMENT ............ 22 FIGURE 26: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY (INDUSTRY) ............................ 23 FIGURE 27 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS.............................................. 23 FIGURE 28: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING (ACADEMIC) ............................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 29: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY (INDUSTRY).................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 30: ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING ......................... 25 FIGURE 31 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING (INDUSTRY DETAILS) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 32: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (ACADEMIC) .................... 26 FIGURE 33: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (INDUSTRY) ..................... 26 FIGURE 34: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (ACADEMIC)............................................ 26 FIGURE 35: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (INDUSTRY)............................................. 26 FIGURE 36 RICS-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 37: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (ACADEMIC)..................................... 28 FIGURE 38: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (INDUSTRY)...................................... 28 FIGURE 39: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (ACADEMIC)....................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 40: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY)........................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 41: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (ACADEMIC)......................................................... 29 FIGURE 42: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (INDUSTRY).......................................................... 29 FIGURE 43: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY) ..................................................... 30 FIGURE 44 SHOULD RICS DETERMINE AND REGULATE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ............................. 30 FIGURE 45 APPROPRIATENESS RICS SET OF ENTRY LEVELS ................................................................................................ 30
Part 2: List of Figures
FIGURE 46: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)............................................................ 31 FIGURE 47: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ............................................................. 31 FIGURE 48: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)................................................................ 31 FIGURE 49: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY)................................................................. 31 FIGURE 50: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ........................................................... 32 FIGURE 51: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (ACADEMIC) ........................................................................... 32 FIGURE 52: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (INDUSTRY) ............................................................................ 32 FIGURE 53 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ...................................................... 33 FIGURE 54: AVAILABILITY OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC (INDUSTRY)....................................................... 33 FIGURE 55 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS (MEAN SCORES) ................................................ 34 FIGURE 56 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 57 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS ................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 58 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 36 FIGURE 59 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 37 FIGURE 60 PERCEPTION OF VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES: INDUSTRY SURVEY BY SECTORS ........................................... 37 FIGURE 61 NEED FOR A DEFINITION OF GRADUATE COMPETENCY LEVEL ............................................................................... 38
vi
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
vii
Part 2: List of Tables
Main Report
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Significant growth in undergraduate level education of Quantity Surveyors stems from the late 1960s 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.
Academia
Quantity Surveying Education

Industry Professional Body (RICS)
Consultants Contractors Public Sector Other
Figure 1 Key stakeholders influence on Quantity Surveying education
Part 2: Introduction
Today, the academic, professional and training needs of Quantity Surveyors are pulled by three different stakeholders in three different directions (Figure 1). Academics are interested in producing a rounded graduate with the basic foundation in knowledge for further development whereas professional bodies are interested in graduates who can be progressed to full professional status through the achievement of the required core competencies (RICS, 2009). The industry is looking for a graduate who can straight away contribute both to the daily functions of business activity and to its growth. Hence, there is a tripartite three directional pull on the development needs of the Quantity Surveyor. The present education system of the Quantity Surveyor does not recognise these multi-directional needs of the QS and hence often produces a graduate whom the industry sees as not fulfilling their requirements. This leads to many problems, with greater levels of employer and graduate dissatisfaction and obstacles to early career development of the QS graduate.
Main Report 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 as another barrier to cooperating with the RICS when required. This is evident from the fact that RICS membership does not grow in the same proportion to the growth in Quantity Surveying student numbers (Perera, 2006). The emergence of Commercial Management (Lowe and Leiringer, 2006; Walker and Wilkie, 2002) as a distinct discipline encompassing the role of the contractor Quantity Surveyor is a fact that RICS should consider in detail in its future development of career paths for the Quantity Surveyor. Leading Quantity Surveying professional bodies the world over have already begun to recognise these developments and trends. For example, recently the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS) established a separate pathway for contractors Quantity Surveyor for completing professional qualification. Perera & Pearson, 2011
Main Report 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.
The research was carried out in 4 distinct data gathering phases culminating in data analysis and reporting. The key stages and process are illustrated in Figure 2.
Part 2: Research Method
2 Research Method
Main Report
Figure 2 Research Method
These stages are further detailed below: 1. A detailed literature review was carried out to identify the RICS QS competencies and their interpretation. 2. Expert forum: was the catalyst for the identification of key issues related to academia, industry and the RICS. A total of 10 interviews were carried out comprising 3 academics (programme leaders), 3 consultant quantity surveyors, 3 contractor quantity surveyors and one RICS official (member of the RICS Education and Qualification Standards Standards). Refer Part 3: Analysis of Expert Opinion for a comprehensive report. 3. Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed the basis of the survey questionnaire. questionnaire A comprehensive web-based based survey with 41 questions was carried out covering academics representing all 26 RICS accredited quantity surveying programmes. The survey was issued to 106 academics from fr which 65 responses were received. Refer Part 4: Analysis Analysi of Perception of the academia for a comprehensive report. 4. Survey of the Industry: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed the basis of the survey questionnaire. A comprehensive web-based based survey with 39 questions was carried out covering quantity surveying industrial and professional community across firms in the UK. These included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICS member database. . A total of 615 responses were received. Refer Part 5: Analysis of Perception of the Industry for a comprehensive report.
Part 2: Research Method
Main Report 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 profiles

The survey respondents for both surveys were well experienced in QS work, there being over 90% with more than 10 years experience. The academic respondents included 44% programme leaders.
Up to 5 Years , 0.00% Over 30 Years , 26.67% 6 - 10 Years , 6.67% Up to 5 Years, 0.70% 6 - 10 Years, 7.00%
21 - 30 years , 35.56%
21 - 30 years, 29.20%
Figure 3 Respondent QS experience profile: Academia
Figure 4 Respondent QS experience profile: Industry
Part 2: The survey respondent profiles
11 - 20 Years , 31.11%
Over 30 Years, 43.20%
11 - 20 Years, 19.90%
Main Report
Specialist subcontractor, 1.70% Teaching and Learning Activities, 49.62% Specialist supplier, 0.00% Other, 15.00% Private practice Quantity Surveyor (consultan t), 51.80%
Other, 5.71%
Administra tion, 24.53%
Public Sector, 14.60% Contractin g organisati on, 16.90%
Research, 15.04% Academic Enterprise, 5.09%
Figure 5: Academic Respondent Work
Figure 6: Type of Company
No direct comparison could be made between the nature of the workloads of each group. The academics spent roughly half of their time engaged in teaching and or assessment, the rest in either administration (25%) or research (15%). Just over half of the industry respondents were engaged in Private Practice, the rest being spread in equal measures over contracting (17%), the public sector (15%) or other (15%). In terms of the number of students enrolled at any one time, the age of the course and its student make-up these mostly fell into similar ranges. This suggests that in its own way, each group was representative.
4 Role of the QS & Developments

The role of the QS is defined by current and future workloads and trends in development. This section evaluates the respondents views on both academic and industry surveys bringing in views of the expert forum where appropriate.
4.1 Organisations Current workload

The industry survey indentified (Figure 7) the key areas of work presently important for the QS. The top 3 core competencies: T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control and reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works directly maps to the highest workloads identified.
Part 2: Role of the QS & Developments
Main Report
Activities which make up your organisations current workload
Percentage Post-contract contract cost control (Interim valuations to final final Project management Pre-contract contract cost control (preliminary estimating, cost cost Tender documentation Other Estimation and bidding Payments and cash flow management Contract formulation and negotiation Dispute resolution Risk management Value management Managing claims Supply chain management Performance management Whole life costing 6.46% 5.70% 5.18% 4.58% 4.27% 3.94% 3.85% 3.14% 2.71% 2.23% 2.03% 13.39% 12.97% 12.19% 17.36%
Figure 7 Organisations current workload: workload Industry
4.2 Perception of areas of work becoming more important

Both professionals and academics appear to agree agree that the largest growth area will be that of Refurbishment followed by Building construction and Building services (Figure ( 8). ). The similarity in median scores together her with low deviation suggests agreement amongst most academics. Professionals, for their part, show a wider variety of opinion over this.
4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Mean - Ac
Figure 8 Areas of future growth
Part 2: Role of the QS & Developments
Mean - Ind
Main Report There was a strong feeling among the expert forum that the role would become more complex, taking more concepts such as sustainability and whole life costing into account. The expert forum in general indicated the need to up skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and its impact on the profession. They also agreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skill skills to develop. Sustainability and project management skills were seen as areas for further development while civil engineering construction, infrastructure development and mechanical a and electrical (energy related) projects were seen as growth sectors for the future.
4.3 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Here, quite significant differences appear between the two groups of respondents, responde nts, with academia seeming to be more aware generally of each element of the New Rules. Only in the area of Whole Life Costing documentation does industry appear to begin to match the awareness demonstrated by the academics. Perhaps the industry representatives representa apparent interest in WLC- related documentation mirrors their perception elsewhere (Part ( 3 Expert Forum) ) of WLC as a growing area of client interest. In terms of their ratings for the importance of the various elements of the documentation academia afford far higher weightings than do industry to the first element (elemental cost planning, 67% to 46% respectively) and the last (whole life costing, 54% to 31% respectively). Only in the case of the proposed alternative to SMM7, not yet published, are the two groups in approximate agreement as to its importance.
4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Order of cost Procurement estimating an and alternative to elemental SMM7 cost planning Mean - Ac Whole Life Costing
4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Order of cost Procurement estimating an and elemental alternative to cost planning SMM7 Mean - Ac Whole Life Costing
Figure 9 Level of awareness of NRM initiatives
Figure 10 Level of importance of NRM initiatives
5 RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies

5.1 RICS QS Competency Requirements
The RICS Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived relevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor: 1 Mandatory Competencies: personal, interpersonal and professional practice and business skills common to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates.
Part 2: RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies
Mean - Ind
Mean - Ind
Main Report 2 3 Core Competencies: primary skills of the candidates chosen [RICS] pathway 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 practice which is at Level 2) and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above. The RICS QS competencies were analysed in 4 different ways: 1. Map competencies to RICS accredited programme curricular 2. Establish the expected level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors 3. Establish the perceived level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors 4. Ranking of competencies in the order of perceived importance to the role of quantity surveyor The outcomes related to each of these aspects are discussed in detail in the following sections.
5.2 Mapping of competencies to programme curricular

The research devised its own method of mapping competencies to curricular as there is not a standard systematic method by which to compare the level of attainment of competencies. A scoring system was used to systematically analyse the extent of mapping of competencies to individual module specifications of 4 RICS accredited QS honours degree programmes (Case studies A, B, C, D). The results revealed that there is considerable variation in the attainment of competencies across programmes (universities). There was 11points variation in cumulative scores between the highest scoring and lowest scoring universities at Level 1. The figure narrows to 2.25points at Level 2 and 0.25 at Level 3. 5.2.1 Coverage of Mandatory competencies Mandatory competencies generally can be expected to be achieved at Level 1. Figure 11 shows how each university performed in coverage at Level 1.
Main Report
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Accounting principles and procedures Communication and negotiation Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice Client care Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures Business planning Data management Health and safety Teamworking Sustainability A B C D
M001
M002
M003
M004
M005
M006
M007
M008
M009
M010
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.
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Contract practice Design economics and cost planning Quantification and costing of construction works Construction technology and environmental services Commercial management of construction Project financial control and reporting Procurement tendering A B C D
T010
T013
T017
T022
T062
T067
T074
Figure 12 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 1
10
Main Report When using a benchmark score of 1 all universities have achieved that for all competencies. However, as a cumulative score is used this may not fully represent the required level of achievement of competencies. Figure 13 indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmark score of 1 there is inadequate coverage for all competencies across all universities except for T074 Quantification and Costing of Construction works. This is an aspect that needs further investigation as the survey opinions rank this competency achievement the lowest. The scoring for mapping was carried out primarily arily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailed specification to indicate what level of content coverage is required for a competency be achieved, it is difficult to have a uniformly interpreted outcome.
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Construction technology and environmental services Contract practice Commercial management of construction Design economics and cost planning Quantification and costing of construction works Project financial control and reporting Procurement tendering
A B C D
T010
T013
T017
T022
T062
T067
T074
Figure 13 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2
11
5.2.3 Coverage of Optional competencies Only two Optional competencies are required to be addressed for the APC. But, universities attempt to cover many optional competencies in their curricular often as non-optimal non ptimal modules. There is no guidance from the RICS as to how many to what extent (which level) these optional competencies should be completed upon graduation. graduation This is again open to interpretation.
Main Report
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Corporate recovery and insolvency Capital Allowances Project Evaluation Due diligence Insurance Contract administration Programming and planning Risk management A B C D
T008
T016
T020
T025
T045
T063
TO66
T077
Figure 14 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1
Figure 14 clearly indicates that all universities do not achieve optional competencies to a benchmark level score of 1. 5.2.4 Views of the Expert Forum Most experts were of the opinion that competencies in general should be achieved at Level 1 by graduates (Part 3). However, some academic experts were of the view that universities achieve more than Level 1 in some competencies and move greatly towards Level 2. One Consultant QS was of the view that both Mandatory and Core competencies should be achieved at Level 2. These reflect the exact situation with respect to coverage of competencies. There is no uniform view and it is very much open to individual interpretation. These tensions of interpretation are well evident in the competency mapping analysis carried out (Part 6). 5.2.5 Key findings of competency mapping The main finding related to the competency mapping can be summarised as follows: 1. There is no prescribed threshold benchmark standard for achieving competencies at graduate level. 2. There are no detailed specifications to indicate what content should be covered to achieve a competency. 3. Different universities aim to achieve competencies at different levels, based on their own interpretations. 4. In the absence of a detailed competency specification, the level of achievement of competencies as judged by our own interpretation seems satisfactory for the most part. There are inadequacies in the level of coverage of some competencies. 5. Programme leaders tend to interpret levels of achievement of competencies differently to one another, resulting in apparent differing levels of achievement of competencies and different levels of coverage. Perera & Pearson, 2011
12
Main Report 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.
80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Mandatory Competencies Level 1 Core Competencies Optional Competencies 16% 15% 37% 46% 49%
80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 52% 50.00% 36% 37% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 11% 10.00% 0.00% Mandatory Competencies Core Competencies Level 2 Optional Competencies Level 3 10% 6% 38% 27% 52% 50% 70%
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
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. Perera & Pearson, 2011
13
24%
25%
Main Report 5.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory Competencies Whilst academic responses (Figure 17) to this section appear somewhat biased towards Level 2, the industry response (Figure 18) appears more logical, expecting the highest level of experience to be at Level 1, falling to the least being at Level 3. In both cases the highest ratings were given in the areas of M010 Team working and M004 Communication and negotiating and M007 Data management, all being transferable skills. Of those competencies that do feature at Level 3 within both industry and Academic assessment M010 Team working appears once again. This acknowledged degree of expertise may stem from increased use of this as a vehicle of teaching and assessment within university programmes of study.
M010 Team working M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety M007 Data management
M001 Accounting 0.9 M002 Business 0.8 0.7 planning 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 M003 Client care 0.2 0.1 0 M004 Communicatio M005 Conduct rules, ethics M006 Conflict avoidance,
M010 Team working M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety M007 Data management
M001 Accounting principles and 0.9 M002 Business 0.8 0.7 planning 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 M003 Client care 0.2 0.1 0 M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional M006 Conflict avoidance, management
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
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
M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working Perera & Pearson, 2011
1 1 1 2 (part) 1 1 2 (part) 1 1 2 (part)
2 2 1 or 2 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 or 3
1 2 1 or 2 1 2
14
Level Expected Forum 1 1 1 or 2 1 or 2 1
Level Expected Academic 1 1 1 2 2
Level Expected Industry 1 1 1 2 1
Level Recommended
Main Report
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.
T010 Commercial management of 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 T010 Commercial management of construction 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
T074 Quantification and costing of construction T067 Project financial control and reporting T062 Procurement and tendering
T013 Construction technology and T017 Contract practice
T074 Quantification and costing of construction
T013 Construction technology and environment T017 Contract practice
T022 Design economics and cost planning
T067 Project financial control and reporting T062 Procurement and tendering
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 19: Expected Level of achievement of Core Competencies for New graduate QS (Academic)
Figure 20: Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies for New Graduate QS (Industry)
What is disconcerting in both these analysis is that there is a considerable number expecting Core competencies to be achieved at Level 3. The academic survey indicates Level 3 expectancy from 36% where as comparative figure for the industry survey is 27%. Both these are very high and indicate possible misinterpretation of level classifications or an unrealistic expectation. The final assessment of core competencies that can be deduced from this analysis is given in below.
15
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Main Report
Table 2 Summary of expected levels for core competencies
Core Competencies
T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services 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 works
Level Expected Forum 2 2 2 1 or 2 2 2 1 or 3
Level expected Academic 2 2 2 2 or 3 2 or 3 2 2 or 3
Level Expected Industry 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Level Recomme nded 2 (part) 2 (part) 2 (part) 2 (part) 2 (part) 2 (part) 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.
T077 Risk management
T016 Contract administration
T063 Programming T045 Insurance
T020 Corporate T025 Due diligence
T063 Programmin T045 Insurance
T020 Corporate T025 Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
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)
16
T008 Capital allowances 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 -0.1
T008 Capital allowances 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 -0.1
Main Report Both academia and industry attach greater significance to T016 Contract administration giving it an expected ranking of Level 2. This is born out of the fact that it is often considered a key function of quantity surveyors. The final assessment of optional competencies that can be deduced from this analysis is given in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Summary of expected levels for optional competencies
Optional Competencies
T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
Level Expected Forum 1 1 or 2 1 1 1 1 1
Level expected Academic 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
Level Expected Industry

1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Level Recommended 1 2 part 1 1 1 1 or 2 part 1 or 2 part
Expert opinion with regard to optional competencies for the most part is closer than for other two types of competencies. Most expect it to be achieved at Level 1. However, there is considerable argument for T016 Contract administration, T063 Programming and planning and T077 Risk management be achieved at Level 2 mostly arising from academics. Therefore, it is recommended that Optional competencies be achieved at Level 1 for all competencies and extending in part to Level 2 for competencies as indicated in Table 3. This is again consistent with the competency mapping which indicates high level of achievement for these 3 competencies.
5.4 Perceived level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors

This section analyses the views of industry (Part 5) to establish their perceptions of the level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors. The survey did not evaluate the perspective of academics here as they are intricately involved in the development of graduates. It will also bring in views from the Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate.
Noticeably (Figure 23), the industry respondents graduate competency achievement scores against all competencies lie within the median value range of 2.00 to 3.00, that is, between partially satisfied and undecided, hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the graduates skill levels. Industrialists award the lowest score of all to T074 Quantification and costing of construction works (Measurement has always regarded as a key QS skill). This resonates more with general industry perceptions, often reported in different forums. However, the expert opinion was not so critical as that although measurement related inadequacy in knowledge was clearly reported by many.
17
Main Report
Mean M007 Data management M010 Team working M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety T022 Design economics and cost planning M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional T062 Procurement and tendering T017 Contract practice M004 Communication and negotiation T013 Construction technology and environmental T010 Commercial management of construction T016 Contract administration T067 Project financial control and reporting M001 Accounting principles and procedures M003 Client care T063 Programming and planning T074 Quantification and costing of construction M006 Conflict avoidance, management and M002 Business planning T077 Risk management T008 Capital allowances T045 Insurance T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence 2.60 2.59 2.58 2.57 2.55 2.52 2.51 2.48 2.46 2.46 2.40 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.38 2.28 2.27 2.11 2.07 2.05 2.05 2.96 2.90 2.77
Figure 23: Employers' Perception on achievement of Competencies by QS Graduates
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
M007 Data management M010 Team working M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety T022 Design economics and cost planning
The Core competency with which respondents are least satisfied is T074 Quantification and costing of construction works followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two competencies ranked most important in the previous analysis. This clearly indicates that there is high degree of non satisfaction with graduate quality across the industry. In the expert forum one PQS felt that some courses do not deliver what employers want and one academic stated students are going out without the necessary skills to undertake their basic job Perera & Pearson, 2011
18
The highest satisfaction levels are indicated for 4 Mandatory competencies. The top 5 competencies are:
Main Report and that is where employees feel that the universities are letting the system down. This being said the general view was that it is not easy to generalise and some courses are better than others and also it is down to other factors such as the student, mode of study, and employer.
5.5 Ranking of competencies in the order of perceived importance

This section analyses the views of academics (Part 4) and industry (Part 5) to establish the perceived level of importance of competencies in quantity surveying. It will also bring in views from the Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate. Figure 24 illustrates the median values scored for each competency by both groups. The results from professionals and academia both display low standard deviation. Both the Mean and Median against competencies were higher for academic respondents than for those in industry in the majority of cases. In both cases the Optional are scored low. This is particularly so in the case of the Industry figures. Perhaps the industry respondents have a much clearer view of what is of importance to the profession. When considering the relative order of importance of the full list of skills far more are given as 5, the top score, by academics than by respondents from industry (9 academics, 3 industrialists). Much of the balance, in the case of the industrialists, falls into the range 4. Roughly the same number of skills are rated 3 by both parties, but the industrialists then drop to 2 for the rating which they give to 3 skills. There is some consistency here, for both the industrialists and academics agree that the same three skills should be awarded the same rating (Corporate recovery and insolvency, Capital allowances and Accounting principles and procedures this last a surprise rather to a profession dealing so much in financial matters and whose members do require a certain basic understanding of and ability in this area). The competency rankings provided resonate very well with current industry workload profile for quantity surveyors (Figure 7).
19
Main Report
Median - Ac Median - Ind 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.50 5.00
M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
2.00
4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Figure 24 Order of Importance of RICS Competencies
20
Main Report 5.5.1 Ranking of Mandatory competencies Academics rank M010 Team working, M004 Communication and negotiation and M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice above other mandatory competencies and award them the highest score of 5. Industry also rank these and M003 Client care, M004 Communication and negotiation and M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures higher than others but with a maximum score of 4. Both groups generally have a similar perspective on the relative status of mandatory competencies for the most part. 5.5.2 Ranking of Core competencies Academics have ranked all core competencies equal with the highest rating of 5. The industry respondents have ranked T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control and reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works the highest with a score of 5. All other core competencies received a ranking of 4. This reflects a more pragmatic ranking considering industry needs. 5.5.3 Ranking of Optional competencies Academics have ranked all optional competencies between 3 and 4. Both the industry respondents and academics have ranked T016 Contract administration and T077 Risk management highest in this category with a score of 4. The least important optional competencies noted are T008 Capital allowances and T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency receiving of score of 2.
5.6 Cross comparison of levels of expectation, achievement and importance of competencies

A cross comparison of industry survey respondents views on Expected level of competency, Importance of competency and Level of achievement of competency by graduates is cross plotted to evaluate relationship with these criteria (Figure 25). Note: Expected level has been re-scaled to a 1 to 5 scale to graphically compare with Importance ranking (scaled 1 to 5) and perceived Achievement (scaled 1 to 5).
21
Main Report
0.00 M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management Importance Median Achievement Median Expected Level 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Figure 25 Cross comparison of competency expected level, importance ranking and graduate achievement
Other clear gaps in expectation and achievement are with: M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering Perera & Pearson, 2011
22
From this comparison it is clear that whilst there is high importance attached to a competence there may be a comparatively lower level of achievement. This is clearly evident with T067 Project financial control and reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works competencies.
Main Report T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T016 Contract administration T045 Insurance T077 Risk management Those competencies highlighted in bold in the list above show the greatest gap between achievement and importance. These include 9 of the 24 competencies (3 mandatory, 4 core and 2 optional competencies) which have a significantly high importance in the role of the quantity surveyor.
6 Quantity Surveying Education

The surveys probed in detail with respect to the views of both academia and industry as to their level of understanding and awareness of aspects of education, university industry collaboration and other. These are summarised in the following sections. Full detailed discussion of these issues can be found in Part 4 & 5 of the full report.
6.1 Level of awareness of and satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QSs
Only half of the respondents from industry felt themselves to be either reasonably or fully aware of the content of the curricula. As to their satisfaction with curricula content 60% expressed dissatisfaction or partial dissatisfaction with the curriculum. This begs the question as to whether their dissatisfaction might be linked in any way to their self confessed lack of awareness of the detail.
35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%
Percentage - Ac
Percentage - Ind
Figure 26: Level of awareness of the content of the curriculum taught in University (Industry)
Figure 27 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce a graduate QS
The expert forum identified several subject areas that need greater attention: Construction Technology Measurement of quantities Cost planning Pres-contract estimating Perera & Pearson, 2011
23
Part 2: Quantity Surveying Education
Main Report One consultant QS expressed the view that there was too much mass teaching, with a mismatch where the learning outcome does not map to the industry requirement. One consultant QS also felt that the RICS had less than adequate involvement in regulating curricular while one Contractors QS felt that although there are so many RICS accredited programmes they are not comparable in most respects.
6.2 The level of confidence in Lecturers programme delivery capacity

On the part of the industry representatives there is generally reasonable to full confidence with the level of lecturers academic knowledge, QS Practice and use of teaching materials. The academics themselves indicate a very high level of confidence in the programme delivery capacity.
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 11% 10% 0% Academic Knowledge Quantity Use of teaching Surveying Practice material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 -10% 7% 16% 10% 0% 0% Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Use of teaching Practice material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6% 7% 3% 1% 46% 43% 49% 38% 56% 60% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 19% 16% 15% 5% 44% 37% 37% 45% 34%
36%
Figure 28: Confidence levels in teaching (Academic)
Figure 29: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability (Industry)
The Expert forum identified they feel that as class sizes get bigger to make courses more economically viable the ability of tutors to spend more contact time and give more feedback will be compromised by the numbers of students they have to work with.
6.3 The role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor

There was, perhaps understandably, a clear difference in perceptions between the two sets of respondents here. Respondents from industry were almost equally split (57% 43%) as to whether universities should be producing surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation (Training) or, rather, graduates with overall knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying (Education). Academics, for their part took the opposing stance, preferring the overall knowledge and good foundation (Education) approach by a ratio of 73% to 27%.This mirrors quite closely the traditional perceptions within the education versus training debate.
24
Main Report
80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Graduate with Training Quantity overall academic Surveyors for knowledge and a immediate good foundation Quantity in Quantity Surveying Surveying employment upon graduation Percentage - Ac Percentage - Ind 27% 43% 73% 57%
70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Universities should Universities should produce concentrate on training a graduate with overall Quantity Surveyors for academic knowledge and a immediate Quantity good foundation in Quantity Surveying employment upon Surveying graduation Consultant Contractor Public Sector
Figure 30: Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Education v Training
Figure 31 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Education v Training (Industry details)
Expert forum: 6 respondents agreed with statement a (2 PQS, 1 CQS, 1 RICS, 2 academics). 2 respondents agreed with statement b (1 PQS, 1CQS). 1 CQS felt that it should be a bit of both, a balance of academia with vocational on a 50/50 basis. One academic was undecided. One CQS stated that over the last 30 years they had seen the quality of technical Quantity Surveying become diluted and warned that if the trend continues we would lose technical standards forever. This crucial aspect sets the ethos for university programme provision and industry aspirations. It is abundantly clear that the industry prefer their graduate recruits to be more directly employable than they are today. This may provide an explanation for the high level of dissatisfaction expressed on graduate performance by the industry. But, the question is on the boundary of demarcation between responsibility for producing a professional between university and industry in converting a graduate to a professional.
6.4 Industry Academia Collaboration in QS programme delivery

The level of industry and academic collaboration in the delivery of QS programmes is vital to the success of graduates. As such, academics perceptions of industrys willingness to collaborate and their willingness to collaborate were evaluated and compared with, from the industry side, their declared willingness in this field and the latters actual availability to do so. Generally speaking, academias perception of Industrys willingness to collaborate was closely mirrored by industry representatives own responses, particularly at the levels of unsure, willing and very willing. A less promising picture emerged regarding the actual participation of the parties, where 75% of academia saw the possibility of collaborative activity as likely or very likely but the equivalent figure for industry amounted to only 28%. Perera & Pearson, 2011
25
Main Report
35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not 2345 - Very at all Partially Unsure Willing willing willing willing
35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not 2345 - Very at all Partially Unsure Willing willing willing willing
Figure 32: Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with Universities on QS Education (Academic)
Figure 33: Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with Universities on QS Education (Industry)
50.00% 50.00% 40.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at 23 - Unsure 4 - Likely 5 - Very all likely Partially Likely likely 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at 2all likely Partially likely 34 - Likely 5 - Very Unsure Likely
Figure 34: Possibility to commit time for industry collaborative activities (Academic)
Figure 35: Possibility to commit time for industry collaborative activities (Industry)
6.5 RICS - University partnership agreement

47% of academics perceived the RICS University Partnership Agreement process as successful while 22% saw this as partially or unsuccessful while 31% were undecided. This indicates that there is consensus on the overall concept of the partnership but a considerable amount of scepticism about the partnership process, which warrants further investigation.
26
Main Report
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 - Not at all successful 2 - Partially successful 3 - Undecided 4 - Successful 5 - Very successful 7% 16% 11% 31% 36%
Figure 36 RICS-University partnership agreement
7 Modes of study & placement

7.1 Perceived Success of Modes of Study
This section analyses the different modes of study and industry placement offered for undergraduates undertaking Quantity Surveying programmes. This produced perhaps the greatest level of agreement of any aspect in the two surveys. Seven alternative modes of study were presented for evaluation as indicated in Figure 37 and Figure 38. Respondents were requested to indicate preferences on a scale of 1 to 7 most to least preferred. The representatives of both industry and academia declared their most favoured mode of study to be Part time undergraduate university study (45.50% and 46.67% top ranking respectively) and both declared their least favourite to be the full time postgraduate study non cognate route ( 66.8% and 73.33% bottom ranking respectively) . For both groups of respondents full time undergraduate university study with a one year placement was ranked second highest (39.5 % and 35.56% top ranking respectively).
27
Part 2: Modes of study & placement
Main Report
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 20 20 36 47 Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study Full time postgraduate study - noncognate route 2 Part time postgraduate study - noncognate route
Figure 37: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor (Academic)
50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study Full time postgraduate study - noncognate route Part time postgraduate study - noncognate route
Figure 38: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor (Industry)
7.2 Industry Placement in Construction Organisation and in Quantity Surveying Education

The level of responses of very or fully committed to the placement ideal is noticeably higher for those in academia than for those in industry (87% as against 52% respectively). Faced with the possibility of recession, commitment remains high in academia whereas it appears to fall more sharply in industry (to 64% as against 28% respectively).
28
Main Report
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% 4%7% 18% 11% 4% 4% 20% 20% 44% 67% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% 8% 28% 26% 27% 28% 18% 13% 13% 26% 15%
General long term view
During a recession
During a recession
Figure 39: Level of commitment to placement (Academic)
Figure 40: Level of commitment to placement (Industry)
When asked to rate the importance of a structured placement training model there was considerable agreement between the two sets of respondents as to this being important at some level though there were differences as to the precise level of importance. Industrys ranking of this as either very or extremely important came to 64% whereas the equivalent figure for the academic respondents was 80%. This may be a reflection of the fact that whereas academics are used to training students along the lines of strict curricula, the industry does not always perceive itself as providing structured training but, rather, a generalist training opportunity perhaps?
2% 3% 7% 35% 26%
2%
1 - Not at all important 2 - Partially important 3 - Important 4 - Very important 5 - Extremely important
1 - Not at all important 2 - Partially important 3 - Important 4 - Very important
16% 44%
36%
29%
5 - Extremely important
7.3
Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement
Industry respondents proclaimed the placement to be, above all, a good test bed for potential staff after graduation, with 90% of responses stating this. 59% saw it as affording opportunities for a two way flow of knowledge between university and industry and, accordingly perhaps, 44% saw it as a source of new ideas from current education.
29
Figure 41: Importance of a structured placement training model (Academic)
Figure 42: Importance of a structured placement training model (Industry)
Main Report
90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Yes Uncertain No It is a good test bed for potential staff after graduation It is a source of economic and flexible labour It provides source of new ideas from current education It allows for a two way flow of knowledge between universities and industry
Figure 43: Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement (Industry)
7.4 Entry requirements for RICS R accredited programmes

Nearly 60% of academics were clearly of the view that RICS should determine entry criteria for RICS accredited programmes both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. However there were a notable 30% who opposed this.
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes Uncertain No 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7% 7% 29% 24% 13% 5% 2% 0% 49% 64%
QS Undergraduate study
QS Postgraduate study QS Undergraduate study QS Postgraduate study
Figure 44 Should RICS determine and regulate entry requirements for accredited programmes
Figure 45 Appropriateness RICS set of Entry Levels
Academics were of the view that both undergraduate (49%) and postgraduate postgra duate (64%) programmes respectively had appropriate entry criteria at present while 15% (45% -PG) PG) perceived it as too high. Further to this 35% (31% - PG) perceived it to be too low. This concludes that there is no dispute on the entry levels for PG programmes rammes but there is significant discontent on the entry criteria for undergraduate programmes. This is an aspect that requires further examination by the RICS.
30
Main Report
8 RICS Routes of Membership & Training

8.1 Level of understanding of the routes of membership
The highest level of understanding on the part of both industry and academic respondents was of the graduate route (understood well or perfectly well by 91% of academics and by, 71% of industrial respondents). Understandably, the only respondents not to understand graduate entry (3%) came from industry rather than academia, having no experience of graduates themselves, presumably. Appreciation of the other routes (Assoc. RICS and the Senior Professional route ) was fairly evenly distributed through the ranks of both sets of respondents Not surprisingly, those involved in delivering education tended to have a greater understanding of this matter.
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
62%
33% 22% 9% 4% 0% 11% 2% 22% 7%
29% 16% 13%
36% 33%
1 - Not at all
5Perfectly well
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10%
43% 33% 27% 29% 25% 20% 19% 17% 18% 3% 9% 8% 8%
21% 20%
1 - Not at all
5Perfectly well
Graduate route Senior Professional route
Assoc RICS route (associate)
Graduate route Senior Professional route
Figure 46: Level of understanding of the routes of membership (Academic)
Figure 47: Level of understanding of the routes of membership (Industry)
8.2 Level of appropriateness of the routes of membership

Evaluating the appropriateness of the routes to membership, a marked difference emerges between the two groups of respondents. Whilst the most favoured by both groups is still Graduate route entry there is also a marked tendency by industry to also support both the Senior Professional Route and the Associate RICS route.
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7% 5% 5% 8% 8% 2% 7% 29% 27% 21% 20% 43% 37% 25% 57% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% 4%4% 1% 13% 8% 8% 36% 31% 33% 29% 29% 30% 39%
23%
13%
Graduate route Assoc RICS route (associate) Senior Professional route
Figure 48: Level of Appropriateness of routes of membership (Academic)
Figure 49: Level of Appropriateness of routes of membership (Industry)
31
Part 2: RICS Routes of Membership & Training
Main Report The industry survey revealed that still the most popular route for APC is Graduate route with 70% indicating that their candidates are supported primarily through this route.
17%
Graduate route Assoc RICS route (associate) 70% Senior Professional route
13%
Figure 50: Candidates supported through routes of membership (Industry)
Expert forum: indicated a mixed response towards Assoc RICS with most indicating it is too early to judge. The sentiments expressed suggest there is lack of understanding about the new route as well as some doubt as for the need for such a route. There was majority discontent with regards to the Senior professional route with many seeing it as the status of Chartered surveyor being handed on a platter, based purely on seniority and experience.
8.3 Importance of Professional Qualification

Where considering the importance of attaining Chartered status in one or other of the leading organisations, both industry and those in academia are in agreement that by far the most important is the RICS (this being ranked as extremely important by 56% and 62% of respondents respectively). As regards the groups response to other professional bodies these are less consistent. Surprisingly perhaps, all other bodies, CIOB included, are afforded much less importance by those in industry whilst they are held in quite high esteem by academia. One might have supposed that the opposite would have been the case, contractors being quite familiar with non RICS staff.
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 29% 15% 10% 0% 24% 20% 15% 14% 14% 10% 4% 2% 33% 31% 29% 28% 24% 23% 14% 62% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% 1 - Not 2 - Little 34 - Very 5important important Important important Extremely important RICS CIOB CICES Other 4% 4% 7% 46% 33% 68% 56%
27% 24%
28%
24% 8% 7% 4% 11% 7% 6%
13% 14% 11%
1 - Not 2 - Little 34 - Very 5important important Important important Extremely important RICS CIOB CICES Other
Figure 51: Importance of attaining Chartered status (Academic)
Figure 52: Importance of attaining Chartered status (Industry)
32
Main Report
8.4 Importance and Availability of a Structured Training Programme for APC

Academia were the more supportive of this idea, 95% of academia considering this to be either very or extremely important as against a total of just over 70% of respondents from industry.
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 44% 56%
Percentage - Ac
Percentage - Ind
Figure 53 Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC candidates
Figure 54: Availability of Structured Training Programme for APC (Industry)
The level of provision of Structured Training Programmes (STP) in the industry organisations is markedly low when compared with its perceived importance. 44% of respondents to the industry survey indicated that the organisation they represent do not have a STP.
Table 4 Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC candidates
Level of Importance 1 - Not important at all 2 Little important 3 Important 4 Very important 5 - Extremely important Total
Whilst it should be remembered that the sample sizes varied quite considerably there were 8% (24)of respondents from industry who ranked the structured training programme to be not important at all as against 0% from academia. There were a further 6% (19) from industry who thought it was of little importance. importance. These are significantly worrying figures to grasp when APC guidance clearly champion the need for such programmes. programmes
33
Frequency Academic 0 1 1 15 28 45
Percentage Academic 0.00% 2.20% 2.20% 33.30% 62.20% 100.00%
FrequencyIndustry 24 19 47 79 132 301
Percentage Industry 8.00% 6.30% 15.60% 26.20% 43.90% 100.00%
Main Report
9 RICS Services
9.1 Perception of the quality of services provided by the RICS
The industry response across all 8 of the specified categories of service was neutral, the latter being rated neither poorly nor particularly well. Academia, on the other hand, rated all services above midpoint with the exception of Dissemination of related information and General member Services.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession
Developing standards and new methods of practice
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession Dissemination of related information
Influencing related national policy Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession General member services (directory, journal, benefits scheme etc..)
Mean - Ac
Mean - Ind
Figure 55 Perception of the quality of services provided by the RICS (Mean scores)
Evaluating Academics perception, the top 4 services provided by the RICS, with over 60% rating it highly or very highly rated service are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession - G World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession D Developing standards and new methods of practice B
The lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services G and Influencing related national policy F as lowest and second lowest respectively for both surveys. These are two Perera & Pearson, 2011
34
Part 2: RICS Services
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating over 50% for highly or very highly rated service from academics while the corresponding figure drops to 38% with industry respondents is seen as having considerably divided opinions with respect to the regulation of graduate education.
Main Report aspects where the RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the profession at national level and be able to influence national policy.
9.2 Overall level of satisfaction for the Services provided by the RICS
The Industry response to this question was mostly neutral or less than satisfied. Only 25% were satisfied or fully satisfied. In the case of academics, most again were neutral or less than satisfied 35% were satisfied or fully satisfied.
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 44% 45%
29% 20% 11% 13% 7% 4% 21%
7%
1 - Not satisfied
5 - Fully satisfied
Percentage - Ac
Figure 56 Overall level of satisfaction
Percentage - Ind
There were many who were not satisfied with industry (31%) than with academia (20%). Expert Forum: The general consensus with respect to communications between RICS and industry was that it is in need of much improvement, although it is beginning to move in the right direction.
9.3 Industry level of Communications with the RICS

In this case, industry responses were mixed. 40% were neutral but there was an equal spread either side of this, 32% good or very good 28% poor or very poor. In the case of the academics responses, 25% were neutral but a far greater percentage expressed positive feelings, 56% rating this at good or very good, with 26% poor or very poor. As an equal level of communication is available to all individual members there is perhaps a difference between the perceptions of academics and practitioners born of the greater level of involvement of universities as a whole with the RICS born of Partnership meetings and the like.
35
Main Report
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 - Very poor 2 Percentage - Ac
Figure 57 Level of Communication with members
39% 31% 24% 20% 19% 8% 27% 18% 7%
7%
5 - Very good
Percentage - Ind
9.4 Appropriateness of Services provided by the RICS to Industry

36% of industry respondents expressed neutral feelings towards this issue. 24% were satisfied or very satisfied, 38% expressed dissatisfaction to a lesser or greater degree. In the case of academic respondents 42% were neutral, 37% were satisfied or very satisfied. Only 20% expressed any dissatisfaction.
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 - Not at all appropriate 2 3 4 5 - Very appropriate 9% 12% 11% 13% 28% 24% 22% 42% 36%
3%
Percentage - Ac
Figure 58 Appropriateness of RICS Services
Percentage - Ind
36
Main Report
9.5 Value for money for RICS services

Of industry respondents, only15% perceive RICS services to be good or very good value for money, whilst 56% rate these as less than average. The response of academics 23% felt services to be good or very good value, but, noticeably, 51% felt them to be poor value or none at all. This last figure carries a touch of irony since the academic members themselves generally pay a much reduced membership fee! Perhaps if this group were involved in industry they might see more value in the wider activities of the Institution.
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5 - Very good value for money 22% 23% 29% 24% 16% 11% 9% 4% 33% 29%
Percentage - Ac
Figure 59 Do RICS provide value for money
Percentage - Ind
Detailed analysis of the Industry returns reveal a distinction between the responses of those in Private Practice (Consulting) are much verse than those employed by Contracting Organisations. Although it is comparatively lower than consultant quantity surveyors the actual figures for contractors were significantly low as well.
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Consultant
Contractor
Public Sector
Figure 60 Perception of value for money for RICS services: Industry survey by sectors
37
Main Report
10 Alignment Framework
The research primary focus was to evaluate the views of the two main stakeholders of graduate QS education the universities and industry. The universities were represented by academics responsible for programme delivery while the industry was represented by consultant (PQS), contractor or commercial (CQS) and public sector quantity surveyors. Industry was further represented by a limited number of subcontractor, supplier and other specialists quantity surveyors as well. The views of these stakeholders on the relationship with the RICS were also investigated. There is a considerable degree of differing views and lack of responsibility from all stakeholders mainly arising out of inaccurate interpretations and lack of definition. For example both industry and academia view structured training programmes for APC candidates as important but very few provide these. This is lack of responsibility. On the other hand, there is no defined level of competency achievement for graduates. This leads to academia interpreting it in one way and the industry interpreting it in another way resulting in discontent for both parties. This is lack of definition.
Level of Achievement
Level 1 Knowledge Level 2 Practice Level 3 Expertise
Mandatory
Competency
Core
Optional
Graduate QS???
Chartered QS
Figure 61 Need for a Definition of graduate competency level
38
Part 2: Alignment Framework
The Purple line (Figure 61) indicates the levels of achievement of competencies required for attainment of Chartered status as defined by RICS (2009a). This is well defined. The Green, Red and Blue broken lines indicate three possible levels of achievement of competencies by graduates as interpreted by different universities and industry professionals for Mandatory, Core and Optional competencies. The question here is which is right? If these three lines represent 3 different universities, these will produce three types of graduates with 3 levels of competency achievement. These interpretations are all for RICS accredited quantity surveying honours degree programmes across UK. This lack of a common benchmark for the interpretation of achievement of competencies by graduates therefore, clearly contributes to
Main Report the dissatisfaction and false expectations on from the part of the industry and demoralisation of the graduate. In order to address this situation and thereby align views of industry, academia and the RICS the following alignment framework with 7 key elements is proposed.
10.1 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 competencies for 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.
10.2 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 self evaluate their programmes on the occasion of programme validation and accreditation.
10.3 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.
10.4 Re-evaluation of status of competencies

A detailed study should be undertaken to re-evaluate RICS QS competencies. The list of competencies should well reflect 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.
10.5 University-Industry collaboration

Greater levels of university and industry collaboration in developing and delivering QS programmes should be made an essential part. Industry should take a more proactive role in collaborating with actively providing feedback to the universities.
Part 2: Alignment Framework
10.6 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.
39
Main Report 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 on such processes.
10.7 Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities

A radical review of how a Chartered surveyor is developed from their early stages to Chartered status must be undertaken. 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 dilemma of attracting high calibre people to the academia and retaining them with good knowledge of industry practice is one which the universities and industry will have to resolve for the sake of development and enhancement of the profession. Could we learn from established professions such as law, medicine and accountancy?
11 Conclusions
The research 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. It used several research instruments to achieve this: 1. Review of RIC QS competencies 2. Competency mapping cases studies involving 4 RICS accredited QS honours degree programmes 3. Expert views from a forums of experts (industry, academic and RICS) 4. Survey of academia to ascertain views of academics on QS education and professional development 5. Survey of the industry to ascertain views of industry (consultants, contractors, public sector and other specialist chartered quantity surveyors) on QS education and professional development The main research objectives sought to ascertain several key aspects related to QS education and development. These are summarised in the following sections.
11.1 Summary of the status of RICS QS Competencies

The RICS has formulated clear and detailed documentation (RICS, 2009) identifying, classifying and explaining QS competencies. These are primarily aimed at providing guidance to APC candidates seeking full professional membership of the institution. There are 24 QS competencies classified as Mandatory (10), Core (7) and Optional (7). These competencies can be achieved at any of three levels as Level 1, 2 or 3. The RICS defines that an APC candidate needs to achieve all Mandatory competencies at Level 2 or above, all Core competencies at Level 3 (except one not relevant to specialisation depending on employment in consulting or contracting practice which is at Level 2) and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above.
40
Part 2: Conclusions
Main Report These competencies form the basis for describing the knowledge-base of the quantity surveyor and at APC to ascertain the level of attainment. Therefore, they should form the basis on which QS degree programme curricular is modelled. At each programme accreditation the RICS seeks to establish whether the programme in question deals with these competencies. There is no systematic approach or guidance as to what level of competency need be achieved by a graduate completing a RICS accredited programme. At present it is an estimation of whether core competencies are addressed in module specifications. This process has lead to RICS accredited honours degree programmes across the country producing graduates at considerably varying degrees of competence. It is then left to the employers and graduates themselves to up skill to the required benchmark specified for the APC. What was clearly found in this research is that this process produces a graduate less confident to face the industry and an employer less satisfied than they might otherwise be. The absence of a threshold benchmark that clearly defines graduate level of competence has left the industry to have unrealistic expectations; academia to aspire for unattainable levels of competence producing a less than satisfied graduate that defies direction. The research aimed at mapping competencies to RICS accredited programme curricular using a purpose devised scoring system. This revealed that there is huge variation in interpretation of competencies and levels of achievement. The documentation available is inadequate for this purpose probably because it is intended for APC candidate guidance. The competency mapping case studies revealed that there is high level of variation in the mapping of competencies between programmes especially at Level 1. Although 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.
11.2 Summary of Views of Academia

The views of academia were primarily obtained through the academic survey and to some extent from the expert forum. Views of 45 respondents representing 26 RICS accredited programmes (included 20 programme directors) were analysed. Almost all respondents had over 10 years experience in quantity surveying. 11.2.1 QS Competencies In overall terms there were a considerable amount of responses indicating much higher levels of expectation for graduate competencies, sometimes equivalent to or higher than the requirement for APC. This leads to an assertion that either some academics did not clearly understand the interpretation of competency levels or they had unrealistically high expectations. The importance rankings of competencies revealed that academics have attached very high rankings to some mandatory competencies. All core competencies were ranked equally important and at the highest level. The academics are very satisfied with the curricular they use with nearly 90% expressing a good level of satisfaction. They also have a very high level of confidence in their QS knowledge, QS practice and programme delivery.
Part 2: Conclusions
41
Main Report 11.2.2 QS Education & Development The number of direct student contact hours was between 12 to 14 hours per week. This is a very low figure, equating to less than two full days work for a full time student enrolled in a 3 to 4 year QS honours degree programme. However, this is similar to other programmes related to construction and surveying professions. There is consensus on the overall concept of the RICS-University partnership but a considerable amount of scepticism about the partnership process which warrants further investigation. The academics expressed a high level of willingness to collaborate on education and research with the industry which they feel is not matched by equal enthusiasm from the industry itself. Academia had a good understanding of industry developments such as NRM initiative and very similar views to the industry on the role of quantity surveyor. Part time mode of study was seen as the best method of producing a QS graduate, closely followed by full time study with one year placement, both of which are becoming scarce due to industry downturn. Academics perceive the placement as a vital component of producing a graduate. Nearly 60% of academics were clearly of the view that RICS should determine entry criteria for RICS accredited programmes both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. There was not much dispute on the entry levels for PG programmes but there is significant discontent on the entry criteria for undergraduate programmes. Academics believe the role of academia is to Educate and produce a graduate that is industry relevant rather than Training a graduate for direct employment. This sums up the ethos of graduate education in which current university curricular is defined. 11.2.3 The role of RICS The Graduate route of membership was regarded as the best route to produce a quantity surveyor. A structured training programme was seen as almost an essential criterion in developing an APC candidate. The RICS was seen as successful in: 1. Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession 2. World-wide representatiion of the Quantity Surveying profession 3. Developing standards and new methods of practice Regulation of Quantity Surveying education received a rating of over 50% for highly or very highly rated service. This is seen as a reasonably positive outcome with respect to graduate education. The lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services and Influencing related national policy, these being lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the profession at a national level and be able to influence national policy. Only one third of academics were expressed satisfaction on RICS services with majority indicating a neutral stance. But majority of academics perceive poor value for money in RICS services.
42
Part 2: Conclusions
Main Report
11.3 Summary of Views of Industry

Views of industry were primarily obtained from the industry survey and to some extent from the expert forum. A total of 301 complete responses were received from all sectors of the industry. There were 52% responses from the private sector consultants followed by 17% in contracting, 15% in the public sector and the balance from subcontractors, suppliers and other specialist quantity surveyors. These represented all levels of firms from large to micro level. The sample size analysed is adequate to make assertions about the whole population with a 99% confidence limit (Bartlett et.al. 2001). More than 90% respondents were chartered surveyors with over 10 years of experience. 11.3.1 QS Competencies Three areas related to QS competencies were analysed: 1. The expected level of competency attained by graduates 2. Their assessment of level of attainment of competencies by current graduates 3. The relative level of importance of each of the competencies There was a generally high level of expectation of competency achievement by graduates. However, majority views were reasonable in most cases with expectations of Level 1 achievement for most mandatory competencies and Level 2 for all core competencies and Level 1 for most optional competencies. That said, there were some worrying trends with over 35% expecting Level 2 for Mandatory competencies, Level 3 for some Core competencies and Level 2 for some Optional competencies. These numbers are creating an increasing level of doubt as to the respondents level of understanding of the nature of competencies themselves. Alternatively, this may be pure unrealistic expectation. Level 3 for any competency cannot usually be achieved by a graduate as it involves advising clients and projecting capability of expertise. Considerably low levels of ranking were awarded to the current state of new graduates achievement of competencies. On a scale of 1 to 5 the overwhelming majority indicated the midpoint for most competencies and a score of 2 for others. The scoring was higher for Mandatory competencies such as M010 Team working, M007 Data management and M009 Sustainability. All Core competencies were ranked much lower, the least satisfaction being shown with Core competency 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. All 7 Core competencies were ranked high as being most important, with top 4 competencies form all 24 competencies being (in order of mean scores): 5. 6. 7. 8. T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T062 Procurement and tendering T017 Contract practice
The two highest ranking Mandatory competencies were (in order of mean scores): 3. M004 Communication and negotiation Perera & Pearson, 2011
43
Part 2: Conclusions
Main Report 4. M003 Client care The two highest ranking Optional competencies were (in order of mean scores): 3. T016 Contract administration 4. T077 Risk management These would be mostly as expected with T067 Project financial control and reporting seen to be the most important of all competencies. It is important to note the rise of competency relative rankings of the above two optional competencies which signifies the increasing importance attached to these QS functions. 11.3.2 QS Education & Development The industry seems to have a very little understanding of the curricular and content taught at universities. Over half (53%) indicate that they are either not at all or only partially aware of the content of the curricula taught in universities. As a consequence 60% industry respondents were dissatisfied or only partially satisfied with the curriculum. Most respondents when further probed on areas that they feel need more coverage identified technology, measurement and estimating as the areas need attention. Although there was a poor level of satisfaction with respect to academic curricular there was resounding vote of confidence in the academics capability and programme delivery, with well over 80% satisfaction rates. However, the figure dropped to 56% when it related to industry practice. Curricular used for programme delivery are continuously updated and it may not be surprising that most senior industry practitioners are not aware of the curricular currently being used in universities. But considering the professional nature of the programmes this is a worrying statistic where there should be more intricate industry-academia collaboration in programme development and delivery. The levels of industry-academia collaboration seem very low with poor levels of commitment expressed (54% willing to collaborate drops to 29% actually committing time on it). Industry respondents were of the view that part time undergraduate studies produce the best quality of QS graduate which was very closely followed up by full time study with 1 year industry placement. It is important to note that the emphasis and value attached to the role of industry placement as highly valued by industry respondents. However, their commitment to placement dropped by nearly 30% when the effects of recession were considered. A structured placement training model seems a valuable proposition for the industry to consider again mapping it to the QS competencies. Programmes originally approved on the basis of industry placement as a core component of QS programmes currently seem to function without contributing to producing graduates in one of the least preferred modes of study.
Part 2: Conclusions
Industry respondents view the role of academia as the Training of a graduate for direct employment over Educating to produce a graduate that is industry relevant. This indicates that industry ethos is Training as opposed to Educating graduates for professional employment. If this is what industry wants they should clearly act proactively to collaborate with academia to produce a graduate that is more industry-friendly. Perera & Pearson, 2011
44
Main Report 11.3.3 The role of RICS In a similar way to the academics, the industry respondents also preferred the graduate route over all other routes but with a very much lesser margin. Both the Senior professional route and Assoc RICS were also seen as satisfactory routes. However, some members of the expert forum were highly critical of the senior professional route in particular. Although over 80% considered a structured training programme an important mechanism for APC candidates only 56% of organisations reported as having a structured training programme with the lowest figures reported from the Public Sector (43%). This is a significant drawback in provision of training required for Quantity Surveyors. The RICS was seen as successful in: 1. 2. 3. 4. Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession Developing standards and new methods of practice Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating of only 38% for highly or very highly rated service is seen as a negative reflection of views on RICS involvement in graduate education.
The lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services and Influencing related national policy as lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS is perceived as being unable to influence national policy both by industry and academics alike. There is a strikingly poor level of overall satisfaction with the RICS with only 33% expressing satisfaction and28% expressing dissatisfaction. The figures worsen when the state of value for money of RICS services is considered with 56% expressing discontent and 15% seeing positive value for money.
11.4 Summary of Framework for alignment of views

Diverse views were found on key elements of research relating to QS competencies, QS education and development and the Role of the RICS. The primary reason for dissatisfaction with any process comes from the difference between expectations and outcome. There were very high expectations of graduate competencies but the outcome does not seem to satisfy the level expected. There were several endemic problems related to QS competencies both in academia and industry. These for the most part originated from the absence of defined or prescribed levels of graduate competency. There were diametrically opposing views on the ethos of graduate education, with industry seeing it more as training graduates for direct employment while academia saw it as educating graduates with a core knowledge base for professional employment. This issue is further aggravated by the industry having less trust in the curricular used and the academics knowledge of current practice. The industry is faced with the dichotomy of greater collaboration but lack of commitment to proactively influence the process of graduate education. The RICS on one hand is performing an excellent task in regulating the profession, developing standards and representing the profession worldwide. However, the satisfaction levels for general member services and more importantly the ability to represent and influence national policy seem Perera & Pearson, 2011
45
Part 2: Conclusions
Main Report to be very poor. The latter is a crucial aspect of the role of any professional body. The industry seems to be very much less satisfied with the overall level of services provided by the RICS than are the academics. But both see very poor level of value for money in RICS services. The role performed by the RICS is regulating QS education is much appreciated by the academia but very much less known to the industry resulting in negative views. The alignment of views framework proposed in this report takes account of the underlying situation presented above. Therefore a framework with 7 key elements is proposed (Section 10). 1. Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB) 2. Competency mapping framework (CMF) 3. Detailed competency specification 4. Re-evaluation of status of competencies 5. University-Industry collaboration 6. RICS-University-Industry partnership 7. Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities The outcome of successful implementation of the alignment framework proposed requires the need for a concerted effort by all these three parties for the development of Quantity Surveyors who are industrially relevant, professionally qualified and with a sound academic background.
11.5 Limitations
The analysis of competencies was limited to the documents currently available for download from the RICS web portal. The mapping of competencies was limited to opinions of the programme directors moderated through cursory examination of module specifications. Therefore it is possible that there could be a reasonable degree of variation in the outcome of mappings. But the authors are of the opinion that this would not be to an extent that would the overall conclusions derived for the project. The survey respondents were requested to refer to the RICS pathway guide before completing the questionnaire, especially as it deals with competencies that may be different to what respondents were familiar with. They were provided with mechanisms to download the documents if needed. But it is not possible to guarantee that this happened.
11.6 Further research and directions

The implementation of the key elements of the alignment framework will require further research in the development of the Graduate Competency Threshold Benchmark and the Competency Mapping Framework. These will in turn require the further development of competency specifications as an aid to carrying out competency mapping of RICS accredited programmes or new programmes to accredit. Further research will also be required to re-model the RICS partnership process as envisaged in the framework.
46
Part 2: Conclusions
Main Report RICS competencies need to be re-evaluated to find currency and relevance considering current and future development of the profession. This will require a detailed research activity. The final element of the alignment framework will also involve a considerable degree of research to fully establish the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders of the profession (industry, academia and the RICS) and to create a holistic view of the profession and how it develops the professional.
47
Part 2: Conclusions
Alignment of Professional, Academic and Industrial Development Needs for Quantity Surveyors: Expert Forum
Part 3 Analysis of Expert opinion

January 2011
List of Contents
1 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................3 QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES...................................................................................................3 2.1 3 EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY, CORE AND OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .................................................. 3
FUTURE ROLE OF THE QUANTITY SURVEYOR...........................................................................................6 3.1 3.2 PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT .......................................................................... 7 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE QS COMPETENCIES........................................................................................... 7
VIEWS ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION .......................................................................................7 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS ............................................... 8 VIEWS ON QS PROGRAMME CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 8 THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ...................................................... 8 INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................... 9 INDUSTRY ACADEMIA LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................... 9
MODES OF STUDY & INDUSTRY PLACEMENT...........................................................................................9 5.1 5.2 PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY ...................................................................................................... 9 INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ............................................................................. 9
RICS MEMBERSHIP ROUTES AND TRAINING ............................................................................................9 6.1 ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................................................................. 9 6.1.1 Level of awareness............................................................................................................................ 9 6.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership ................................................................................. 9 6.2 AVAILABILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC .......................................... 10
VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF RICS.................................................................................................................10 7.1 7.2 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS ................................................................................................ 10 LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT............................................................ 11
View of the Expert Forum
1 Introduction
A series of interviews were carried out firstly to identify key issues and subsequently these were used to verify the findings of the academic and industry surveys. An expert forum consisting of ten specialists were identified. The interviews comprised of three academics, three Consulting or Project QS (PQS), three Contracting or Commercial QS (CQS) and one RICS representative. The content analysis of the interviews conducted is presented in this section.
2 Quantity Surveying Competencies

The RICS QS competencies provide the basis on which a quantity surveyor will be judged capable to act as an independent professionally qualified chartered surveyor. The respondents were first asked to consider the competencies in general. The RICS representative noted that there are more prescribed core competencies for QS than for any other pathway. This was however to be combined with the understanding that not every competence need be met by the universities and that the RICS welcomed diversity to reflect the individual strengths of each. Industry CQS respondents noted that the competencies were relevant and do adequately describe what we want.
2.1 Expected Achievement of Mandatory, Core and Optional Competencies

Most respondents agree that a Level 1 competence relates to attaining knowledge which could be expected from graduate QS. Some academics foresee students progressing beyond Level 1 to attain a portion of Level 2 competencies through practical experience gained from project based work while part time students and placement students will also be able to progress beyond Level 1. However, one PQS stated that they would expect graduates to have attained Level 2 in both Mandatory and Core competencies. This indicates that there is differing interpretation of competencies and the graduates likely level of attainment. One PQS expressed the view that contracts are now more important as this forces cost control, it is a rapidly developing area and students are not up to speed. This indicates a tension between trying to cover all the competencies to a particular level and placing certain emphases on areas that are considered more important. This tension is seen later on in other parts of the discussion and shows that with different expectations from various sections of the industry that universities cannot be all things to all people. The RICS representative echoes this, stating that when a course is considered RICS will be looking at how it maps onto the technical competencies they will be looking more at the core competencies. Three respondents (one academic, one PQS and one RICS) commenting on the mandatory skills agreed that these were general competencies covering transferable or softer skills. One academic noted that they did not have a specific module to cover these skills but that the student picks these up as they progress through the course. Three respondents (two academics and one PQS) stated that core competencies largely define the primary role of the QS with respect to optional competencies, one academic noted that these should allow for flexibility or to pick up on diversification and one PQS noted that candidates should understand what the competencies cover but they should not bend their experience to fit the competency, a practice he purported as widespread.
View of the Expert Forum A summary of expected level of competency is presented in Table 1. These were extracted from 7 expert forum members.
Table 1 Summary of expected level of graduate competency
Competency Code
Name
Level 1
Level 2 1
Level 3
Comments
Mandatory
M001 Accounting principles and procedures
pure financial statement knowledge as used in accounting is dealt with at a level 1 and 2, but not certainly at level3
Mandatory
M002 Business planning
several management modules applicable and this is tending towards level 3
Mandatory
M003 Client care
this area is certainly covered up to level 2 and it tending to reach level 3 due to hypothetical projects and multi disciplinary projects
Mandatory
M004 Communication and negotiation
management modules, multidisciplinary modules tending to level 3
Mandatory
M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice
A "nice to have": This is covered up to level2 within the project work for professional practice and it is tending to level3 in the MDP
Mandatory
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures
procurement and admin, and there is no evidence of level 3 completion for this item
Part 3: Quantity Surveying Competencies
professional practice at level 2
Mandatory
M007 Data management
Data and information management, discipline projects within the final year dissertation, there is evidence of tending to
View of the Expert Forum Competency Code Name Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 level 3. Mandatory M008 Health and safety 3 3 1 not as a core module but the competencies are delivered as parts of modules - law and regulatory frameworks, construction technology etc., Mandatory M009 Sustainability 5 1 environmental services in level1 and other technology modules tending to levell 2 competency. This area needs development upto level 3 and important to shape up the future role of the QS Mandatory M010 Teamworking 2 4 1 aspects of many modules and specifically MDPs. Therefore tending to level 3 Core T010 Commercial management of construction 2 4 1 construction economics, procurement and admin, estimating and tendering - some of the assessments are tending to level 3 Core T013 Construction technology and environmental services Core T017 Contract practice Core T022 Design economics and cost planning Core T062 Procurement tendering 2 4 upto level 2 only 3 3 For PQS's only; upto level 2 only 2 4 upto level 2 only
Part 3: Quantity Surveying Competencies
Comments
level 1 mainly and level 2
View of the Expert Forum Competency Code Name Level 1 Core T067 Project financial control and reporting Core T074 Quantification and costing of construction works Optional T008 Capital Allowances 3 3 2 3 estimating and tendering in level1, measurement under level2 and civil engineering surveing at level3 A "nice to have"; not sure about this. This is usually a taxation subject; And other allowances i.e. land remediation relief. Optional T016 Contract administration Optional T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency Optional T025 Due diligence 5 1 5 1 3 3 1 this is tending towards level3; This should be a core competency this area may be touched upon under financial management. Therefore tending towards level2 A "nice to have"; professional practice Optional T045 Insurance 5 As I mentioned, this is an area that needs development for the future of the QS Optional T063 Programming and planning Optional T077 Risk management 5 1 4 2 1 For Contractors' QS's only; all 3 levels
Part 3: Future role of the Quantity Surveyor
Level 2 4
Level 3
Comments
upto level 2 only
There is wider coverage of the risk and value management in level 3 of the course and in terms of competencies it will be at level2.
3 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor

The interviewees were requested to provide views on the present and future role of the QS. With respect to the present role of the QS they generally agreed that the role centred on cost advice, estimating, and measurement. One academic noted that it differed from a contractors surveyor to Perera & Pearson, 2011
View of the Expert Forum consultants surveyors though others did not stress the difference. There was some disagreement as to the development of the role of the QS. One PQS noted the role had not changed much whereas one CQS noted it had changed a lot.

There was a strong feeling that the role would become more complex, taking more concepts such as sustainability and whole life costing into account. 1 PQS stated We are looking at the whole life cycle (WLC) of the facility and its use in a wider context. The importance of WLC was noted by 2 respondents, 1 CQS and 1 PQS. Two respondents (PQS and CQS) suggested that the name QS should change to reflect the function more accurately on the lines of Cost Manager or Cost Engineer. The name change is indicative of observations by other respondents that the difference between PQS and CQS is narrowing and the two roles are merging. The respondents in general indicated the need to up skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and its impact on the profession. They also agreed that collaboration and team working should be a more important skill to develop. Sustainability and project management skills were seen as areas for further development while civil engineering construction, infrastructure development and mechanical and electrical (energy related) projects were seen as growth sectors for the future. One PQS was of the view that there is potential for procurement to revert back to more traditional methods due to economic pressures. This could be seen as an important possibility that further enhances the cost control role of the QS.
3.2 Relative Importance of the QS Competencies

4 respondents (3CQS, 1PQS) noted that there were areas that were not given enough attention or that the students had poor knowledge of; valuation (1), measurement (1), building contracts (1), construction technology (2), M and E services (1), environmental services (1), team working (1), and data management (1). When queried about possible additional competencies, three respondents (1PQS, 1RICS and 1CQS) identified sustainability, business management and planning, accounting, communication (language, report writing and team working), new building technologies, pre-fabrication, civil and infrastructure engineering, life cycle costing as possible additional competencies. Some of these are already covered in some competencies. Since competencies do not give lengthy descriptions of content, these are open for interpretation. 3 respondents (2 academic, 1 CQS) were happy with the coverage and felt that there should be no new additions to the competencies/skills. One PQS stated that contract administration is listed as optional but felt that it should be core. No respondents felt that there was any obsolete content taught.
4 Views on Quantity Surveying Education

Six respondents shared their views on the present nature of QS education (1 RICS, 2 academics, 2 PQS, 3 CQS). As class sizes get bigger to make courses more economically viable the ability of tutors to spend more contact time and give more feedback will be compromised by the numbers of students they have to work with.
Part 3: Views on Quantity Surveying Education
View of the Expert Forum One PQS expressed the view that there was too much mass teaching, with a mismatch where the learning outcome does not map to the industry requirement and also felt that some lecturers need to update their knowledge so that the graduates should be the ones with the knowledge on the latest techniques. The respondent did however note that it was not possible to make generalisations and there were differences between universities and individual lecturers. One PQS also felt that RICS had less than adequate involvement in regulating curricular while another CQS felt that although there are so many RICS accredited programmes they were not comparable in most respects.
4.1 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QSs
The academic curricular content was commented on by 5 respondents (1 academic, 1PQS, 3 CQS). The academic noted that they were able to cover a lot of the core competencies in a 4 year degree and that they could map modules that they teach to the core competencies. 2 respondents (1PQS, 1CQS) stated that the coverage was pretty good in general terms. However, the industry respondents felt that it was difficult to map modules taught at universities to RICS competencies. One PQS felt that some courses do not deliver what employers want and one academic stated students are going out without the necessary skills to undertake their basic job and that is where employees feel that the universities are letting the system down. This being said the general view was that it is not easy to generalise and some courses are better than others and also it is down to other factors such as the student, mode of study, and employer.
4.2 Views on QS programme curriculum development

On the aspects of curricular development 5 interviewees responded. Two identified measurement as an area that needs greater attention (1 CQS, 1 PQS). Other areas identified include taxation (CQS), understanding building technology and construction (CQS), bill of quantities (PQS), cost planning, preconstruction estimating (CQS) while there was an overemphasis on management of projects (1PQS, 1CQS).The aspect that caused most concern for one PQS was that graduates had a poor understanding about construction technology and no real understanding of on-site conditions. Reflecting on these views it is clear that there is greater attention needed on some core areas of quantity surveying. But if so, the academics will be faced with the dilemma of identifying which areas to forego in lieu of areas of expansion.

All 10 respondents considered what a university should provide with regards to QS education. They were requested to respond to: a. Provide an overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying, or b. Concentrate on training students for direct QS employment. 6 respondents agreed with statement a (2 PQS, 1 CQS, 1 RICS, 2 academics). 2 respondents agreed with statement b (1 PQS, 1CQS). 1 CQS felt that it should be a bit of both, a balance of academia with vocational on a 50/50 basis. One academic was undecided. One CQS stated that over the last 30 years they have seen the quality of technical Quantity Surveying become diluted and warned that if the trend continues we would lose technical standards forever.
View of the Expert Forum In overall terms most wished to see a sound academic background for the graduate quantity surveyors but did not want to see any compromise on the level of knowledge. They also seem to expect improved technical competence in graduates going to the industry.

Two respondents (1PQS, 1CQS) commented that there is a reasonable level of employer engagement with the universities. However, the level and extent of engagement is one aspect that requires further exploration.
4.5 Industry Academia Level of Communication

The communication between universities and industry were generally seen to be reasonable although it was added that universities try the hardest and industry needs to be better at communication. The state of the economy was seen as a factor that influences level of communication (1 academic). Greater involvement of the industry as a stakeholder in the development of programmes, face to face industry consultation and industry taking programme development and contributions as part of their corporate social responsibility were seen as steps that can be used to improve the situation.
5 Modes of Study & Industry Placement

The majority of respondents (9) stated that Part time students were far better and rounded than full time students, though this was usually in respect of their dedication to work and approach to the job.
5.2 Industry Placement in Quantity Surveying Education

All 10 interviewees had contributions to make concerning their views on placement. This was unanimously seen as a positive, if not crucial thing for a student to have. The experience the student gains from having practical experience cannot be replicated in any other way. The current economic situation is having a negative impact on the availability of placements.
6 RICS Membership Routes and Training

The RICS recently revised their membership pathways. 6.1.1 Level of awareness Accordingly, two interviewees (1PQS, 1CQS) stated that they are not familiar with the new routes of membership other than the graduate route. 6.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership A total of seven (1 RICS, 2 academic, 2 PQS, 2 CQS) expressed that they are happy with the graduate route of membership. One CQS did note that it was sometimes hard to push graduates into becoming chartered, suggesting that this was due to a combination of fees and not seeing any advantage in becoming chartered. Another problem that exists is that more specialised contractors did not give the graduate a wide enough experience in some competencies (1 academic, 1 RICS).
Part 3: Modes of Study & Industry Placement
6.1 Routes of membership
View of the Expert Forum The new associate pathway was stressed as not being a shortcut to becoming chartered surveyor by the RICS representative. One academic said that it was a nice idea but did not see its relevance and felt that it was not clear enough where the cut off point was between the two levels while another expressed some reservations. One PQS felt that it may lead to people aiming for a minimum standard and that ASSOC RICS is not good enough to be recognised. 1 CQS noted that it was helpful to people who dont have degrees but to then progress to MRICS or FRICS was a very convoluted route. Another CQS said their company had looked at this route but gone back to the graduate route. These sentiments suggest there is lack of understanding about the new route as well as some doubt as for the need for this new route. There was a mixed response to the new senior professional route. 3 respondents stated that they were not happy with this route. 1 academic viewed it as a rubber stamping exercise. One CQS said my main problem with that route is that it doesnt test technical competence. One PQS did not think that people should just be given MRICS for their long experience and although it provides an opportunity to get practitioners into mainstream RICS, they should still fit the APC model and competencies. One academic warned that the RICS have to be careful not to be seen as an institution desperate to get new members in. On the positive side, one PQS noted that it was good and had worked well for them, adding that the CIOB are doing the same thing.
6.2 Availability and Importance of a Structured Training Programme for APC

The RICS representative noted that unless the company has signed up to the structured training programme they should not take on a graduate for APC. Three respondents (2 CQS, 1 PQS) stated that they did have a structured training programme. One PQS noted that there were very low completion rates for the APC and felt that this was due to very poor levels of basic knowledge and that there were big gaps between what is learnt at university and what is needed to get chartered. The possible reasons for this were seen as employers not seeing it as important and that they lack a structured training programme. It was also noted that it is difficult to provide all the training in three years. Smaller companies often struggle as they do not have the volume or frequency of work types to enable them to have a smooth training process. One PQS was highly critical of the APC process itself, stating that it is a daunting process that makes candidates unduly nervous. The RICS process compares with the CIOB less favourably as the CIOB process is friendlier and they help you to get through it.
7 Views on the Role of RICS

The level of communication and the respondents perception was analysed with respect to RICS Partnerships for programme accreditation, RICS and Universities, RICS and Industry communication, Industry and universities communication. With specific reference to the communication between RICS and universities 4 respondents (2 academic, 1 CQS, 1 PQS) made contributions. The 2 academics noted that they had a good rapport with the RICS. The CQS did not know about this while the PQS thought that some had good communication with RICS and others did not.
Part 3: Views on the Role of RICS
7.1
Level of Communications with the RICS
10
View of the Expert Forum The general consensus with respect to communications between RICS and industry was that it is in need of much improvement, although it is beginning to move in the right direction. There is a need for increase in regional and local level of involvement (2 academic), fees scales need to be more realistic (1PQS), and RICS needs to be more in touch with leading edge work (1PQS). Three respondents (1 PQS, 2 CQS) did not really have any contact with RICS through their role in the company with one commenting that RICS has lost its focus on members and become a business instead of an institution (CQS).
7.2 Level of Success of the RICS - University partnership agreement

The RICS partnership process was seen as facilitating greater discussion but that most communications still came down to personal relationships. One academic saw the accreditation partnership as a way to understand how the course is being assessed so that students come out with the ability to be Quantity Surveyors. These indicate the primary role of the RICS partnership agreement as regulating RICS accredited programmes. However, the level and detail of regulation was criticised. One PQS felt that there was a conflict of interest in the RICS education board if there were academics on the board and this led to them influencing the decisions. But, this is questionable as the role of education board is not necessarily to project the view of industry alone. A balanced representation perhaps might be useful. Lack of consultation with the professional group was also noted adding that RICS communication with industry was not good. One CQS did not know about the partnership arrangements. Another felt that there was a real inertia around working out solutions to problems that were identified. There was recognition of the difficulty involved in getting all three parties around the table and keeping the lines of communication open.
11
Alignment of Professional, Academic and Industrial Development Needs for Quantity Surveyors: Views of Academia
Part 4 Analysis of Perception of the Academia
Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne UK RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401
January 2011
Part 4 Contents
1. List of Contents 2. List of Figures 3. List of Tables 4. Report
ii
Part 4: Part 4 Contents
List of Contents
1 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1 RESPONDENT PROFILE.............................................................................................................................1 2.1 2.2 3 RESPONDENT WORK PROFILE ....................................................................................................................... 2 QUANTITY SURVEYING PROGRAMME PROFILES ................................................................................................ 2
EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES ..............................................4 3.1 3.2 3.3 EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ................................................................................ 5 EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES ........................................................................................... 6 EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .................................................................................... 7
4 LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM) INITIATIVES......................................................................................................................................................9 5 FUTURE ROLE OF THE QUANTITY SURVEYOR.........................................................................................11 5.1 5.2 6 PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT ........................................................................ 11 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE QS COMPETENCIES......................................................................................... 12
VIEWS ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION .....................................................................................14 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 DIFFERENCE IN TEACHING TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE TO BECOME A CONSULTANT OR A CONTRACTORS QS ................ 14 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS ............................................. 16 THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE ON PROGRAMME DELIVERY .................................................................................... 17 THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR .................................................... 18 INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................. 19
MODES OF STUDY & INDUSTRY PLACEMENT.........................................................................................20 7.1 7.2 7.3 PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY .................................................................................................... 20 INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ........................................................................... 22 ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RICS ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ........................................................................... 23
RICS MEMBERSHIP ROUTES AND TRAINING ..........................................................................................25 8.1 ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................................................................... 25 8.1.1 Level of awareness.......................................................................................................................... 25 8.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership ............................................................................... 26 8.2 IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................ 27 8.3 IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC ................................................................... 28
VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF RICS.................................................................................................................28 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS..................................................................... 28 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS........................................................ 30 ACADEMICS LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS................................................................................ 31 APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO ACADEMIA .............................................................. 31 THE VALUE OF RICS SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 32 LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT............................................................ 33
10
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................34 10.1 KEY FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY OF QS ACADEMICS ........................................................................................... 34
iii
10.1.1 10.1.2 10.1.3 10.1.4 10.1.5 10.1.6 10.1.7 10.1.8
RICS accredited QS programme characteristics.......................................................................... 34 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies................................................ 34 RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives.................................................................... 36 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor .......................................................................................... 36 Views on Quantity Surveying Education..................................................................................... 37 Modes of Study & Industry Placement ....................................................................................... 38 RICS Membership Routes and Training ...................................................................................... 38 Views on the Role of RICS ........................................................................................................... 39
iv
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 RESPONDENT AGE PROFILE .............................................................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 2 ACADEMIC AND/OR INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE IN QUANTITY SURVEYING .................................................................... 1 FIGURE 3 ACADEMIC RESPONDENT WORK........................................................................................................................ 2 FIGURE 4 OVERVIEW: EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY .................................................................................................. 4 FIGURE 5 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: NEW GRADUATE QS........................................... 6 FIGURE 6 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES: NEW GRADUATE QS ..................................................... 7 FIGURE 7 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: NEW GRADUATE QS............................................... 8 FIGURE 8 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES.......................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 9 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES ...................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 10 TRENDS IN FUTURE AREAS OF WORK ............................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 11 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES ....................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 12 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS .............................................. 16 FIGURE 13 CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING .................................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 15 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ............................................................ 19 FIGURE 16 WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION ....................................... 19 FIGURE 17 POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES .............................................................. 20 FIGURE 18 MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ....................................................... 22 FIGURE 19 LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT ......................................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 20 IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL ........................................................................... 23 FIGURE 21 SHOULD RICS DETERMINE AND REGULATE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ............................. 24 FIGURE 22 APPROPRIATENESS OF ENTRY LEVELS.............................................................................................................. 24 FIGURE 23 LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP............................................................................... 25 FIGURE 24 LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP .................................................................................. 26 FIGURE 25 IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS ............................................................................................. 27 FIGURE 26 PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED .............................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 27 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 28 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS ................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 29 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 32 FIGURE 30 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 32 FIGURE 31 LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS PARTNERSHIP PROCESS ..................................................................................... 33
List of Tables
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN ALL YEARS OF RICS ACCREDITED QUANTITY SURVEYING PROGRAMMES ................................... 2 TABLE 2 PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION HISTORY FOR QUANTITY SURVEYING PROGRAMMES ACCREDITED BY THE RICS .................... 3 TABLE 3 NUMBER OF FULL TIME CORE QUANTITY SURVEYING STAFF ...................................................................................... 3 TABLE 4 NUMBER OF CONTACT HOURS PER STUDENT PER WEEK ............................................................................................ 3 TABLE 5 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ......................................................................... 5 TABLE 6 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES ................................................................................... 6 TABLE 7 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ............................................................................. 8 TABLE 8 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES .......................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 9 NRM INITIATIVES AWARENESS LEVELS ................................................................................................................. 9 TABLE 10 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF NRM INITIATIVES..................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 11 NRM INITIATIVES IMPORTANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................ 10 TABLE 12 FUTURE AREAS OF WORK FOR QUANTITY SURVEYORS .......................................................................................... 11 OTHER AREAS SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS INCLUDE SUSTAINABILITY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY (TABLE 13).................................. 12 TABLE 13 OTHER AREAS OF IMPORTANCE ....................................................................................................................... 12 TABLE 14 PERCEPTION OF ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES .................................................................... 13 TABLE 15 PERCEPTIONS ON DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCING CONSULTING AND CONTRACTOR QS GRADUATES .................................. 15 TABLE 16 EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIFFERENCE IN CONSULTANT AND CONTRACTOR GRADUATE QS IS REFLECTED IN THE CURRICULAR 15 TABLE 17 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS ................................................ 16 TABLE 18 CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING ................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 19 CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN THE FOLLOWING THREE KNOWLEDGE AREAS ........................................................................ 18 TABLE 20 MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ......................................................... 21 TABLE 21 LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT ........................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 22 IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL ............................................................................. 23 TABLE 23 ANALYSIS OF LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................... 25 TABLE 24 ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................... 26 TABLE 25 ANALYSIS OF IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS ............................................................................. 27 TABLE 26 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ........................................................ 28 TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED........................................................... 29 TABLE 28 PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED ............................................................................................... 30 TABLE 29 SUMMARY OF OVERALL SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................. 31 TABLE 30 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS..................................................................................................... 31 TABLE 31 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 32 TABLE 32 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY.............................................................................................................. 32 TABLE 33 LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS PARTNERSHIP PROCESS ....................................................................................... 33 TABLE 34 EXPECTED LEVELS FOR MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ............................................................................................ 35 TABLE 35 EXPECTED LEVELS FOR CORE COMPETENCIES ...................................................................................................... 35 TABLE 36 EXPECTED LEVELS FOR OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................ 36
vi
Views of Academia
1 Introduction
The academic survey is part of the two surveys carried out as part of the research project. This part provides a detailed analysis of the finding of the survey. A comprehensive survey consisting of 41 questions was carried out to ascertain the views of the quantity surveying academic community across academic institutions in the UK. According to the RICS there are 26 universities conducting a total of 51 programmes (31 undergraduate and 20 postgraduate) producing RICS accredited quantity surveying graduates. A total of 106 academic staff from all 26 universities which conduct RICS accredited programmes were contacted and web-based survey requests sent. The survey received 65 responses from which 20 were eliminated due to incompleteness of responses leaving 45 sets of fully completed survey responses. The survey data analysis is presented in the following sections using the 45 fully completed survey responses received. The survey achieved 61% overall responses and 42% fully completed survey response rates.
2 Respondent Profile
This section provides details of the survey respondent profile.
18 - 24 Years , 0.00% 25 - 34 Years , 4.44% Up to 5 Years , 0.00% Over 30 Years , 26.67% 6 - 10 Years , 6.67%
35 - 45 Years , 35.56% Over 45 Years , 60.00%
11 - 20 Years , 31.11%
21 - 30 years , 35.56%
Figure 1 Respondent Age Profile
Figure 2 Academic and/or Industrial Experience in Quantity Surveying
Views of Academia
18 - 24 Years , 0.00% 25 - 34 Years , 4.44%
35 - 45 Years , 35.56% Over 45 Years , 60.00%
The Figure 1 above indicates that there is a mature respondent profile with over 60% respondents falling in to the category of over 45 years.
Up to 5 Years , 0.00% Over 30 Years , 26.67% 6 - 10 Years , 6.67%
11 - 20 Years , 31.11%
21 - 30 years , 35.56%
Figure 2 indicates that the respondents 93% of respondents have over 10 years experience in quantity surveying. Further it was revealed that 84% (39) of respondents were members of the RICS and 20% (9) were members of CIOB and further 22% had different professional body memberships while two respondents were not members of any professional body.
Part 4: Respondent Profile
Views of Academia
2.1 Respondent Work Profile

The survey sought to evaluate the respondent work profile in terms of general work allocation in: Teaching & Learning activities, Research, Academic Enterprise activities and Administration.
Other, 5.71%
Administratio n, 24.53%
Teaching and Learning Activities, 49.62%
Academic Enterprise, 5.09%
Research, 15.04%
Figure 3 Academic Respondent Work
The work profile of academic respondents (Figure 3) indicates that 50% of workload relates to T&L activities while 25% is for administration and research constitutes only 15% of the workload. This is typical for the sector and shows that most quantity surveying academics are less research oriented than might be expected of them. It was also revealed that 44% (20) of respondents were programme leaders. This also may indicate the higher allocation to administration in workload distribution analysed above.
2.2 Quantity Surveying Programme Profiles

A further detailed analysis was carried out using the 20 responses received from programme leaders to analyse the student numbers, years of accreditation, type of core staff and their level of qualification, and typical student contact hours per programme. The analysis of these aspects is provided below. Table 1 indicates the total number of students in all years of RICS accredited Quantity Surveying programmes within the university concerned. The mean and median values for full time programmes exceed 100 students indicating healthy numbers. There are similar numbers for part time study as well. The values for postgraduate studies cannot be considered as there are several universities that do not conduct postgraduate programmes.
Table 1 Number of students in all years of RICS accredited Quantity Surveying programmes
Number of students in all years of Quantity Surveying programmes Full time undergraduate Part time undergraduate Full time postgraduate Part time postgraduate
Mean 152.85 140.43 12.43 26.57
Median 120.00 137.50 7.00 7.50
Views of Academia Table 2 indicates the number of years QS programmes have been accredited. Most programmes have been accredited for 15 to 18 years while there were 3 programmes recently accredited and 6 programmes over 30 years of accreditation history. This reflects a good spread of programmes in the survey.
Table 2 Programme accreditation history for Quantity Surveying programmes accredited by the RICS
Programme accreditation history (Years) 0 1 3 4 10 15 20 30 38 40 50 Total Mean = 18.39 Median = 15.00 Mode = 0, 15 (Bimodal)
Frequency 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 18
Table 3 indicates that there are about 6 members of core QS academic staff servicing RICS accredited QS programmes where 3 are members of the RICS. This is an aspect that can be improved in order to improve professional outlook of programmes.
Table 3 Number of full time core Quantity Surveying staff
Number of full time core Quantity Surveying staff Member of RICS Others
Mean 3.84 3.88
Median 3.00 3.00
Mode 3 1
Table 4 Number of contact hours per student per week
Number of contact hours per student per week QS Undergraduate
Mean 15.53
Median 14.00
Mode 12
Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. illustrates that there is around 12 hours of contact per week for most programmes. This is markedly low for a professional programme which equates to less than two full days of work. This is effect part time study in a full time mode. This raises the question as to whether this type of contact is adequate for producing a graduate for a profession governed by a Royal Charter.
Views of Academia
QS Postgraduate 8.44 7.50 0
3 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies

The RICS Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction (2008) indicates that there are 10 Mandatory competencies, 7 Core competencies and 7 Optional competencies that a Chartered Quantity Surveyor should satisfy. This was used as the basis for evaluation eva luation of the expected level of competency a graduate QS should achieve at the completion of a RICS accredited QS degree programme. These competencies are to be satisfied in three cumulative stages as indicated below below: Level 1: knowledge (theoretical Knowledge) Knowl Level 2: knowledge and practical experience (putting it into practice) Level 3: knowledge, practical experience, and capacity to advise (explaining and advising) The RICS APC documentation clearly prescribes the expected level of achievement of competencies for candidates facing APC. However, there is no such defined guideline for expected level of achievement of competencies by a graduate completing RICS accredited QS degree programme. As such it is open for interpretation. interpretation The survey expects to analyse the levels of expectations of academics conducting RICS accredited QS degree programmes on the level of achievement of competencies by newly graduating QS graduates. Since this is the perception of academics that are in direct control of curricular lar and is responsible in the delivery of the undergraduate programmes one can expect that these represents a true reflection of the expected levels of achievement of competencies.
Part 4: Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies
60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Mandatory Competencies Core Competencies 16% 15% 46% 37% 49% 36%
52%
37% Level 1 Level 2 11% Level 3
Figure 4 Overview: Expected Graduate Competency
The overall analysis of the expected competency levels for new QS graduates is given in Figure 4. It indicates a certain level of disagreement in the level of achievement achievement of Mandatory competencies Perera & Pearson, 2011
Views of Academia with 37% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 1 while 46% expecting that the competencies will be satisfied at Level 2. A similar situation exists with respect to Core competencies with 49% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 2 while 36% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 3. This raises the question as to whether there is a good understanding of the interpretation of levels of competencies as Level 3 corresponds to practical experience with capacity to advise clients. The difference in expectation further expands to Optional competencies as well with 52% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 1 while 37% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 2. These anomalies are further investigated in the following subsections where each category of competency is analysed separately.
3.1 Expected Achievement of Mandatory Competencies

The Mandatory competencies represent a set of competencies that needs to be satisfied by most types of chartered surveyors. These are represented by 10 different competencies as indicated in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory Competencies
Mandatory Competencies M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working Percentage rank
Level 1 62.22% 68.89% 51.11% 11.11% 28.89% 42.22%
Level 2 33.33% 22.22% 35.56% 73.33% 48.89% 46.67%
Level 3 4.44% 8.89% 13.33% 15.56% 22.22% 11.11%

31.11% 33.33% 31.11% 13.33% 37.33%
51.11% 51.11% 53.33% 48.89% 46.44%
17.78% 15.56% 15.56% 37.78% 16.22%
These competencies are expected to be engaged with by all graduate QSs. The Figure 5 below represents how these competencies are expected to be achieved by newly qualified graduate QS. The expectation of achievement of competencies at Level 3 is consistently low across all competencies expect with respect to M010 - Team Working. This may be understandable, as there are many team working activities designed in most QS undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. M004 Communication and Negotiation has received the highest expectation at Level 2 while competencies M005 to M010 all have received high levels of expectation at Level 2. The analysis of individual programme curricular content in the case study analysis also supports these expectations with high emphasis on these activities at Level 2.
Views of Academia
M001 Accounting principles and procedures 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
M003 Client care
M008 Health and safety
M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice
M007 Data management M006 Conflict avoidance, management Level 1 Level and 2
Level 3
Figure 5 Expected Level of achievement of Mandatory Competencies: New graduate QS
3.2 Expected Achievement of Core Competencies

The Core competencies represent the discipline specific competencies that are essential for the function of quantity surveying. There are 7 different core competencies as indicated in Table 6 below.
Table 6 Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies
Core Competencies T010 Commercial management of construction
Level 1 17.78%
Level 2
Level 3
48.89% 33.33% 51.11% 26.67% 53.33% 28.89% 44.44% 42.22% 46.67% 42.22% 53.33% 35.56% 46.67% 42.22%
T013 Construction technology and environmental services 22.22% 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 works Percentage rank 17.78% 13.33% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11%
14.92% 49.21% 35.87%
The expectation of 22% of respondents on satisfaction of M005 - Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice competency at Level 3 seems quite illogical. Although programmes may provide many activities that relate to this competency it is difficult to expect a newly qualified graduate to achieve the capacity to advise clients on these aspects. In a similar analysis, the overall levels of expectation at Level 3 at 16% seem to indicate a misinterpretation of Level 3 achievement of competencies.
Views of Academia
Both Table 6 and Figure 6 indicate that there is high expectation of achieving all Core competencies at Level 2. This is very desirable. However, there is considerable level of high expectation for core competencies T022, T067 and T074 to be achieved at Level 3. This raises the concern that can a graduate achieve competency to a level enabling advice to clients? Either, this could be attributed to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of competency level definitions or unrealistically high expectations.
T010 Commercial management of construction 0.6 T074 Quantification and costing of construction works 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 T067 Project financial control and reporting T017 Contract practice T013 Construction technology and environmental services
T062 Procurement and tendering
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 6 Expected Level of achievement of Core Competencies: New graduate QS
It is clear that most do not expect their graduates just to achieve up to Level 1 in core competencies but much higher levels. The mean level of 15% expecting core competencies at Level 1 could possibly be attributed to misinterpretation of competency levels. If not this again raises a serious concern as to deviation in level of expectations of individual academics.
3.3 Expected Achievement of Optional Competencies

The Optional competencies are an indication of subspecialisation of QS services or a reflection of experience gained in relevant areas of specialisation. This also represents an element of choice for the APC candidate. It is expected that at least 2 optional competencies at Level 2 must be satisfied by candidates facing APC. There are 7 optional competencies that are available for APC candidates in quantity surveying.
Views of Academia
Table 7 Expected Level of achievement of Optional Competencies
Optional Competencies T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management Percentage rank
Level 1 66.67% 22.22% 80.00% 68.89% 60.00% 40.00% 28.89% 52.38%
Level 2 26.67% 55.56% 13.33% 26.67% 33.33% 48.89% 51.11% 36.51%
Level 3 6.67% 22.22% 6.67% 4.44% 6.67% 11.11% 20.00% 11.11%
Both Table 7 and Figure 7 indicate that there is considerable variation in levels of expectation of Optional competencies. There is over 50% expectation that optional competencies T016, T063 and T077 be achieved at Level 2 and over 20% expects that these be achieved at Level 3. Although proposition of achieving competencies at Level 3 is unrealistic these indicate that undergraduate programmes expect their graduates to be highly competent in these areas. All other Optional competencies are mostly expected to be achieved at Level 1. This is much more realistic and practical given the high practical nature of these competencies.
0.6 0.4 0.2 0
T063 Programming and planning
T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 7 Expected Level of achievement of Optional Competencies: New graduate QS
The overall percentage expectations are very much in line with the trends identified before. It should be noted that the high expectation that is assigned for T016 - Contract administration, T063 Programming and planning and T077 - Risk management possibly indicates whether there should be a shift in considering these as core competencies.
T008 Capital allowances 0.8
Views of Academia
4 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
This section evaluates the level of awareness of the RICS NRM initiative and the publications of new guidelines for estimating, measurements and whole life costing. Note Scoring range: 1 Least aware to 5 Most aware
Table 8 Level of awareness of NRM Initiatives
NRM Initiatives Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning Procurement an alternative to SMM7 Whole Life Costing
Mean 3.84 3.02 3.18
Median 4.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 4 3 3
Std. Deviation 1.07 1.27 1.30
NRM Initiative
2 4%
Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning 4% Procurement an alternative to SMM7 Whole Life Costing
24% 36% 31%
13% 22% 29% 20% 16% 13% 13% 38% 13% 22%
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 4% 4% 24%
36% 31% 22% 13% 29% 20% 16% 13% 13%
38%
22% 13%
1 2 3 4 5
Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning
Procurement an alternative to SMM7
Whole Life Costing
Figure 8 Level of Awareness of the RICS NRM Initiatives
The three NRM initiatives are indicated in Table 8, Table 9 and Figure 8Error! Reference source not found. above. The Order of Estimating and Elemental Cost Planning received a highest level of awareness with 57% having above average awareness. This could be because it is already published while the other two received a lower level of awareness (36% and 35% respectively for the same levels).
10
Part 4: Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Table 9 NRM Initiatives awareness levels
Views of Academia
Similar levels of scoring are evident in the level of importance scales. 67% attach a very high level of importance for Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning while the other two gained 44% and 54% respectively. It is interesting to note that the academics perceive Procurement an alternative to SMM7 the least important of the three initiatives. Note Scoring range: 1 Least important to 5 Most important
Table 10 Level of importance of NRM Initiatives
NRM Initiatives Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning Procurement an alternative to SMM7 Whole Life Costing
Mean 3.84 3.36 3.73
Median 4.00 3.00 4.00
Mode 4 3 3
Table 11 NRM Initiatives importance levels
NRM Initiative
Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning 2% 7% Procurement an alternative to SMM7 Whole Life Costing
24% 38% 29%
7% 16% 33% 24% 20% 4% 7% 36% 18% 36%
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2% 7% 24%
38% 33% 29% 24% 20% 16% 7% 7%
36%
36%
1 18% 2 3 4 5 4%
Order of cost estimating and Procurement an alternative elemental cost planning to SMM7
Figure 9 Level of Importance of the RICS NRM Initiatives
Whole Life Costing
These indicate that the academics are well aware of these initiatives and do consider these as very important developments for the future of quantity surveying profession. It is encouraging to see that there is very good levels of awareness which possibly would lead to adoption of these initiatives in the curricular of programmes.
11
Part 4: Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Views of Academia

This section aims to ascertain the views of academics on the future role of the quantity surveyor and the directions of the industry. It also re-visits re visits QS competencies with the view of ranking competencies based on perceived importance considering future industry workload work load trends.

The perception of academics of future areas of work in the industry was analysed in this question. The highest level of activity (based on mean scores) is indicated on Refurbishment activit activities. When median scores are considered all areas except Offshore Oil & Gas and Facilities Management received an equal rating of 4. Low standard deviation indicates that there is more or less unified opinion in this aspect.
Table 12 Future areas of work for Quantity Surveyors
Areas of Work Building Construction Civil Engineering/Infrastructure Building Services Offshore Oil & Gas Facilities Management Refurbishment
Mean 3.96 3.69 3.87 2.78 3.49 4.07
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
Mode 3 3 4 3 3 4
Std. Deviation 0.88 0.85 0.76 1.17 0.89 0.84
Trends in future areas of work

Refurbishment Facilities Management Offshore Oil & Gas Building Services Civil Engineering/Infrastructure Building Construction 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mean
Figure 10 Trends in future areas of work
12
Views of Academia
Other areas suggested by respondents include Sustainability and Nuclear Energy (Table 13).
Table 14 Other areas of importance
Other area Sustainability - 5 Energy Production - Nuclear - 5 Holistic cost management Procurement of public services - 5 Flood risk assessment - 5 Loss adjustment - 5 Efficiency/lean thinking - 5 Ethical business practice - 5 Whole Life costing - 5 Management Consultancy - 5 Life cycle assessment - 5 Building Information Modelling BIM - 4 Repairs and Maintenance Contract Administration - 3 Value & Risk Management - 4 Construction Claims - 4
Frequency 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

This section analyses the views of academic on the perceived level of relative importance of competencies. The respondents were required to score each competency on a scale of 1 to 5 (1- least important and 5 - most important). The result of the analysis is presented in
13
Views of Academia
Table 15 below.
Table 15 Perception of order of importance of RICS QS Competencies
RICS Competencies M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
Mean 2.84 2.64 4.00 4.44 4.25 4.00 3.51 3.78 4.08 4.35 4.45 4.34 4.48 4.55 4.69 4.70 4.59 2.93 4.34 2.68 2.85 3.05 3.35 4.13
Median 3.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
Mode 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 5
Std. Deviation 1.24 1.06 1.08 0.78 0.90 0.88 1.12 1.07 0.83 0.80 0.71 0.79 0.68 0.78 0.52 0.65 0.63 1.16 0.73 1.02 1.12 0.90 1.08 0.88
The results show a very low standard deviation in all rankings indicating that the views expressed are more unified and similar to the mean (i.e. results are closely related). As such Figure 11 shows the median distribution of the results. From this analysis it is clear that all Core competencies have been ranked with the highest level of importance while three Mandatory competencies (M010 Team
14
Views of Academia working, M004 Communication and negotiation, and M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice) have also received higher rankings. This is very consistent with the programme curricular as these aspects are heavily dealt with in typical programme curricular. All Mandatory competencies except two (M001 Accounting principles and procedures and M002 Business planning) and two Optional competencies (T016 Contract administration and T077 Risk management) have received very second level rankings. This is very much expected as well as in line with most programme curricular.
Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies

T074 Quantification and costing of construction T067 Project financial control and reporting T062 Procurement and tendering T077 Risk management T016 Contract administration T022 Design economics and cost planning T017 Contract practice T013 Construction technology and T010 Commercial management of construction M010 Team working M006 Conflict avoidance, management and M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional M004 Communication and negotiation M003 Client care T063 Programming and planning T045 Insurance M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety M007 Data management M002 Business planning T025 Due diligence T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T008 Capital allowances M001 Accounting principles and procedures 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Median
Figure 11 Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies

This section attempts to capture the respondents views on Quantity Surveying education system. The questions primarily refer to courses accredited by the RICS. This section analyses differences in Perera & Pearson, 2011
15
Views of Academia Consultant QS and Contractor QS education, suitability of curricular, delivery of programmes, and university and industry collaboration in QS education.
6.1 Difference in teaching to produce a graduate to become a consultant or a contractors QS

With the QS profession there is difference of opinion on whether there is significant difference in teaching (curricular) to produce a consultant or contractor QS. The analysis of the survey reveals that most perceive there s no significant difference (see Table 16 below).
Table 16 Perceptions on differences in producing consulting and contractor QS graduates
(Note: 1 - No Difference 5 - Completely Different) 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean = 2.71 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 1.31
Frequency 11 9 11 10 4 45
Percentage 24.40% 20.00% 24.40% 22.20% 8.90% 100.00%
It is clear that 44% of respondents perceived that there is no difference while 31% perceived there is a difference. 24% respondents did not have a clear view. Relatively higher standard deviation also reflects that there is no unified opinion on this aspect compared to previous responses.
Table 17 Extent to which the difference in Consultant and Contractor graduate QS is reflected in the Curricular
(Note: 1 - Not Reflected 5 - Fully Reflected) 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean = 2.83 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 1.31
Frequency 8 10 10 9 5 42
Percentage 19.00% 23.80%
21.40% 11.90% 100.00%
The extent to which the difference between Consultant and Contractor graduate QS is reflected in the curricular was examined. The results are strikingly similar to before. 43% indicated that there is
16
23.80%
Views of Academia no difference in curricular whereas 35% felt that there was greater reflection of difference in curricular. This is an inherently difficult aspect to resolve as opinions are more polarised. What is interesting to note is that similar numbers who indicated that there is a difference in teaching required for producing a Consultant graduate QS to Contractor graduate QS expressed views that their curricular is different as well. This indicates that where a difference is perceived curricular has been changed to reflect the perceived difference. This is a positive aspect and as such action has been initiated to achieve the desired goal.
6.2 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QSs
Table 18 indicates that there is considerable level of satisfaction that the curricular used by the universities is fit for purpose. 89% are reasonably satisfied with the curricular and only 10% are partially satisfied or dissatisfied.
Table 18 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce a graduate QS
Level of Satisfaction 1 - Not satisfied 2 - Partially satisfied 3 - Reasonably satisfied 4 - Satisfied 5 - Perfectly satisfied Total Mean = 3.42 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 0.97
Frequency 2 3 20 14 6 45
Percentage 4.40% 6.70% 44.40% 31.10% 13.30% 100.00%
It is important to note that there is good degree of self confidence as to the fit for purpose nature of the curricular used for producing QS graduates.
17
Views of Academia
50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not satisfied 2 - Partially satisfied 3 - Reasonably satisfied 4 - Satisfied 5 - Perfectly satisfied
Figure 12 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce a graduate QS
The following areas/comments were identified by the respondents that they perceive more improvement is needed: Negotiation skills, interpersonal skills, report writing EU procurement and competition law Building services Due diligence Management of a business as a senior executive Advanced construction measurement on non-residential work. Plus cut and fill measurement. Demolition and alterations spot item measurement Communication skills often glossed over by curricula, employers are going to focus on how graduates communicate rather than their course marks etc in future Generally commercial management of construction is covered poorly; this includes supply chain/subcontract and supplier management, accounting policies, cash flow management and contract administration. Sustainability Energy management climate change Sub contracting Supply Chain Management Stakeholder management Depends on the university and course areas/title Aspects that prepare graduates for a career in research e.g statistical procedures Measurement and Costing of M&E services Measurement and Costing of civil Engineering works Measurement Valuation of change Contract administration (not purely contractual administration, more practical) Construction technology (linked to measurement) Site management, Management, Technology General commercial awareness An ability to undertake self directed learning and personal development Civil Engineering contract procedures, Estimating procedures, technology and CESMM3 Adequate exposure / practice of measurement, students need to be practicing measurement throughout the degree to a much greater extent.
18
Views of Academia Civil Engineering Refurbishment
These areas identified can only be considered as directly attributable to the programmes the respondents were involved with. Therefore, it cannot be generalised.
6.3 The level of confidence on programme delivery

The survey attempts to investigate the level of confidence of academics in three aspects: their own subject academic knowledge, QS practice and Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials) for the delivery of programmes. The following indicators were used as responses (Table 19, Table 20 and Figure 13):
1 - Not at all confident 2 - Partially confident 3 - Reasonably confident 4 - Confident 5 - Fully confident
Table 19 Confidence levels in teaching
Criterion Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Practice Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
1 0% 0% 0%
2 0% 0% 0%
3 11% 16% 7%
4 43% 49% 38%
5 46% 36% 56%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Practice 11% 16% 7% 43% 46% 49% 36% 38%
56%
1 2 3 4 5
Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
Figure 13 Confidence levels in teaching
Table 20 Confidence level in the following three knowledge areas
Mean
Median
Std.
19
Views of Academia
Deviation Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Practice Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials) 4.34 4.20 4.49 4.00 4.00 5.00 0.68 0.69 0.63
The results clearly indicate that there is very high degree of self confidence on all these three aspects. With mean and median values exceeding 4 with well over 85% indicating very high levels of confidence this is absolutely clear. clear It is further strengthened by the fact that there is very low standard deviation for the responses indicating very much unified opinion.
6.4 The role ole of Universities in producing producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
It was paramount importance to identify the ethos of graduate education as perceived by the academics who deliver QS programmes. As such the following options were posed:
a. Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying b. Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
27%
Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying 73% Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
Figure 14 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
The results are clear and decisive. The overwhelming verwhelming majority of academics perceive that the purpose of graduate education in quantity surveying is to produce a graduate with fundamental levels of knowledge and capacity to develop rather than producing graduates gr aduates that are fully trained as quantity surveyors. This has wider implications in that it apportions responsibility of producing the chartered surveyor truly with the employers. It therefore makes the APC period of training crucial and pivotally important ant to the success of the chartered surveyor.
20
Views of Academia

The level of industry and academia collaboration in the delivery of QS programmes is vital for the success of graduates. As such academics perception of industrys willingness to collaborate and the academics willingness to collaborate were evaluated.
35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at all willing 2 - Partially willing 3 - Unsure 4 - Willing 5 - Very willing
Figure 15 Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with Universities on QS Education
Mean = 3.38 Median = 4.00 Std. Deviation = 1.21
Figure 15 indicates that 53% perceive that the industry is willing to collaborate while the rest remain sceptical or unconvinced.
21
Views of Academia
60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at all likely 2 - Partially likely 3 - Unsure 4 - Likely 5 - Very Likely
Figure 16 Possibility to commit time for industry collaborative activities
Figure 16 clearly indicates significant willingness to commit time for industry collaboration. Over 77% have aspirations of collaboration. This is significant and highly positive.

This section attempts to capture the views of academics on the different modes of study and industry placement offered for undergraduates undertaking Quantity Surveying programmes. Seven alternative modes of study were presented for evaluation as indicated in Table 21. Respondents were requested to indicate preferences on 1 to 7 most to least preferred.
Table 21 Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
Modes of Study Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement
3 2.22
4 4.44
5 44.44
6 11.11
7 37.78
Total 100.00
22
Views of Academia
Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study Full time postgraduate study - non-cognate route Part time postgraduate study - non-cognate route Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 6.67 8.89 8.89 6.67 17.78 35.56 15.56 100.00 6.67 8.89 11.11 28.89 44.44 100.00 46.67 20.00 20.00 6.67 4.44 2.22 100.00 2.22 8.89 28.89 33.33 8.89 15.56 2.22 100.00 35.56 46.67 11.11 4.44 2.22 100.00 8.89 8.89 28.89 35.56 13.33 4.44 100.00
As illustrated in Figure 17 Part time undergraduate university study is the mode of study perceived as most successful followed by Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement and then jointly by Full time undergraduate university study no with prior experience and Full time undergraduate university study summer placements. This indicates that the exposure of the student to the industry is perceived as improving graduate quality. It also reinforces the view that a professional programme needs professional exposure and experience.
23
Views of Academia
50 45 40 36 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 4 2 20 20 47
Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study Full time postgraduate study non-cognate route Part time postgraduate study non-cognate route
Figure 17 Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
7.2 Industry Placement in Quantity Surveying Education

Industry placement is often considered as a vital component of the graduate education system. Most programmes in QS provide opportunity for students to take up industry placement within their programmes. The following analysis examines the level of commitment to placement.
Table 22 Level of commitment to placement
Table 22 and Figure 18 examine the level of commitment to placement. More than 67% expressed full commitment to placement which reduces to 44% during recession. The economic recession has a tremendous impact on the availability of placements in the industry. As a result most universities allow students to directly progress from second year to final year skipping the placement year. There is no doubt that this will have an impact on the quality of graduates produced. This is reinforced by the fact that many regard industry experience as vital for producing successful graduates (as indicated by Figure 17).
24
Level of Commitment General long term view During a recession
Mean 4.40 3.84
Median 5.00 4.00
Mode 5 5
Std. Deviation 1.07 1.30
Views of Academia
67%
70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 4% 7% 4% 11% 4% 18% 20%20%
44%
1 - Not at all 2 - Partially 34 - Very 5 - Fully committed committed Committed Committed committed General long term view
Figure 18 Level of commitment to placement
During a recession
Table 23 and Figure 19 examine the importance importance of placement organisation to have a structured placement training model. . It is clear that over 95% see it as a very important element of the placement process.
Table 23 Importance of a structured placement training model
Level of Importance 1 - Not at all important 2 - Partially important 3 - Important 4 - Very important 5 - Extremely important Total Mean = 4.18 Median = 4.00 Std. Deviation = 0.94 Mode = 5
Frequenc y 1 1 7 16 20 45
Percentag e 2.20% 2.20% 15.60% 35.60% 44.40% 100.00%
1 - Not at all importan t, 2.20%
5Extremel y importan t, 44.40%
3Importan t, 15.60%
2Partially importan t, 2.20%
4 - Very importan t, 35.60%
7.3 Entry requirements for RICS accredited programmes

This section examines the aspects related to student entry criteria for RICS accredited programmes. It examines the perception of academia on the regulation of entry criteria by the RICS and the level of entry criteria iteria for QS programmes.
25
Figure 19 Importance of a structured placement training model
Views of Academia
70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Yes Uncertain No
QS Postgraduate study
Figure 20 Should RICS determine and regulate entry requirements for accredited programmes
Figure 20 indicates the level of acceptance of the regulation of entry standards by the RICS. More than 60% of respondents clearly favour the regulation of standards by the RICS as the professional body setting standards for the profession.
70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 - Very low 2 - Low 6.70% 6.70% 28.90% 24.40%
64.40% 48.90%
13.30% 4.50% 2.20% 0.00% 5 - Very high
3 - Appropriate
4 - High
Figure 21 Appropriateness of Entry Levels
QS Postgraduate study
Figure 21 illustrates the views of the academia on the appropriateness of entry criteria set for both undergraduate and postgraduate ostgraduate programmes. It is clear that an overwhelming majority agrees that the entry levels are appropriate with 49% and 64% for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes respectively. However, 35% and 31% respectively have indicated that entry levels a are too low while only 15% and 4% view it as too high. Although this is encouraging it might be an
26
Views of Academia opportunity for the RICS to re-evaluate the reasons for discontent accounting for 1/3 of respondents.

This section evaluates the level of understanding on the routes of membership and their appropriateness in producing chartered surveyors. It also investigates the influences of other professional bodies and training of APC candidates.

The RICS has three main routes of membership available for prospective members joining. The level of awareness of these routes of membership among academics and their perception on the appropriateness of these routes in producing a competent chartered surveyor was evaluated in the following sections. 8.1.1 Level of awareness This section investigates the level of understanding of the three main routes of membership available for members to become a chartered surveyor.
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0% 4% 9% 2% 2 22% 11% 7% 33% 22% 16%13% 29% 36%33% 62%
1 - Not at all Graduate route
5 - Perfectly well
Senior Professional route
Table 24 Analysis of level of understanding of the routes of membership
RICS membership routes
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Deviation
4.51 3.56 3.51
5.00 4.00 3.00
5 5 3, 5 (Bimodal)
0.73 1.31 1.31
27
Part 4: RICS Membership Routes and Training
Figure 22 Level of understanding of the routes of membership
Views of Academia
It is clear that the Graduate route of membership is the most well understood route while others follow in order of Assoc RICS and Senior Professional routes. This is somewhat expected given that these two were recently introduced whereas the graduate route has been well established over the years. There are 26% who do not clearly understand the Assoc RICS route while 20% do not clearly understand the Senior professional route. These are significant numbers and can have a detrimental impact on the RICS membership recruitment as academics are the first call to the profession in most instances. 8.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership The level of appropriateness of these routes in producing competent QS was evaluated as indicated in Figure 23.
60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at all appropriate Graduate route 2 3 4 5 - Very appropriate 7% 5% 5% 2% 8% 8% 7% 29% 27% 20%21% 25% 43% 37% 57%
Figure 23 Level of Appropriateness of routes of membership
The results indicate that academics perceive the graduate route as the best method to produce a chartered surveyor with Senior professional route preferred second and Assoc RICS the last.
Table 25 Analysis of Appropriateness of routes of membership
RICS membership routes
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Deviation
4.25 3.53 3.76
5.00 3.00 4.00
5 3 5
1.14 1.11 1.20
The standard deviation being at reasonable level the results can be considered representative of the mean. Combined with the analysis of the level of awareness (Table 24) the lower results indicated in Assoc RICS route is interesting to note.
28
Views of Academia

Newly qualified graduates need to progress in their career by becoming suitably professionally qualified. Graduates become fully fledged professionals by becoming a member of a relevant professional body. The following analyses the relative importance of becoming professionally qualified by becoming a corporate member of one of the following institutions (Figure 24 indicated the perceived level of importance of attaining chartered status by graduates. The academics have highly ranked RICS as the most important organisation (62%) while CIOB ranked second. Although there is very low standard deviation indicating a unified result for importance of RICS membership there is higher standard deviation for other results indicating a greater degree of difference in opinion regarding the importance of other institutions. Table 26).
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 29% 15% 10% 2% 15% 14% 10% 31% 29% 28% 24% 33% 23% 14% 62%
24% 20% 14% 4% 3 - Important
1 - Not important 2 - Little important
4 - Very important
RICS
Figure 24 Importance of attaining Chartered status
CIOB
CICES
Other
Table 26 Analysis of Importance of attaining Chartered status
Professional Institutions
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Deviation
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors RICS Chartered Institute of Builders CIOB
4.53
5.00
0.69
3.62
4.00
1.31
29
Figure 24 indicated the perceived level of importance of attaining chartered status by graduates. The academics have highly ranked RICS as the most important organisation (62%) while CIOB ranked second. Although there is very low standard deviation indicating a unified result for importance of RICS membership there is higher standard deviation for other results indicating a greater degree of difference in opinion regarding the importance of other institutions.
Views of Academia Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors CICES Other 2.86 3.00 1, 4 (Bimodal) 1.51 3.28 3.50 4 1.38
The academics overwhelmingly value membership of the RICS as appropriate for becoming qualified quantity surveyor compared to membership of any other institution.
8.3 Importance of a Structured Training Programme for APC

RICS prescribe QS employees presenting candidates for APC to operate a structured training programme within their organisations. However, in practice not all employers implement such a programme. This section examines the views of academics on the usefulness of a structured training programme for APC candidates.
Table 27 Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC candidates
Level of Importance 1 - Not important at all 2 Little important 3 Important 4 Very important 5 - Extremely important Total
Frequency 0 1 1 15 28 45
Percentage 0.00% 2.20% 2.20% 33.30% 62.20% 100.00%
Mean = 4.56 Median = 5.00 Mode = 5 Std. Deviation = 0.66

This section attempts to capture the views of academics on RICS as a professional body regulating the Quantity Surveying profession. Perera & Pearson, 2011
30
Table 27 clearly indicates that 96% of respondents see it has very important for APC candidates reinforcing the RICS recommendations for APC training. The very low standard deviation with median and mode at 5 indicates that there is close unified view on this aspect.
Views of Academia

The respondents were requested to rate the services identified in Table 28 below on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 very poor service and 5 highly rated service.
Table 28 Summary of Analysis of perception on quality of services provided
RICS Services Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A Developing standards and new methods of practice B Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession D Dissemination of related information E Influencing related national policy F Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession G General member services (directory, journal, benefits scheme etc..) H
Mean 3.80 3.52 3.32 3.63 3.27 3.12 3.34
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 4 4 4 4 3 3, 4 (Bimodal) 3, 4 (Bimodal) 3
Std. Deviation 0.98 1.19 1.16 1.07 1.13 1.05 0.99
2.84
3.00
1.10
The results indicate that academics are generally satisfied with the performance of RICS based upon the list of services indentified in Table 28. The standard deviation for all responses is close to or less than 1 indicating a unified tighter distribution of responses. The results are not highly positive but focused on the centre of the scale more often. This indicates that there is greater expectation on the performance of RICS that still require to be fulfilled.
31
Views of Academia
60.00% 50.00% 41% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A B 1 - Very poor service C 2 D 3 4 E F G H 2% 7% 25% 18% 11% 11% 5% 48% 41% 40% 33% 21% 7% 25% 16% 7% 7% 2% 11% 11% 34% 21% 7%
5 - Very highly rated service
Figure 25 Perception on quality of services provided
Error! Reference source not found. provides the details of the spread of results for the level of quality of services provided. Over 66% are satisfied that RICS perform a good service in regulating the QS profession. The situation is very similar for Developing standards and new methods of practice, Regulation of Quantity Surveying education and World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession. It is important to note that the academics are satisfied as to the role played by RICS in Regulation of Quantity Surveying education (52%).
Table 29 Perception on quality of services provided
2.30%
18.20% 34.10%
34.10%
11.40%
11.40%
27.30% 34.10%
20.50%
6.80%
32
Service Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession Developing standards and new methods of practice Regulation of Quantity Surveying education World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession Dissemination of related information Influencing related national policy Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession General member services (directory, journal, benefits scheme etc..)
Code A B C D
1 2.30% 6.80% 11.40% 4.70%
2 6.80%
3 25.00%
4 40.90% 47.70% 40.90% 39.50%
5 25.00% 18.20% 11.40% 20.90%
18.20% 9.10% 9.10% 9.30% 27.30% 25.60%
E F
6.80% 7.00%
15.90% 36.40% 20.90% 32.60%
25.00% 32.60%
15.90% 7.00%
Views of Academia
However, the level of satisfaction drops for other 4 types of services analysed. General member services are considered poor for the most part with over 28% being dissatisfied and just 27% satisfied. There is a notable poor level of service indication for both Dissemination Dissemination of related information and Influencing Influencing related national na policy. . The later is a serious aspect that the RICS needs to consider as it has a direct impact on the profession. In addition to the services presented above academics also indicated that the following services as noteworthy: Lion heart Marketing of the profession APC Doctors Research Foundation Support on Research activitiesactivities QS related
Approximately 35% of respondents were clearly satisfied with the overall level of services provided by the RICS with 44% sticking to mid range while 20% towards less or not satisfied. This is a satisfactory level of achievement (but with a great scope for improvement) for a professional body which encompass several allied professions in property and construction. The lower standard deviation also indicates that there is more unified view.
Table 30 Summary of Overall Satisfaction
Level of Satisfaction 1 - Not satisfied 2 3 4 5 - Fully satisfied Total Mean = 3.16
Frequency 3 6 20 13 3 45
Percentage 6.70% 13.30% 44.40% 28.90% 6.70% 100.00%

28.90%
6.70% 6.70% 13.30%
44.40%
1 - Not satisfied
5 - Fully satisfied
Std. Deviation = 0.98 Mode = 3
9.3 Academics level of Communications with the RICS

Appropriate level of communication with the membership is vital for success of any professional body. The results below indicates that 49% rate it as good, 24% as average and 27% as poor.
33
Median = 3.00
Figure 26 Overall level of satisfaction
Views of Academia
Table 31 Level of Communication with members
Level of Communication 1 - Very poor 2 3 4 5 - Very good Total Mean = 3.33 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 1.19 Mode = 4
Frequency 3 9 11 14 8 45
Percentage 6.70% 20.00% 24.40% 31.10% 17.80% 100.00% 17.80% 31.10%
6.70% 20.00% 24.40%
1 - Very poor
5 - Very good
Figure 27 Level of Communication with members
The results are encouraging for the RICS and indicate generally there is a good level of communication though there is a significant number not satisfied with the levels of communication.
9.4 Appropriateness of Services provided by the RICS to Academi Academia

This section investigates the appropriateness of the services provided by the RICS to academia in general.
Table 32 Appropriateness of RICS Services
Level of Appropriateness 1 - Not at all appropriate 2 3 4 5 - Very appropriate Total Mean = 3.22 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 1.11 Mode = 3
Frequency 4 5 19 11 6 45
Percentage 8.90% 24.40% 11.10% 42.20% 24.40% 13.30% 100.00% 13.30%
8.90% 11.10%
42.20%
1 - Not at all appropriate
5 - Very appropriate
Figure 28 Appropriateness of RICS Services
9.5 The value of RICS services

This section examines the views of academics on their perceived level of value value for money of RICS services. They were queried Do Do RICS Membership provide Value for Money? Money?
34
Academics perception reveals that 38% considers the RICS services are appropriate for the academics with 42% taking a middle ground while 20% considering the services are inappropriate. This is expected to some extent as the services of RICS as a professional professio nal body would naturally be less tailored towards academics. However, this also indicates greater expectation from the academics for the RICS to provide a greater role in the development of the QS academia.
Views of Academia
Table 33 Do RICS provide value for money
Value for Money 1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5 - Very good value for money Total Mean = 2.60 Median = 2.00 Std. Deviation = 1.25 Mode = 2
Frequency 10 13 11 7 4 45
Percentage 22.20% 28.90% 24.40% 15.60% 8.90% 100.00%
8.90% 15.60%
22.20%
24.40%
28.90%
1 - Not at all
5 - Very good value for money
Figure 29 Do RICS provide value for money
In contrast to previous analysis there is clear dissatisfaction expressed here. 51% stated that they do not see value for money in RICS services, 24% undecided while only 24% perceive any value for money. It is important to further investigate the low level of value for money perception on RICS services though there were good level of services indicated in the previous analysis. This can possibly be attributable to the membership fees where academic members feel that they do not receive adequate te benefit for the fees paid.
9.6 Level of Success of the RICS - University partnership agreement

The level of Success of the RICS - University partnership agreement related process in producing good quality graduate was investigated (Table ( 34 and Figure 30).
Table 34 Level of success of the RICS partnership process
Success Level 1 - Not at all successful 2 - Partially successful 3 - Undecided 4 - Successful 5 - Very successful Total Mean = 3.29 Median = 3.00 Mode = 4 Std. Deviation = 1.08
Frequency 3 7 14 16 5 45
Percentage 6.70% 15.60% 31.10% 35.60% 11.10% 100.00%

35
Views of Academia
40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at all successful 2 - Partially successful 3 - Undecided 4 - Successful 5 - Very successful
Figure 30 Level of success of the RICS partnership process
The analysis indicates that 47% perceived it as successful while 22% as partially or unsuccessful while 31% were undecided. The response is therefore fairly distributed and inconclusive. The outcome is consistent as there is lower standard deviation. This is an important aspect that requires further investigation. There is 11% who express very high satisfaction with the process. The process can be considered somewhat successful but there is no universal agreement on this. Although the overall concept is acceptable this may indicate that there is greater scope for further improvement in this process.
10 Conclusions
The survey elicited a very good response from the academics representing 26 universities that conduct RICS accredited QS programmes. The survey detailed analysis considered fully completed 45 responses representing approximately two responses per institution. The respondents were primarily well experienced academics over 10 years experience and chartered surveyors. This included 20 programme leaders conducting RICS accredited QS programmes within UK.
10.1 Key findings of the survey of QS academics

The following sections provide the highlights of the 6 main areas evaluated under the survey. 10.1.1 RICS accredited QS programme characteristics The mean student populations of the programmes analysed exceeded 150 full time and 140 part time students per programme. These are significant numbers and indicate a healthy level of probable graduate output even within currently prevalent recessive economic environment. The number of direct student contact hours was between 12 to 14 hours per week. This is a very low figure equating to less than two full days work for a full time student enrolled in a 3 to 4 year QS
36
Part 4: Conclusions
Views of Academia honours degree programme. However, this is similar to other programmes related to construction and surveying professions. 10.1.2 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies All 24 competencies prescribed for the QS pathway were analysed to find the level of expectation of fulfilment of the competencies by newly qualified graduate quantity surveyors. It is important to note that there is no guideline to explain the level of achievement of competencies by graduates either prescribed by neither the RICS nor academia in general. Therefore the level of achievement of competencies by graduates is open for interpretation. Hence, the survey attempts capture views of academics. In overall terms there were a considerable amount of responses indicating much higher levels of expectation for graduate competencies sometimes equivalent or higher for APC. This leads to an assertion that either some academics did not clearly understand the interpretation of competency levels or they had unrealistically high expectations.
10.1.2.1 Mandatory competencies The Table 35 below indicates the majority view with respect to achieving mandatory competencies.
Table 35 Expected levels for mandatory competencies
Mandatory Competencies
Level Expected
M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working
1 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 or 3
37
Part 4: Conclusions
These expectations are much greater than even what is prescribed by the RICS for APC candidates. Most of these competencies must be achieved at Level 1 and some at Level 2 for candidates facing APC. As such it can be concluded that there is greater level of expectation than required from a graduate.
Views of Academia 10.1.2.2 Core competencies Academics expect new graduates to achieve Core competencies at level 2 or above (Table 36). This is to some extent can be considered as reasonable as APC candidates are required to satisfy core competencies at level 3. However, expecting graduates to complete competencies at level 3 seems highly controversial as graduates would hardly get opportunity to advise clients in any capacity.
Table 36 Expected levels for core competencies
Core Competencies
Level expected
T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services 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 works
2 2
2 2 or 3 2 or 3 2 2 or 3
10.1.2.3 Optional competencies Academics expect newly graduating quantity surveyors to attain optional competencies at level 1 or 2 as indicates in Table 37. The APC requirement for optional competencies stands at primarily Level 2 and level 1 in some cases. This represents a reasonable degree of expectation for most competencies.
Table 37 Expected levels for optional competencies
Level expected
T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
1 2 1 1 1 2
Part 4: Conclusions
38
Views of Academia 10.1.3 RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives The Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning and the Whole life costing are seen as the two most important of the 3 NRM initiatives. The academics seem to appreciate the development related to the Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning the most possibly because these documents are already in place. 10.1.4 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor Building construction, refurbishment and services are seen as the three most important sectors for quantity surveyors which were followed by civil & infrastructure engineering and facilities management. 10.1.4.1 Order of importance of QS competencies All 7 Core competencies were ranked high as being most important with top 4 competencies form all 24 competencies being (in order of mean scores): 1. 2. 3. 4. T067 Project financial control and reporting T062 Procurement and tendering T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T022 Design economics and cost planning
The two highest ranking Mandatory competencies were (in order of mean scores): 1. M004 Communication and negotiation 2. M010 Team working The two highest ranking Optional competencies were (in order of mean scores): 1. T016 Contract administration 2. T077 Risk management These would be as mostly expected with T067 Project financial control and reporting seen to be the most important of all competencies. 10.1.5 Views on Quantity Surveying Education 10.1.5.1 Education to produce Consultant QS and Contractor QS The majority of academics do not seem to recognise any difference in educational methods to produce graduates specialising in working for consultants or contractors. However, opinions are not clearly defined with 44% expressing no difference and 31% expressing there is a difference. The situation is very similar with respect to the curricular used to produce these types of graduates. 10.1.5.2 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum An overwhelm majority is satisfied with the curricular used by their institutions with 89% expressing good level of satisfaction out of which 13% express perfect satisfaction and only 4 -10% expressed some level of dissatisfaction. Many respondents identified possible areas of further improvement reflecting areas such as civil and building services engineering measurement, estimating and valuation, sustainability, communication skills, etc.
39
Part 4: Conclusions
Views of Academia 10.1.5.3 The level of confidence on programme delivery A very high level of confidence has been expressed by the respondents on their own subject academic knowledge, QS practice and Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials) for the delivery of programmes. The mean scores are well above 4 (confident) and in some cases approaching 5 (fully confident). This is important for it shows that academics are very confident of what they deliver. 10.1.5.4 The role of universities producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor In this vital question which determines the ethos of graduate education, 73% of academics expressed views that the universities should aim to produce a Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying whereas only 27% expressed that universities should Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation. This is highly significant as it determines the educational philosophy in producing graduate quantity surveyors and therefore all underpinning activities. 10.1.5.5 Industry Academia Collaboration The academics perceive that the industry is willing (53%) to some extent to collaborate with universities in QS programme delivery related activities and also that the academics were very willing (77%) to collaborate with the industry. 10.1.6 Modes of Study & Industry Placement 10.1.6.1 Perceived Success of different Modes of Study Academics were of the view that part time undergraduate studies produce the best quality of QS graduate which was very closely followed up by full time study with a one year industry placement. It is important to note that the emphasis and value attached to the role of industry placement is highly valued by academics. 10.1.6.2 Industry Placement A high degree of commitment to placement was expressed by academics with 87% very committed to placement dropping to 64% during recession. A placement training model was considered very to extremely important for the success of industrial placements by 80% of respondents. This implies there is a strong need to provide such structured training during industrial placements. 10.1.6.3 Entry requirements for RICS accredited programmes Nearly 60% of academics were clearly of the view that RICS should determine entry criteria for RICS accredited programmes both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. However there were a notable 30% who opposed this.
Part 4: Conclusions
Academics were of the view that both undergraduate (49%) and postgraduate (64%) programmes respectively had appropriate entry criteria at present while 15% (45% -PG) perceived it as too high. Further to this 35% (31% - PG) perceived it to be too low. This concludes that there is no dispute on the entry levels for PG programmes but there is significant discontent on the entry criteria for undergraduate programmes. This is an aspect that requires further examination by the RICS.
40
Views of Academia 10.1.7 RICS Membership Routes and Training 10.1.7.1 Routes of membership The Graduate route of entry was clearly the most understood route of membership, followed by the senior professional route and Assoc RICS route. The same preference was shown with respect to the appropriateness of producing a high quality QS graduate. 84% perceived the graduate route to be the best form of producing QS professionals with a ranking of 4 or 5 whilst the senior professional route obtained 58% followed by 45% for the Assoc RICS. 10.1.7.2 Importance of RICS professional qualification The RICS membership was regarded as by far the most important qualification for a QS graduate followed by CICES. 93% ranked membership of RICS as very or extremely important with comparative figures for CICES and CIOB dropping to 61% and 57% respectively. The rise of CICES with it recently acquired chartered status to a close second with CIOB is interesting to note. 10.1.7.3 Structured Training Programme for APC A structured training programme for APC candidates is seen as an almost absolute must by the academics, with 96% considering it very important. 10.1.8 Views on the Role of RICS 10.1.8.1 Quality of services provided by the RICS The top 3 services provided by the RICS, with over 60% rating it highly or very highly rated service are as follows: 1. Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A 2. World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession D 3. Developing standards and new methods of practice B Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating over 50% for highly or very highly rated service is seen reasonably positive outcome with respect to graduate education. The lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services G and Influencing related national policy F as lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the profession at national level and be able to influence national policy. 10.1.8.2 Overall level of satisfaction Only 35% indicated overall higher level of satisfaction with the majority (44%) stickling to a mid level of satisfaction. This indicates that academics expect a higher level of service from the RICS than what is currently provided. 10.1.8.3 Level of Communications with Academics The majority of academics expressed good level of satisfaction on the RICSs level of communication with academic with 49% expressing high satisfaction and only 27% ranking it toward poor. 10.1.8.4 Appropriateness of Services Only 38% of academics feel that RICS provide an appropriate type and level of service to the academic members with further 42% indicating a mid level and 20% expressing dissatisfaction. This
41
Part 4: Conclusions
Views of Academia is an area RICS could consider how they can improve and greater dialogue and liaison with academia would be recourse for improvement. 10.1.8.5 The value of RICS services In contrast to the generally positive responses above 51% of academics expressed dissatisfaction with the level of value for money for the services rendered by the RICS. Only 24% expressed a good level of satisfaction. Value is a direct function of cost and the level of service received in return. This indicates that there is a generally higher fee in proportion to the level of service received. This can also be a result of high cost of CPD activities. 10.1.8.6 RICS - University partnership agreement 47% of academics perceived the RICS University Partnership Agreement process as successful while 22% saw this as partially or unsuccessful while 31% were undecided. This indicates that there is consensus on the overall concept of the partnership but a considerable amount of scepticism about the partnership process which warrants further investigation.
42
Part 4: Conclusions
Alignment of Professional, Academic and Industrial Development Needs for Quantity Surveyors: Views of Industry
Part 5 Analysis of Perception of the Industry

January 2011
Part 5 Contents
ii
List of Contents
1 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1 RESPONDENT PROFILE.............................................................................................................................1 2.1 2.2 3 RESPONDENTS ORGANISATION PROFILE ......................................................................................................... 2 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 2
EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES ..............................................3 3.1 EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ................................................................................ 4 3.1.1 Expected graduate Mandatory competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES ........................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Expected graduate Core competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception ........................................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .................................................................................. 10 3.3.1 Expected graduate Optional competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception............................................................................................................................... 12
4 LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM) INITIATIVES....................................................................................................................................................13 5 FUTURE ROLE OF THE QUANTITY SURVEYOR.........................................................................................15 5.1 PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT ........................................................................ 15 5.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE QS COMPETENCIES......................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Relative Importance of the QS Competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception............................................................................................................................... 19 6 VIEWS ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION .....................................................................................20 6.1 EMPLOYERS LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON GRADUATE QS COMPETENCY ACHIEVEMENT ............................................ 20 6.1.1 Level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception .................................................................................... 24 6.2 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS.................. 24 6.3 AREAS NOT ADEQUATELY COVERED BY THE CURRICULUM .................................................................................. 26 6.4 THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LECTURERS PROGRAMME DELIVERY CAPABILITY ..................................................... 26 6.5 THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR .................................................... 27 6.5.1 The Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception .................................................................................... 28 6.6 INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................. 30 7 MODES OF STUDY & INDUSTRY PLACEMENT.........................................................................................31 7.1 7.2 7.3 8 PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY .................................................................................................... 31 INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION ............................................................................... 32 PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ..................................................................... 33
RICS MEMBERSHIP ROUTES AND TRAINING ..........................................................................................34 8.1 ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................................................................... 34 8.1.1 Level of awareness.......................................................................................................................... 34 8.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership ............................................................................... 35
iii
8.1.3 Support given to candidates to attain professional qualification ................................................... 36 8.2 IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................ 36 8.3 AVAILABILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC .......................................... 37 8.3.1 Availability of a Structured Training Programme ........................................................................... 37 8.3.2 Importance of Structured Training Programme.............................................................................. 38 9 VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF RICS.................................................................................................................39 9.1 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS..................................................................... 39 9.1.1 Quality of services provided by the RICS: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception ......................................................................................................................................... 40 9.2 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS........................................................ 41 9.3 INDUSTRY LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS .................................................................................. 42 9.4 APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO INDUSTRY ................................................................ 42 9.5 THE VALUE OF RICS SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 42 9.5.1 Overall level of satisfaction with and the value of RICS services: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception .................................................................................... 43 10 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................44 10.1 KEY FINDINGS OF THE INDUSTRY SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 44 10.1.1 Organisations current workload................................................................................................. 44 10.1.2 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies................................................ 44
10.1.2.1 10.1.2.2 10.1.2.3 Mandatory competencies ......................................................................................................................44 Core competencies ................................................................................................................................45 Optional competencies ..........................................................................................................................45
10.1.3 10.1.4
10.1.4.1
RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives.................................................................... 46 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor .......................................................................................... 46
Order of importance of QS competencies .............................................................................................46
10.1.5
10.1.5.1 10.1.5.2 10.1.5.3 10.1.5.4 10.1.5.5
Views on Quantity Surveying Education..................................................................................... 47

Employers level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement .........................................47 Level of awareness and satisfaction with the curriculum ......................................................................47 The level of confidence on programme delivery ...................................................................................47 The role of universities producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor.........................................................47 Industry Academia Collaboration........................................................................................................48
10.1.6
10.1.6.1 10.1.6.2
Modes of Study & Industry Placement ....................................................................................... 48

Perceived Success of different Modes of Study .....................................................................................48 Industry Placement ................................................................................................................................48
10.1.7
10.1.7.1 10.1.7.2 10.1.7.3
RICS Membership Routes and Training ...................................................................................... 48

Routes of membership...........................................................................................................................48 Importance of RICS professional qualification .......................................................................................48 Structured Training Programme for APC................................................................................................48
10.1.8
10.1.8.1 10.1.8.2 10.1.8.3 10.1.8.4 10.1.8.5
Views on the Role of RICS ........................................................................................................... 49

Quality of services provided by the RICS................................................................................................49 Overall level of satisfaction....................................................................................................................49 Level of Communications with Industry.................................................................................................49 Appropriateness of Services...................................................................................................................49 The value of RICS services ......................................................................................................................49
iv
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: RESPONDENT AGE PROFILE FIGURE 2: EXPERIENCE IN QUANTITY SURVEYING .................................... 1 FIGURE 3: TYPE OF COMPANY ........................................................................................................................................ 2 FIGURE 4: ORGANISATION SIZE ...................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 5: ACTIVITIES WHICH MAKE UP INDUSTRY CURRENT WORKLOAD ................................................................................ 3 FIGURE 6: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY ................................................................................................ 4 FIGURE 7: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES - NEW GRADUATE QS........................................ 5 FIGURE 8 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ........................................... 6 FIGURE 9 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION .......................................... 6 FIGURE 10 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ...................................... 7 FIGURE 11: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES - NEW GRADUATE QS ................................................ 8 FIGURE 12 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE CORE COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ................................................... 9 FIGURE 13 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE CORE COMPETENCIES: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION ................................................... 9 FIGURE 14 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE CORE COMPETENCIES: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION............................................... 10 FIGURE 15: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES - NEW GRADUATE QS........................................ 11 FIGURE 16 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ........................................... 12 FIGURE 17 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION .......................................... 12 FIGURE 18 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ........................................ 13 FIGURE 19: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES ..................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 20: LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES .................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 21: TRENDS IN FUTURE AREAS OF WORK .............................................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 22: ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES ...................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 23 RANK SCORE LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES SCORING 1 TO 5; 1 LEAST TO 5 MOST .............................. 19 FIGURE 24: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION OF QS GRADUATES ON RICS QS COMPETENCIES ......................................................... 22 FIGURE 25 EMPLOYERS LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON GRADUATE PERFORMANCE ...................................................................... 23 FIGURE 26: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY............................................. 25 FIGURE 27: LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QS................................................ 26 FIGURE 28: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY .................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 29: INDUSTRY PERCEPTION OF THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ................. 28 FIGURE 30 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ....................... 28 FIGURE 31 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION ...................... 29 FIGURE 32 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION .................... 29 FIGURE 33: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION ...................................... 30 FIGURE 34: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 30 FIGURE 35: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ...................................................... 32 FIGURE 36: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT ........................................................................................................ 32 FIGURE 37: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL .......................................................................... 33 FIGURE 38: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ...................................................................... 34 FIGURE 39: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP.............................................................................. 35 FIGURE 40: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 41: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................ 36 FIGURE 42 IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL STATUS ......................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 43 SHOWS THAT 56 % OF RESPONDENTS REPORTED THAT THEIR FIRM OR COMPANY HAVE A STRUCTURED TRAINING SCHEME IN OPERATION, 44% REPORT THAT THEY DO NOT. THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS WHAT IS PERFORMING WORST WITH 57% NOT HAVING A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME IN THE ORGANISATION.................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 44: AVAILABILITY OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC ....................................................................... 37 FIGURE 45 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC........................................................................ 38
THE ANALYSIS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME BY SECTORS (FIGURE 46) ALSO INDICATES THAT CONSULTANTS ATTACH GREATER IMPORTANCE TO IT THAN BOTH THE CONTRACTORS AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR.................... 38 FIGURE 47: PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED ............................................................................................. 39 FIGURE 48: OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ................................................................................................................. 41 FIGURE 49: LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS .................................................................................................. 42 FIGURE 50: APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 51: DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ........................................................................................................... 43 FIGURE 52 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY: BY SECTOR ............................................................................................ 43
vi
List of Tables
TABLE 1: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ........................................................................ 4 TABLE 2: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES .................................................................................. 7 TABLE 3: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .......................................................................... 11 TABLE 4: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES ....................................................................................................... 14 TABLE 5: NRM INITIATIVES AWARENESS LEVELS .............................................................................................................. 14 TABLE 6: LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES ........................................................................................ 14 TABLE 7: NRM INITIATIVES IMPORTANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 15 TABLE 8: FUTURE AREAS OF WORK FOR QUANTITY SURVEYORS ........................................................................................... 15 TABLE 9: PERCEPTION OF ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES ..................................................................... 16 TABLE 10 PERCEPTION OF ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR AND PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION..................................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 11: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION OF QS GRADUATES LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON RICS QS COMPETENCIES IN MEAN RANK ORDER ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 12 QS GRADUATES LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON RICS QS COMPETENCIES IN MEAN RANK ORDER: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR AND PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ........................................................................................................................ 24 TABLE 13: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY .............................................. 25 TABLE 14: LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QS ................................................. 25 TABLE 15: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY ...................................................................................................... 27 TABLE 16: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE KNOWLEDGE AREAS ........................................ 27 TABLE 17: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ........................................................ 31 TABLE 18: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT .......................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 19: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL ............................................................................ 33 TABLE 20: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ....................................................................... 34 TABLE 21: ANALYSIS OF LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP.............................................................. 35 TABLE 22: ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP .............................................................................. 36 IN TABLE 23 IT IS CLEAR THAT ALMOST 70% OF CANDIDATES GO THROUGH THE GRADUATE ROUTE FROM ORGANISATIONS WHILE FOLLOWED BY SENIOR PROFESSIONAL ROUTE AND ASSOC RICS ROUTE AT 17% AND 13% RESPECTIVELY. .......................... 36 TABLE 24: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................. 36 TABLE 25: ANALYSIS OF IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS ............................................................................. 37 TABLE 26: IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ....................................................... 38 TABLE 27: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED ......................................................... 39 TABLE 28: PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED .............................................................................................. 40 TABLE 28 PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR AND PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION..................................................................................................................................................... 41 TABLE 29: SUMMARY OF OVERALL SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................ 41 TABLE 30: LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS.................................................................................................... 42 TABLE 31: APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 42 TABLE 32: DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 43 TABLE 33 SUMMARY OF OVERALL SATISFACTION AND WHETHER RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR AND PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ............................................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 33 INDICATES THE SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES. THESE REPRESENT A VERY ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF EXPECTATION FOR THE MOST PART EXCEPT FOR M008 HEALTH & SAFETY. MANDATORY COMPETENCIES CANNOT BE EXPECTED BEYOND LEVEL 1 FOR THE MOST PART. .................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 34 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ......................................................................... 45 TABLE 35 INDICATES THAT THE ALL CORE COMPETENCIES ARE EXPECTED BY THE MAJORITY AT LEVEL 2. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS (27%) EXPECTING CORE COMPETENCIES TO BE SATISFIED AT LEVEL 3. THIS
vi i
INCREASES SIGNIFICANTLY TO 37% FOR T074 QUANTIFICATION AND COSTING OF CONSTRUCTION WORKS AND 32% FOR T067
PROJECT FINANCIAL CONTROL AND REPORTING. THIS IS A DISTURBING FINDING AS LEVEL 3 CAN PRACTICABLY BE ACHIEVED BY WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY................................................................................................................................. 45 TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR CORE COMPETENCIES ................................................................................... 45 TABLE 37 INDICATES THAT ALL OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES EXCEPT T016 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION IS EXPECTED TO BE ACHIEVED AT LEVEL 1. THIS IS WHAT THAT CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED. HOWEVER ON OVERALL TERMS THERE ARE GREATER LEVELS OF EXPECTATION (AT LEVEL 2) FROM 34% OF RESPONDENTS FOR T063 PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING AND T077 RISK MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES. ........................................................................................................................... 45 TABLE 38 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ............................................................................. 46
vi ii
Views of Industry
1 Introduction
The industry survey is part of the two surveys carried out as part of the research project. This part provides a detailed analysis of the finding of the survey. A comprehensive survey consisting 39 questions were carried out to ascertain the views of the quantity surveying industrial and professional community across firms in the UK. This included client, consulting and contracting firms representing both private and public sector institutions. According to the RICS there are approximately 7000 Chartered Quantity Surveyors registered in the UK. The survey was posted to a sample of 2946 chartered surveyors with high levels of experience. A total of 615 responded from which 314 were eliminated due to incompleteness of responses leaving 301 sets of fully completed survey responses. The survey data analysis is presented in the following sections using the 301 fully completed survey responses received. The survey achieved a response rate of 21% overall responses and 10% fully completed survey response rates. This was expected as the survey method did not use prior permission for the survey request which was mainly on a voluntary basis. However, the data sample is very much adequate to carry out an analysis with over 99% confidence level as the population size is large (Bartlett et.al. 2001).
2 Respondent Profile
This section provides details of the survey respondent profile.
18 - 24 Years, 0.30% 25 - 34 Years, 11.00% Up to 5 Years, 0.70% Over 30 Years, 43.20% 6 - 10 Years, 7.00% 11 - 20 Years, 19.90% 21 - 30 years, 29.20%
Over 45 Years, 58.50%
35 - 45 Years, 30.20%
Figure 1: Respondent Age Profile
Figure 2: Experience in Quantity Surveying
The respondents were members of the RICS as and 8% were members of the CIOB while further 2% were members of the CICES. This is relevant both to the respondents awareness of and their
Part 5 Introduction
The majority of respondents were within the upper age groups, with 30% at between 35 and 45 years of age and 59% being over 45. As might be expected from the previous response, the majority of respondents (72%) have over 20 years experience quantity surveying.
Views of Industry opinions on the RICS Competencies and services provided by the Institution. Both these last suggest a sound, informed basis for responding to subsequent sections of the questionnaire.
2.1 Respondents Organisation Profile

Whilst the majority of respondents were employed in private [practice, (52%) other sectors were reasonably represented, 17% being engaged in contracting and 15% within the Public sector (Figure 3).
Specialist subcontract or, 1.70% Specialist supplier, 0.00% Public Sector, 14.60%
Other, 15.00% Private practice Quantity Surveyor (consulta nt), 51.80%
Large (> 500), 37.90%
Micro (1 - 10), 26.90%
Contracti ng organisat ion, 16.90%

Figure 3: Type of Company
Medium (100 499), 16.90%

Figure 4: Organisation Size
Small (11 99), 18.30%
There was a fairly even spread across sizes of organisation, from micro (at 27% of respondents) through to large (38%) as indicated in Figure 4.
2.2 Organisations Current Workload

Responses indicate that the principal elements of workload are in the perhaps foreseeable areas of pre contract cost control (13%) and tender documentation (12%) post contract cost control (17%). In addition, project management also features within the top 4 (13%), a reflection, presumably, of new roles not dependent necessarily on traditional tendering procedures. The remaining 44% are spread in a steadily descending order over the remaining suggested duties. In the light of the Industry representatives suggestion, later in the survey, that sustainability (including whole life costing ) will play a major part in their predicted workload it is noticeable that here, within current workload, whole life costing appears at the foot of the list, with only 2% engagement (Figure 5).
Part 5 Respondent Profile
Views of Industry
Percentage Post-contract cost control (Interim valuations to final accounts) Project management Pre-contract cost control (preliminary estimating, cost planning) Tender documentation Other Estimation and bidding Payments and cash flow management Contract formulation and negotiation Dispute resolution Risk management Value management Managing claims Supply chain management Performance management Whole life costing 6.46% 5.70% 5.18% 4.58% 4.27% 3.94% 3.85% 3.14% 2.71% 2.23% 2.03% 13.39% 12.97% 12.19% 17.36%
Figure 5: Activities which make up Industry Current Workload
3 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies

The RICS Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction (2008) indicates that there are 10 Mandatory competencies, 7 Core competencies and 7 Optional competencies that a Chartered Quantity Surveyor should satisfy. This was used as the basis for evaluation of the expected level of competency a graduate QS should achieve at the completion of a RICS accredited QS degree programme. These competencies are to be satisfied in three cumulative stages as indicated below: 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)
Part 5 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies
Views of Industry
69.81% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Mandatory Competencies Core Competencies Optional Competencies 10.16% 23.64% 51.76% 38.08% 26.83% 24.67% 5.51% 49.56%
Level 1
Figure 6: Overview - Expected Graduate Competency
Level 2
Level 3
3.1 Expected Achievement of Mandatory Competencies

The Mandatory competencies represent a set of competencies that needs to be satisfied by most types of chartered surveyors. These are represented by 10 different competencies as indicated in Error! Reference source not found. below.
Table 1: : Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory Competencies
Mandatory Competencies M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working Percentage rank
Level 1 79.40% 85.00% 51.80% 26.90% 41.90% 60.80% 36.20% 49.50% 64.50% 21.60% 51.76%
Level 2 18.60% 13.00% 39.90% 56.80% 37.20% 32.20% 51.20% 41.20% 30.20% 60.50% 38.08%
Level 3 2.00% 2.00% 8.30% 16.30% 20.90% 7.00% 12.60% 9.30% 5.30% 17.90% 10.16%
The overall analysis of the expected competency levels for new QS graduates is given in Figure 6. In the case of Mandatory Competencies ompetencies respondents show appropriate appreciation appreciation of the likely achievement of graduates, strongest at Level 1 whilst weakest at Level 3. But 38% expecting to achieve mandatory competencies at Level 2 seems very high as in most cases the RICS only expects these competencies to be satisfied at Level 1. In the case of Core Competencies, those aligned most closely with traditional skills, expectations are higher more employers expecting attainment of Level 2. Again, 27% expected core competencies to be satisfied at Level 3 raise the issue whethe whether this is pragmatic. Expectations fall again in respect of Optional Competences, understandably as these are, by definition, less likely to be mainstream QS activities.
Views of Industry Generally, respondents had an expectation of skills at Level 1, less so at Level 3, which is to be expected. The highest rated skills at Level 2 by a noticeable margin are in Team Working, Data Management and Communication and Negotiation. It is to be expected perhaps that these, transferable soft skills will be expected of recent graduates, familiar with IT and project work. Scores allotted to Level 3 are understandably low, given that the expectation requirement is that this Level will only be addressed after graduation. Team working at Level 3 does get a significant weighting (17.9%) born, as above of the growing practice of team working within the university curricula. However, over 30% expectation of M003 Client care, M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice, M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures to be achieved at Level 2 seems unrealistic.
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
M001 Accounting principles and 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
M003 Client care
M008 Health and safety M007 Data management M006 Conflict avoidance,
M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 7: Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory Competencies - New Graduate QS
3.1.1
Expected graduate Mandatory competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception Comparative analysis of views for the three main sectors (consulting, contracting and public sector) is presented here.
Views of Industry
M001 Accounting principles and procedures 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
M003 Client care
M008 Health and safety M007 Data management M006 Conflict avoidance, management and Level 1 Level 2
Level 3
Figure 8 Expected levels of graduate Mandatory competencies: Consultant Perception
M001 Accounting principles and procedures 100.00% 80.00% 60.00%
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
M003 Client care
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and resolution Level 1 disputeLevel 2 Level 3

Figure 9 Expected levels of graduate Mandatory competencies: Contractor Perception
Views of Industry
M001 Accounting principles and 100% M010 Team working 80% 60% M009 Sustainability 40% 20% 0% M008 Health and safety M007 Data management M006 Conflict avoidance, Level 1 Level 2 M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and M003 Client care
Level 3
Figure 10 Expected levels of graduate Mandatory competencies: Public Sector Perception
Comparing Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 it is clear that there are more unified views across the three sectors. All expect graduates to have high competencies in Team Working, Data Management and Communication and Negotiation. All sectors were in agreement as to Level 3. The Public sector gave a roughly equal rating to Levels 1 and 2 (at 46% and 42% respectively). Both Consultancies and Contracting organisations showed ratings in the 50-60% range for Level 1 and in the 30-40% range for Level 2. All sectors shared the opinion that the two highest scoring areas were Business Planning and Accounting Principles at Level One. The area of Sustainability achieved equally high scores from all. The pattern for Level 2 was almost identical for Public and Consultancy sectors. Contracting varied, but all three ranked Team Working, Communication and IT highly.
3.2 Expected Achievement of Core Competencies

The Core competencies represent the discipline specific competencies that are essential for the function of quantity surveying. There are 7 different core competencies as indicated in Error! Reference source not found. below.
Table 2: Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies
Core Competencies T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services 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 works Percentage rank
Level 1 32.60% 25.60% 24.60% 27.90% 20.90% 21.30% 12.60% 23.64%
Level 2 45.20% 53.20% 50.50% 50.80% 50.20% 46.50% 50.50% 49.56%
Level 3 22.30% 21.30% 24.90% 21.30% 28.90% 32.20% 36.90% 26.83%
Views of Industry Table 2 indicates that the highest rating is given to attainment at Level 2. This conforms to the common expectation that students will, generally, have attained Level 2 by the time of graduating. Correspondingly, there is a higher rating given for many competencies here at Level 3. Although these are Core Skills it is important to ascertain whether a graduate can be expected to achieve these competencies at Level 3, especially when Level 3 involves performing in the capacity of a client advisor. This either indicates incorrect interpretation of achievement Levels or unrealistic expectations. 37% expects T074 Quantification and costing of construction works be achieved at Level 3 which is significant and highly over rated. A similar situation exists with T067 Project financial control and reporting with 32% having Level 3 expectations. All other competencies have over 20% expectation to be achieved at Level 3. The lowest Level 2 ratings are given to Commercial Management (45.2%) and Project Financial Control and Reporting (46.5%). All others are closely bunched, in the range between 50.2% and 53.2%.
T010 Commercial management of construction 0.6 T074 Quantification and costing of construction works 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 T067 Project financial control and reporting T017 Contract practice T013 Construction technology and environmental services
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 11: Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies - New Graduate QS
Views of Industry 3.2.1 Expected graduate Core competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception Comparative analysis of views for the three main sectors (consulting, contracting and public sector) is presented here.
T010 Commercial management of construction 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
T013 Construction technology and environmental
T067 Project financial control and reporting
T017 Contract practice
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 12 Expected levels of graduate Core competencies: Consultant Perception
T013 Construction technology and environmental
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 13 Expected levels of graduate Core competencies: Contractor Perception
Views of Industry
T013 Construction technology and environmental services
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 14 Expected levels of graduate Core competencies: Public Sector Perception
The comparative analysis indicates that there is greater expectation levels from the Public Sector on graduate competencies than all others with 3 competencies expected at Level 3 by majority and rest at Level 2. Consultants also seem to have higher expectations for T074 Quantification and costing of construction works with considerable numbers expecting it at Level 3. The Contracting sector gave the lowest overall rating to Level 3 skills (13.71% as against 28% and 34% for Consultancy and the Private Sector respectively). All three gave the highest rating at Level 2, which is in line with the traditional expectation that this skill level should have been reached by new graduates. The Consultancy and Public sectors both gave noticeably higher ratings to Quantification than did the Contracting sector. This may be explained by the fact that it is in the former that the most preparation of documents takes place and so for these two, quality is an area of particular significance. Accordingly perhaps, the Contracting sector gave by far the highest rating at Level 2 to Commercial Management. Ratings for Construction Technology at Level 2 were very similar, at 53%, 59% and 50% respectively.
3.3 Expected Achievement of Optional Competencies

The Optional competencies are an indication of subspecialisation of QS services or a reflection of experience gained in relevant areas of specialisation. This also represents an element of choice for the APC candidate. It is expected that at least 2 optional competencies at Level 2 must be satisfied by candidates facing APC. There are 7 optional competencies that are available for APC candidates in quantity surveying.
10
Views of Industry
Table 3: Expected Level of Achievement of Optional Competencies
Optional Competencies T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management Percentage rank
Level 1 85.70% 30.90% 91.70% 83.40% 76.70% 60.80% 59.50% 69.81%
Level 2 13.30% 50.80% 7.30% 13.60% 19.90% 34.20% 33.60% 24.67%
Level 3 1.00% 18.30% 1.00% 3.00% 3.30% 5.00% 7.00% 5.51%
Returning to the pattern shown for Mandatory Competencies, above, the highest Levels of expectation are seen at Level 1, the lowest by far at Level 3. However, there are noticeable extra ordinary levels of expectation for some competencies: T016 Contract administration (over 50%), T063 Programming and planning, and T077 Risk management at over 30%. These could be due to one of these reasons: 1. Greater importance attached to these competencies even though these are currently classified optional competencies. 2. Wrong interpretation of competency achievement Levels.
The levels of expectation for T016 Contract administration are so high that there is more than 18% expectation at Level 3.
T063 Programming and planning
T008 Capital allowances 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
T016 Contract administration Level 1 T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency Level 2 Level 3
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
Figure 15: Expected Level of Achievement of Optional Competencies - New Graduate QS
11
Views of Industry 3.3.1 Expected graduate Optional competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception Comparative analysis of views for the three main sectors (consulting, contracting and public sector) is presented here.
T008 Capital allowances 100.00% T077 Risk management 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% T063 Programming and planning T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T016 Contract administration
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 16 Expected levels of graduate Optional competencies: Consultant Perception
T008 Capital allowances 100.00% 80.00% T077 Risk management 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% T063 Programming and planning T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T016 Contract administration
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 17 Expected levels of graduate Optional competencies: Contractor Perception
12
Views of Industry
T008 Capital allowances 100.00% 80.00% T077 Risk management 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% T063 Programming and planning T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T016 Contract administration
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 18 Expected levels of graduate Optional competencies: Public Sector Perception
All three sectors consider T016 Contract administration the most important Optional competency at Level 2 or 3. In general the Public Sector perceives a higher competency level for T063 Programming and planning and T077 Risk management at Level 2. The order and weighting for these competencies was similar across all sectors, the highest (at Level 1) ranging from 61% to76% and the lowest (at Level 3) between 5% and 9% . The most noticeable exception to the general trend in the award of ratings was where the Public sector rated 34% of Graduates at 34% at Level 3 in the area of Contract Administration, whereas the most common rating at this Level was lesser than 5%.
4 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
This section evaluates the level of awareness of the RICS NRM initiative and the publications of new guidelines for estimating, measurements and whole life costing. Note Scoring range: 1 Least aware to 5 Most aware Responses to this question suggest that the order and extent of awareness of the NRM follow the attention given to these by the media, together with their perceived topicality (Table 4 and Table 5). There is most awareness of the Order of Cost Estimating, which has been published and is already used in some quarters. This is followed by the proposed Whole Life Cycle Costing document. Whilst this has not yet been published it perhaps attracts attention in line with rising awareness of the significance of sustainability-related issues (Figure 19). There may be some caution or indifference to
13
Part 5 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Views of Industry the replacement for SMM7, until it has been published and it can be seen to be an improvement in some way.
Table 4: Level of awareness of NRM Initiatives
NRM Initiative Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning Procurement an alternative to SMM7 Whole Life Costing
Mean 3.12 2.63 2.78
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 3 3 3
Table 5: NRM Initiatives awareness levels
1 16% 25% 22%
2 16% 24% 19%
3 28% 26% 29%
4 20% 14% 19%
5 20% 12% 11%
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
28% 25% 24% 26% 20% 20% 16% 16% 14% 12% 22% 19%
29%
19%
11%
Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning 1
Procurement an alternative to SMM7 2 3 4 5
Whole Life Costing
Figure 19: Level of Awareness of the RICS NRM Initiatives
In evaluating level of importance of these initiatives a similar order has been perceived (Table 6 and Table 7). Here, as above, the document already published receives the highest rating while others in the order of their expected appearance. There is more support here for the replacement to SMM7 than above indicating that this is an important task. Note Scoring range: 1 Least important to 5 Most important
Table 6: Level of Importance of the RICS NRM Initiatives
Mean 3.31 3.09 2.92
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 3 3 3
14
Part 5 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Views of Industry
Table 7: NRM Initiatives importance levels
1 10% 12% 15%
2 15% 22% 20%
3 29% 27% 36%
4 27% 23% 20%
5 19% 16% 11%
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning 1 Procurement an alternative to SMM7 2 3 4 5 10% 15% 29% 27% 19% 12% 22% 27% 23% 16% 15% 20%
36%
20% 11%
Whole Life Costing
Figure 20: Level of Importance of the RICS NRM Initiatives
In overall terms (Figure 20) it is clear that all three aspects of the NRM initiatives are thought to be important for the industry in general.

This section aims to ascertain the views of professionals on the future role of the quantity surveyor and the directions of the industry. It also re-visits QS competencies with the view of ranking competencies based on perceived importance considering future industry workload trends.

Part 5 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor
The perception of industry representatives of future areas of work in the industry was analysed in this question. Refurbishment scored the highest followed closely by new building construction perceived as growth areas for industry. This picks up on the general trend in the preservation and retro-fitting of the existing building stock. Median scores and standard deviation both suggest a degree of disagreement between respondents was fairly low.
Table 8: Future areas of work for Quantity Surveyors
Areas of Work Building Construction Civil Engineering/Infrastructure Building Services Offshore Oil & Gas Facilities Management Refurbishment
Mean 3.71 3.31 3.41 2.30 3.16 3.88
Median 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Mode 3 4 4 2 3 4
Std. Deviation 1.01 1.08 0.97 1.10 1.10 0.91
15
Views of Industry
Trends in future areas of work

Refurbishment Facilities Management Offshore Oil & Gas Building Services Civil Engineering/Infrastructure Building Construction 0.00
Figure 21: : Trends in future areas of work
Mean
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Of other areas suggested by respondents as being potentially important in the future the top 5 most frequently mentioned were: (1) Sustainability, 40 respondents (2) (2) Power Generation and Distribution , 12 respondents (3) Project Management , 8 respondents (4) Alternative Dispute Resolution, Contact Management and Maintenance, Maintenance , 4 respondents each (5) Data management and Employers Agent Duties, 3 respondents.

This section analyses the views of Industry on the perceived level of relative importance of competencies. The respondents were required to score each competency on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 (1least important and 5 - most important). The result of the analysis is presented in Table 9 below.
Table 9: : Perception of order of importance of RICS QS Competencies
RICS Competencies T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T062 Procurement and tendering T017 Contract practice M004 Communication and negotiation T022 Design economics and cost planning T010 Commercial management of construction M003 Client care M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice T016 Contract administration
Mean 4.56 4.40 4.33 4.25 4.20 4.19 4.17 4.01 3.82 3.99
Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Mode 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
0.82 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.90 1.06 1.14 0.92
16
Views of Industry M010 Team working T013 Construction technology and environmental services M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures T077 Risk management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M007 Data management T063 Programming and planning M002 Business planning T045 Insurance T025 Due diligence T008 Capital allowances M001 Accounting principles and procedures T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency 3.99 3.93 3.64 3.51 3.41 3.39 3.22 3.15 2.61 2.80 2.61 2.46 2.50 2.39 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 0.91 1.01 0.95 1.07 1.19 1.14 1.09 1.11 1.05 1.09 1.18 0.89 1.08 1.00
The results show a very low standard deviation for most rankings (except few slightly higher) indicating that the views expressed are more unified and similar to the mean (i.e. results are closely related). As such Figure 22 shows the median distribution of the results. From this analysis it is clear that all Core competencies have been ranked with the highest level of importance followed by mandatory and then Optional competencies for the most part. A median score of 5 has been attached to the Core competencies: T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control and reporting, T074 Quantification and costing of construction works. This is followed by 5 Mandatory competencies, 4 Core competencies and 2 Optional competencies receiving a median score of 4. It is notable that M004 Communication and negotiation, M003 Client care, M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice receiving a very high rating over some Core competencies (these have a mode of 5) followed by M010 Team working and M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures with a mode of 4. It is also noted that T016 Contract administration and T077 Risk management even though set as Optional competencies received a very high median score (4) with a mode of 4 making these significant.
17
Views of Industry
Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies

T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency M001 Accounting principles and procedures T008 Capital allowances T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance M002 Business planning T063 Programming and planning M007 Data management M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety T077 Risk management M006 Conflict avoidance, management and T013 Construction technology and environmental M010 Team working T016 Contract administration M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional M003 Client care T010 Commercial management of construction T022 Design economics and cost planning M004 Communication and negotiation T017 Contract practice T062 Procurement and tendering T074 Quantification and costing of construction T067 Project financial control and reporting 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Median
Figure 22: Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies
18
5.2.1
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 0.00 M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability 1 M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental 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 works T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management 2

3 4 5
Views of Industry
Figure 23 Rank score level of importance of competencies scoring 1 to 5; 1 least to 5 most
19
Relative Importance of the QS Competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception Here, all three sectors returned much the same range of mean scores, relating to the same items. However, on examination of the Median scores some differences emerged. Firstly, the Consultancy sector chose to give maximum importance (a rating of 5) to five areas, the Contracting sector chose three and the Public sector only one, as follows;
Views of Industry
Table 10 Perception of order of importance of RICS QS Competencies: Consultant, Contractor and Public Sector Perception
Consultancy Contract Practice Design economics and Cost Planning Procurement and Tendering Project Financial Control and Reporting Quantification and Costing Commercial Management of Construction SCORE 5 SCORE 5 SCORE 5 SCORE 5 SCORE 5
Contracting
Public
SCORE 5 SCORE 5 SCORE 5
SCORE 5
Whilst this perhaps just reflects the differing types of involvement between Consultancy and Contracting, it is interesting that the Public Sector does not mirror the Consultancy sector more, as the two are performing much the same functions. At the bottom end of the scale, all three sectors are in agreement over the Optional Competencies of Corporate recovery and insolvency and Due Diligence, ranking both at under 3. All three sectors rate the majority of Competencies whether Mandatory or Core at 4.00. Construction Technology is also rated at 4.00 by all three sectors.

This section attempts to capture views on Quantity Surveying education system. The questions primarily refer to courses accredited by the RICS. This section analyses the perception of industry professionals on the level of knowledge of new graduates, the differences in Consultant QS and Contractor QS education, suitability of curricular, delivery of programmes, and university and industry collaboration in QS education.
Part 5 Views on Quantity Surveying Education
6.1 Employers level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement

The respondents were asked whether the graduates meet their expectations with respect to satisfying competencies. The ranking scale used was as follows: 1 - Not at all 2 - Partially 3 - Undecided 4 - Almost fully 5 - Perfectly
20
Views of Industry
Table 11: Employers' Perception of QS Graduates level of satisfaction on RICS QS Competencies in Mean Rank order
Competencies M007 Data management M010 Team working M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice T062 Procurement and tendering T017 Contract practice T013 Construction technology and environmental services T063 Programming and planning T022 Design economics and cost planning T067 Project financial control and reporting T016 Contract administration T008 Capital allowances M004 Communication and negotiation T010 Commercial management of construction M001 Accounting principles and procedures M003 Client care T074 Quantification and costing of construction works M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M002 Business planning T077 Risk management T045 Insurance T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence
Mean 2.96 2.90 2.77 2.60 2.58 2.57 2.55 2.51 2.39 2.59 2.46 2.46 2.11 2.52 2.48 2.40 2.39 2.39 2.38 2.28 2.27 2.07 2.05 2.05
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mode 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 or 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Std. Deviation 0.99 0.89 0.95 0.87 0.92 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.92 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.92 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.88 1.08 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.98
Results in Table 11 show fairly low standard deviation values indicating that scoring is fairly uniform across respondents and near to the mean.
Mean scores (Figure 24) in respect of all competencies lie within the range 2.00 to 3.00, that is, between partially and undecided . This cannot be described as a resounding vote of confidence in the graduates capabilities by any measure. Excluding certain Optional Competencies the lowest score for a Mandatory Competence (2.28) was for Business Planning. The highest three (2.77, 2.90 and 2.96) were for Sustainability, Team Working and Data Management. Core skill ratings ranged between 2.39, for Quantification and costing of construction works, through to 2.59 for design economics and cost planning. It is noticeable that Measurement, one of the most traditional and still sought after skills (See Q.6 and Q.11) receives the lowest rating of all Core Skills.
21
Views of Industry
Mean M007 Data management M010 Team working M009 Sustainability M008 Health and safety T022 Design economics and cost planning M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional T062 Procurement and tendering T017 Contract practice M004 Communication and negotiation T013 Construction technology and environmental T010 Commercial management of construction T016 Contract administration T067 Project financial control and reporting M001 Accounting principles and procedures M003 Client care T063 Programming and planning T074 Quantification and costing of construction M006 Conflict avoidance, management and M002 Business planning T077 Risk management T008 Capital allowances T045 Insurance T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence 2.60 2.59 2.58 2.57 2.55 2.52 2.51 2.48 2.46 2.46 2.40 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.38 2.28 2.27 2.11 2.07 2.05 2.05 2.96 2.90 2.77
Figure 24: Employers' Perception of QS Graduates on RICS QS Competencies
22
It is interesting to note that where there is higher level of expectation for a competency there is lower level of satisfaction. For example competencies such as T074 Quantification and costing of construction works, T010 Commercial management of construction and M003 Client care received high expected competency level resulting in very low satisfaction rating.
Views of Industry
50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional M006 Conflict avoidance, management and T013 Construction technology and T022 Design economics and cost planning T074 Quantification and costing of 0.00 M002 Business planning M004 Communication and negotiation M001 Accounting principles and procedures M003 Client care T062 Procurement and tendering T010 Commercial management of construction T067 Project financial control and reporting T063 Programming and planning T008 Capital allowances T017 Contract practice T025 Due diligence M007 Data management M010 Team working T045 Insurance M008 Health and safety T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T016 Contract administration T077 Risk management M009 Sustainability
Figure 25 Employers level of satisfaction on graduate performance
The most common observations suggested that classroom experience and expectations are very different to those of the workplace Secondly, Graduates display little understanding of how to put (skills) into practice Thirdly, the Competency requirements of the RICS are seen by many as inappropriate to their level or focus of work on graduation Fourthly, Graduates cannot and should not be expected to be as competent as we (the employers) would like them to be Finally, there were a number of employers who stated that they had little experience themselves of employing graduates, and thus they found it hard to give an accurate assessment or opinion.
23
A total of 122 comments were made by those respondents who had given scores of 1 or 2. Some expressed negative feelings towards the training and/or experience of Graduates, whilst others showed understanding of the graduates particular circumstances. The principle areas of comment, in order of incidence, were as follows.
Views of Industry In addition, there were eleven other groups of specific criticisms or observations. None, however, are as frequent as those above. 6.1.1 Level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception In their ratings of graduate capability in individual competencies a similar pattern emerges across all three sectors, mean scores for all but one Competency lying between 2.00 and 3.00. The only exception to this is that graduates are awarded 3.00 in respect of Data Management by both Consultancy and the Private sector (2.95 by Contracting). Looking at the ranked order of ratings those receiving the lowest scores in all three sectors are the Option Competencies. The two top scoring competencies in all three cases are Data management, followed by Team working. Sustainability is in the top four in all cases. Of the two most traditional Quantity Surveying Skills, there are different findings.
Table 12 QS Graduates level of satisfaction on RICS QS Competencies in Mean Rank order: Consultant, Contractor and Public Sector Perception
Competency Construction Technology Quantification and costing
Consultancy 11th Highest 17th Highest
Contracting 10th Highest 7th Highest
Public 11th Highest 15th Highest
Possibly the lower ratings awarded to Quantification skills by both the consultancy and Public sector reflect higher expectations in this area, both being responsible for Bill production and other such documentation whereas the contracting sector is not so engaged in this. It is noticeable that for all three sectors these Core skills are quite far from the top of the list of capabilities as perceived by the respondents to the survey. Whilst Procurement and Tendering came 4th on the Public sector list it was 8th on the Consultancy list. The same Competency was 13th for the Contracting sector. This is perhaps surprising when an increasing proportion of project nowadays are issued by Contractors engaged in Design and Build and the Like.
6.2 Level of awareness of and satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QSs
Of the respondents to this survey (Table 13), over half (52.5%) indicate that they are either not at all or only partially aware of the content of the curricula taught in university. A further 29% perceive to be reasonably aware. This leaves only 18% of this sample of the industry who perceive to be fully aware. This indicates a high degree of disconnect with the QS education system which is worrying as professional education requires good degree of industry-academia collaboration.
24
Views of Industry
Table 13: Level of awareness of the content of the curriculum taught in University
Level of Awareness 1 - Not at all aware 2 - Partially aware 3 - Reasonably aware 4 Aware 5 - Perfectly aware Total Mean = 2.51 Median = 2.00 Std. Deviation = 1.10
Frequency 59 99 88 40 15 301
Percentage 19.60% 32.90% 29.20% 13.30% 5.00% 100.00%
35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at all aware 2 - Partially aware 3 - Reasonably aware 4 - Aware 5 - Perfectly aware
Figure 26: Level of awareness of the content of the curriculum taught in University
Table 14: Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QS
Level of Satisfaction 1 - Not satisfied 2 - Partially satisfied 3 - Reasonably satisfied 4 - Satisfied 5 - Perfectly satisfied Total Mean = 2.29 Median = 2.00 Std. Deviation = 0.85
Frequency 47 113 85 17 1 263
Percentage 17.90% 43.00% 32.30% 6.50% 0.40% 100.00%
25
Analysing Table 14, 60% of Employer respondents were dissatisfied or only partially satisfied with the curriculum. Those reasonably satisfied or better amounted to only 40%. This directly corresponds with the views expressed on awareness with the curricular. Therefore it is not surprising that the industry respondents would be less satisfied with the QS curricular as they are clearly not aware of what is being included in the curricular used.
Views of Industry
50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not satisfied 2 - Partially satisfied 3 - Reasonably satisfied 4 - Satisfied 5 - Perfectly satisfied
Figure 27: Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QS
6.3 Areas not adequately covered by the curriculum

Altogether there were 150 responses to this optional question. There was a wide variety of demands, some quite specific, reflecting the particular needs of individual practices. However, some general trends emerged also. A call was made for more coverage of QS Skills generally (citing technology, measurement, estimating, pricing and the like) by 12 respondents. An increased concentration on Measurement was requested by 41 respondents and an increase in technology-related subjects was requested by 31. Other main area where respondents sought more work was Legal /contractual skills (6). Further 12 respondents suggested that graduates lacked practical, industry experience.
6.4 The level of confidence in Lecturers programme delivery capability

There was generally reasonable to full confidence with the level of lecturers academic knowledge, QS Practice and Use of teaching materials. The rank criteria used were: 1 - Not at all confident 2 - Partially confident 3 - Reasonably confident 4 - Confident 5 - Fully confident
26
Views of Industry
Table 15: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability
Criterion Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Practice Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
1 0% 7% 1%
2 6% 37% 15%
3 30% 37% 45%
4 44% 16% 34%
5 19% 3% 5%
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
44% 37% 37% 30% 19% 7%
45% 34%
16% 3%
15% 5%
6% 0% Academic Knowledge
1%
Quantity Surveying Practice
Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
1
Figure 28: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability
Table 16: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability in the following three knowledge areas
Mean Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Practice Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials) 3.77 2.70 3.28
Median 4.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 4 2, 3 (Bimodal) 3
This would be encouraging to the academia to see that the industry in general has reasonable degree of confidence in the academia to deliver QS programmes. However, only 59% were reasonably confident of the QS Practice skills of academics.

The majority of respondents considered (Figure 29) the Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation to be more valuable than the production of a Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying, by a ratio of 57% to 43%. This mirrors the popular conception of the Industrys response to academia, although in fact the gap is narrower than might have been expected.
27
Views of Industry
43% 57%
Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
Figure 29: Industry Perception of the Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
This is a very important factor that academia, industry and the RICS must fully resolve as the focus of academic programmes in quantity surveying will have to be adjusted accordingly. accordingly. 6.5.1 The Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception Comparative analysis of views for the three main sectors (consulting, contracting and public sector) is presented here.
37% 63%
Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying
Figure 30 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Consultant Perception
28
Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
Views of Industry
47% 53%
Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying
Figure 31 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Contractor Perception Perception
48% 52%
Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying
Figure 32 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Public Sector Perception
A simple explanation for this could be the fact that private sector being largely profit profit-driven is always on the look-out out for employees who can hit the ground running with little or no training. On the contrary, the public sector which seems too often consider the bigger picture is in a better position to look at the more important long-term long benefits of providing on-the-job job training to the right candidates with basic academic ademic knowledge.
29
Comparing Figure 30, Figure 31 and Figure 32, , it is fascinating to see that the public sector holds entirely different view to that of consultant and contractor on this particular issue. Whilst the latter two went with the popular industry industry notion about QS education that Universities should concentrate on training Quantity surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation, the majority of the public sector respondents still believe that Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying.
Views of Industry

Over 50% of respondents were either willing or very willing to collaborate with universities. Only 11% were unwilling. This is encouraging. Through active collaboration lies the route to better understanding in areas such as analysis above (6.5).
40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at all willing 2 - Partially willing 3 - Unsure 4 - Willing 5 - Very willing
Figure 33: Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with Universities on QS Education
Notwithstanding the above enthusiasm (Figure 33) those stating that are actually likely to commit time to such commitment amount to only 28% of all respondents (Figure 34). Given their enthusiasm to collaborate it is perhaps shortage of time or opportunity which prevents actual involvement?
40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1 - Not at all likely 2 - Partially likely 3 - Unsure 4 - Likely 5 - Very Likely
Figure 34: Possibility to commit time for industry collaborative activities
30
Views of Industry
.
If the enthusiasm expressed for collaboration can be converted to real time commitment both the industry and academia will benefit immensely.

This section attempts to capture the views of industry on the different modes of study and industry placement offered for undergraduates undertaking Quantity Surveying programmes. Seven alternative modes of study were presented for evaluation as indicated in Table 15. Respondents were requested to indicate preferences on 1 to 7 as Most to Least preferred.
Table 17: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
Modes of Study Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study Full time postgraduate study - non-cognate route Part time postgraduate study - non-cognate route Total
1 1.00
2 0.7
3 4.00
4 8.00
5 32.60
6 15.30
7 34.90
Total 100.00
4.00
15.60
26.20
26.60
13.60
9.30
1.70
100.00
39.50
31.90
14.60
7.60
3.30
1.00
100.00
5.30
24.30
26.60
21.60
12.00
5.60
2.70
100.00
45.50 1.00 3.00 100.00
11.00 3.30 11.60 100.00
13.30 3.70 9.60 100.00
11.00 8.60 13.60 100.00
10.00 10.00 15.00 100.00
4.00 36.20 24.30 100.00
3.30 32.60 19.90 100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00
31
Part 5 Modes of Study & Industry Placement
Of the seven possible study patterns (Figure 35 and Table 17) the highest, most positive, score was given to Part time undergraduate university study, followed by full-time undergraduate study with a 1 year placement. The least popular routes were full-time postgraduate study non-cognate route, followed by full time undergraduate university study with no prior experience and no placement. The negative response of the industry sample to postgraduate study for non- cognate graduates is note worthy, given the particular push given to this route in recent years by the RICS.
Views of Industry
50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study
Figure 35: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
7.2 Industry Placement in Construction Organisation

Generally, industry commitment to placements (Table 18 & Figure 36) is sound, and will be maintained to some extent ent in time of recession, bearing out the support shown above ( (7.1) for new employees with some experience of the industry.
Table 18: Level of commitment to placement
Level of Commitment General long term view During a recession
Mean 3.49 2.79
Median 4.00 3.00
Mode 3 3
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 8%
18% 13% 13%
15%
1 - Not at all committed
2 - Partially committed
3 - Committed
4 - Very Committed
5 - Fully committed

Figure 36: Level of commitment to placement
During a recession
32
30%
27%
28% 28%
26%
26%
Views of Industry 80% of respondents indicated that they were committed to industry placement which dropped to 56% during recession periods. Over 85% of the employer sample recognises the importance of a structured placement training model (Table 19). Again, this is consistent with responses analysed in 7.1 and 7.2 above.
Table 19: Importance of a structured placement training model
Level of Importance 1 - Not at all important 2 - Partially important 3 - Important 4 - Very important 5 - Extremely important Total Mean = 3.86 Median = 4.00 Std. Deviation = 1.06 Mode = 5
Frequenc y 8 21 76 86 102 293
Percenta ge 2.70% 7.20% 25.90% 29.40% 34.80% 100.00%
1 - Not at all important , 2.70%
5Extremely important , 34.80%
2Partially important , 7.20% 3Important , 25.90%
4 - Very important , 29.40%
Figure 37: Importance of a structured placement training model
7.3 Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement

This section analyses the views of respondents on perceived benefits of placement (Table 20 & Figure 38). Responses varied to the options offered considerably. There is the greatest agreement with the first section of the question, where 89% feel it to be a good test bed for potential staff after graduation, only 1% disagree with this. They see it as a trail period of employment to test the suitability of a future permanent employee. There is no consensus upon whether the Placement period can be seen as a good source of economic and flexible labour. 30% feel that it can, 34% that it cannot, and 34% uncertain. This is a contentious question where hard opinions are tested. The opinions are evenly divided as 34% stated they are uncertain. In answer to part three, 46% of respondents feel the Placement to be a source of new ideas from current education, 36% disagree with this and the remainder are uncertain. This shows that there is reasonably high perception that placement positively contributes the employer. Finally, 61% of respondents feel that the Placement Year allows for the two-way flow of knowledge between university and industry, 30% do not, the remaining 9% are uncertain. This is significant and very positive and is very much in line with the opinions expressed for the areas analysed before (7.1, 7.2 and 7.3).
33
Views of Industry
Table 20: Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement
Criteria It is a good test bed for potential staff after graduation It is a source of economic and flexible labour It provides source of new ideas from current education It allows for a two way flow of knowledge between universities and industry
Yes 91.19% 29.90% 45.70% 60.82%
Uncertain 7.46% 35.40% 35.74% 29.90%
No 1.36% 34.71% 18.56% 9.28%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% It is a good test bed for potential staff after graduation It is a source of economic and flexible labour It provides source of It allows for a two new ideas from way flow of current education knowledge between universities and industry No
Yes
Uncertain
Figure 38: Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement

This section evaluates the level of understanding on the routes of membership and their appropriateness in producing chartered surveyors. It also investigates the influences of other professional bodies and training of APC candidates.

The RICS has three main routes of membership available for prospective members joining. The level of awareness of these routes of membership within industry and their perception on the appropriateness of these routes in producing a competent chartered surveyor was evaluated in the following sections. 8.1.1 Level of awareness This section investigates the level of understanding of the three main routes of membership available for members to become a chartered surveyor.
34
Part 5 RICS Membership Routes and Training
Views of Industry
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
43% 33% 27% 18% 19% 9% 8% 3% 1 - Not at all Graduate route 2 3 4 5 - Perfectly well 8% 17%
29% 20%
25%
20% 21%
Figure 39: Level of understanding of the routes of membership Table 21: Analysis of level of understanding of the routes of membership
RICS membership routes Graduate route Assoc RICS route (associate) Senior Professional route
Mean 4.00 3.23 3.31
Median 4.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 5 3 3
It is clear that the Graduate route of membership is the most well understood route while other two routes are equally understood. This is somewhat expected given that these two were recently introduced where as the graduate route has been well established over the years. There are 27% each who do not clearly understand the Assoc RICS route as well as the Senior professional route. These are significant numbers and can have a detrimental impact on the RICS membership recruitment when employers do not clearly understand routes of membership to their professional body. 8.1.2
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 - Not at all appropriate Graduate route 2 3 4 5 - Very appropriate 1% 4% 4% 8% 13% 8% 13% 29%
The appropriateness of routes of membership

39% 29% 30% 31% 36%
33% 23%
Figure 40: Level of Appropriateness of routes of membership
35
Views of Industry Ratings in response to this question are very close, all deemed to be fairly appropriate appropriate, but with the most popular being the Graduate Route , least most popular being the Associate Route. There is 17% and 12% who see both Senior Professional route and Assoc RICS route are inappropriate respectively.
Table 22: Analysis of Appropriateness of routes of membership
RICS membership routes Graduate route Assoc RICS route (associate) Senior Professional route
Mean 3.85 3.36 3.67
Median 4.00 3.00 4.00
Mode 5 3 4
8.1.3 Support given to candidates to attain professional qualification In Table 23 it is clear that almost 70% of candidates go through the graduate route from organisations while followed by Senior professional route and Assoc RICS route ro ute at 17% and 13% respectively.
Table 24: Candidates supported through routes of membership
RICS membership routes Graduate route Assoc RICS route (associate) Senior Professional route Total
Percentage 69.64% 13.09% 17.27% 100.00%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Graduate route Assoc RICS Senior route Professional (associate) route
Figure 41: Candidates supported through routes of membership
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 4% 33% 46%
68%
24% 4%
27% 7% 13%
28% 14% 11%
24% 8% 7% 4% 7% 6% 11%
1 - Not important
2 - Little important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
RICS Figure 42 Importance of Professional status
CIOB
CICES
Other
36
56%
Views of Industry The RICS was judged to be the most appropriate organisation, rated twice as important as either CIOB or CICES. This might be accounted for by the fact that most of the respondents (98%) were members themselves of the RICS.
Table 25: Analysis of Importance of attaining Chartered status
Professional Institutions Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors RICS Chartered Institute of Builders CIOB Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors CICES Other
Mean 4.25 2.32 2.00 1.82
Median 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
Mode 5 1 1 1
Std. Deviation 1.05 1.21 1.18 1.37
8.3 Availability and Importance of a Structured Training Programme for APC

8.3.1 Availability of a Structured Training Programme Figure 43 shows that 56 % of respondents reported that their firm or company have a structured training scheme in operation, 44% report that they do not. The Public Sector is what is performing worst with 57% not having a Structured Training Programme in the organisation.
70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 56% 44% 35% 65% 61%
57% 43% Have a Structured Training Programme No Structured Training Programme
39%
Figure 44: Availability of Structured Training Programme for APC
44% of organisations not having a Structured Training Programme are a matter of grave concern especially when the respondents overwhelmingly perceive it to be a very important aspect of the APC training. Surprisingly perhaps, whilst over 60 % of both Consultancy and Construction sectors (65% and 61% respectively) responded that they do indeed have such a Training Programme, the figure for the Public sector is only 43%. This last is an area where one might have expected quite high levels of provision of staff training.
37
Views of Industry 8.3.2 Importance of Structured Training Programme 70% of respondents suggested that having a Structured Training Programme is very or extremely important. Only 8% felt it to be not important at all. This should be read and considered in the light of the responses in the analysis above (8.3.1).
Table 26: Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC candidates
Level of Importance 1 - Not important at all 2 - Little important 3 - Important 4 - Very important 5 - Extremely important Total
Frequency 24 19 47 79 132 301
Percentage 8.00% 6.30% 15.60% 26.20% 43.90% 100.00%
Mean = 3.92 Median = 4.00 Mode = 5 Std. Deviation = 1.25 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 31%31% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Total ConsultantContractor Public Sector 26% 16% 24% 13% 22% 25% 21% 44% 39% 1 - Not important at all 2 - Little important 3 - Important 4 - Very important 5 - Extremely important
52%
The analysis of the importance of the structured training programme by sectors (Figure 46) also indicates that Consultants attach greater importance to it than both the Contractors and the Public Sector. This is considered to be highly important by 52% of Consultancy respondents, by 31% of Contractors and by 39% of the Private sector. Thus, whilst the Private sector rates the need for such provision as noticeably higher than do contractors, actual provision seems much lower, if the figures reported in 32 (above) are correct. It is perhaps not surprising to see the figure for Consultancies to be the highest, as they have traditionally had the strongest links with the RICS and its qualification structures.
38
Figure 45 Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC
Views of Industry

This section attempts to capture the views of the industry on RICS as a professional body regulating the Quantity Surveying profession.

Table 27: Summary of Analysis of perception on quality of services provided
RICS Services Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A Developing standards and new methods of practice B Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession - D Dissemination of related information - E Influencing related national policy - F Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession - G General member services (directory, journal, benefits scheme etc..) - H
Mean 3.60 3.32 3.19 3.23 2.98 2.86 3.31 2.86
Median 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
Std. Deviation 1.11 1.01 1.04 1.17 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.09
Responses to this question produced a fairly consistent result across all of the suggested services, all having a median score of 3 except for (A) Regulating the QS profession where the score was 4. The lowest ratings (mean scores) being given to (H) General member servicers and (F) the influence the RICS might have on national policy. The lower standard deviation indicates that the responses across sectors are fairly uniform (detailed analysis of data confirms this as well).
45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% A B 1 - Very poor service C 2 D 3 4 E F G H 4% 6% 7% 10% 10% 12% 9% 34% 24% 39% 34% 28% 40% 31% 30% 25% 19% 13% 17% 39% 41% 35% 29%
39%
5 - Very highly rated service
Figure 47: Perception on quality of services provided
39
Part 5 Views on the Role of RICS
Views of Industry
Generally a mid-point, neutral score was given to the above listed services. The Institution fares best in respect of its regulation of the QS Profession and in its provision of CPD. One of its poorest ratings was in respect of its influencing of national policy which perhaps the RICS would have to consider it its own policy directions.
Table 28: Perception on quality of services provided
Service Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession Developing standards and new methods of practice Regulation of Quantity Surveying education World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession Dissemination of related information Influencing related national policy Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession General member services (directory, journal, benefits scheme etc...)
Code A B C D E F G
1 4.20% 6.30% 6.80% 10.30% 10.00% 12.30% 8.60%
2 13.60% 10.50% 15.50% 15.20% 19.60% 23.10% 13.70%
3 24.40% 39.00% 39.60% 29.80% 39.30% 38.60% 29.20%
4 34.10% 33.80% 28.10% 30.90% 25.00% 18.80% 35.40%
5 23.70% 10.50% 10.10% 13.80% 6.10% 7.20% 13.10%
12.60%
21.80%
40.70%
16.80%
8.10%
9.1.1
Quality of services provided by the RICS: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception
The most satisfactory provision, for all respondents, appears to be Regulation of the Profession, whilst the area where there is universal dissatisfaction is General Member services.
40
It will be seen from the chart below that the greatest contentment with RICS services is shown, in every case, by respondents from the Public sector. Correspondingly, this sector registers the lowest levels of dissatisfaction. The least contentment is shown in the highest number of areas (5/8) by the Contracting sector, although the differences between this sector and the Consultancy sector are not as great as between these and the Public sector.
Views of Industry
Table 29 Perception on quality uality of services provided by the RICS: Consultant, contractor and Public Sector Perception
Consultant QS Service Regulating the Profession Developing Standards Regulating QS Education World-wide Representatn Dissemination of Info. Influencing Nat.Policy Continued CPD Genera Member Services Poor / V.poor 16% 15% 21% 30% 32% 40% 29% 28%
Contractor QS Poor / V.poor 24% 24% 24% 24% 35% 28% 17% 34%
Public Sector QS Poor / V Poor 17% 10% 21% 19% 16% 24% 14% 28%
Consultant QS Good/ V.Good 57% 42% 38% 40% 26% 22% 42% 20%
Contractor QS Good/ V.Good 52% 30% 28% 44% 26% 19% 45% 23%
Public Sector QS Good/ V.Good 57% 52% 41% 50% 37% 35% 60% 35%
The most common response lay in the mid range of scores, with only 24% of respondents being very or highly satisfied and 31% being satisfied little or not at all. all The low standard deviation indicates that the results are fairly uniform across sectors as well (confirmed by the detailed data anal analysis as well).
Table 30: Summary of Overall Satisfaction
Figure 48: Overall level of satisfaction
41
Level of Satisfaction 1 - Not satisfied 2 3 4 5 - Fully satisfied Total Mean = 2.87 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 0.98 Mode = 3
Frequenc y 32 61 134 63 11 301
Percentag e 10.60% 20.30% 44.50% 20.90% 3.70% 100.00%
1 - Not satisfied
5 - Fully satisfied
4% 21% 11% 20%
45%
Views of Industry
9.3 Industry level of Communications with the RICS

Again, most responses fell in the mid range, 33% being very or highly satisfied and 28% being satisfied little or not at all.
Table 31: Level of Communication with members
Level of Communication 1 - Very poor 2 3 4 5 - Very good Total Mean = 3.04 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 1.03 Mode = 3
Frequen cy 25 58 118 80 20 301
Percenta ge 8.30% 19.30% 39.20% 26.60% 6.60% 100.00%
1 - Very poor
5 - Very good
27%
7% 8%
19%
39%
Figure 49: Level of Communication with members
9.4 Appropriateness of Services provided by the RICS to Industry

The majority of respondents felt that RICS responds unsatisfactorily towards their needs. 39% of responses fell below the midpoint, 36% at mid point and only 25 % above this. This is an important factor for RICS to further consider.
Table 32: Appropriateness of RICS Services
Level of Appropriateness 1 - Not at all appropriate 2 3 4 5 - Very appropriate Total Mean = 2.77 Median = 3.00 Std. Deviation = 1.01 Mode = 3
Frequen cy 35 83 109 65 9 301
Percenta ge 11.60% 27.60% 36.20% 21.60% 3.00% 100.00%
1 - Not at all appropriate 3 5 - Very appropriate 3% 22%
2 4 12% 27%
36%
Figure 50: Appropriateness of RICS Services
9.5 The value of RICS services

Only 15% of respondents consider that RICS Membership Memb provides good od or very good value for money. The majority 55% consider RICS services do not provide value for money. Further 29% remains in the midpoint. This is one of the most important factors the RICS need to consider for the future.
42
Views of Industry
Table 33: Do RICS provide value for money
Value for Money 1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5 - Very good value for money Total Mean = 2.39 Median = 2.00 Std. Deviation = 1.08 Mode = 2
Frequen cy 70 100 86 33 12 301
Percenta ge 23.30% 33.20% 28.60% 11.00% 4.00% 100.00% 29%
1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5 - Very good value for money 4% 11% 23%
33%
Figure 51: Do RICS provide value for money
60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Total Consultant Contractor Public Sector 33% 23% 1 - Not at all 31% 25% 20% 14% 18% 7% 2 3 4 5 - Very good value for money
Figure 52 Do RICS provide value for money: money by sector
9.5.1
43
Overall level of satisfaction with and the value of RICS services: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception The results related to Overall service and Value for money for the RICS services are shown in the same Table 34 below as they are related. related As before, the highest levels of satisfaction ction are registered by those in the Public sector, as are the lowest levels of dissatisfaction. The Contracting sector emerges here as noticeably discontent than either of the other sectors, particularly in its measure of the overall value for money of membership. membership. Here though, even the Public sector only 50% of respondents rate the value for money as above poor or very poor.
Views of Industry
Table 34 Summary of Overall Satisfaction and whether RICS provide value for money: Consultant, Contractor and Public Sector Perception
Consultant QS Service Poor / V.poor 33%
Contractor QS Poor / V.poor 33%
Public Sector QS Poor / V Poor 25%
Consultant Contractor Public QS QS Sector QS Good/ Good/ Good/ V.Good V.Good V.Good 23% 16% 29%
Overall level of satisfaction with RICS services Is Membership good value for money
56%
63%
50%
13%
6%
23%
10 Conclusions
The survey received a very good level of response with 615 overall responses from which 301 were fully complete. The incomplete responses were removed from analysis for greater consistency of the analysis. The population size of chartered surveyors is estimated at 7000. This data sample is very much adequate to carry out an analysis with over 99% confidence level as the population size is large (Bartlett et.al. 2001). The overwhelming majority of respondents were well experienced chartered surveyors well over 10 years experience. Majority represented the private sector consultants amounting to 52% followed by 17% in contracting, 15% in the public sector. These in tern represented 38% large, 17% medium 18% small and 27% micro level organisations. The survey therefore achieved a balanced and representative composition of experienced chartered quantity surveyors from the UK construction industry.
10.1 Key findings of the Industry Survey

The following sections provide the highlights of the 6 main areas evaluated under the study. 10.1.1 Organisations current workload The survey indicated that the current main areas of work load as: post contract cost control (17%), pre contract cost control (13%), project management (13%), and tender documentation (12%) as the top 4. 10.1.2 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies All 24 competencies prescribed for the QS pathway were analysed to find the level of expectation of fulfilment of the competencies by newly qualified graduate quantity surveyors. In the absence of a standard benchmark for judging graduate competence, unrealistic expectations were observed. 27% of respondents expected Core competencies to be achieved at Level 3. 10.1.2.1 Mandatory competencies Table 35 indicates the summary of expected levels of mandatory competencies. These represent a very acceptable level of expectation for the most part except for M008 Health & Safety. Mandatory competencies cannot be expected beyond Level 1 for the most part. Perera & Pearson, 2011
Part 5 Conclusions
44
Views of Industry
Table 36 Summary of expected levels for mandatory competencies
Mandatory Competencies M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working
Level 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 or 2 1 2
Expectation of Level 2 competency for M004, M007 and M010 is reasonable given that most undergraduate programmes aim to achieve these competencies at a higher level. However, there are a considerable number of respondents (38%) expecting Mandatory competencies to be achieved at Level 2. These are in the cases of M003 Client care, M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice, M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures and M009 Sustainability. These seem very unrealistic to expect a newly qualifying graduate to possess. 10.1.2.2 Core competencies Table 37 indicates that the all core competencies are expected by the majority at Level 2. However, there are a considerable number of respondents (27%) expecting core competencies to be satisfied at Level 3. This increases significantly to 37% for T074 Quantification and costing of construction works and 32% for T067 Project financial control and reporting. This is a disturbing finding as Level 3 can practicably be achieved by working in the industry.
Table 38 Summary of expected levels for core competencies
Core Competencies T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services 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 works
Level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
45
Part 5 Conclusions
10.1.2.3 Optional competencies Table 39 indicates that all optional competencies except T016 Contract administration is expected to be achieved at Level 1. This is what that can be reasonably expected. However on overall terms there are greater levels of expectation (at Level 2) from 34% of respondents for T063 Programming and planning and T077 Risk management competencies.
Views of Industry
Table 40 Summary of expected levels for optional competencies
Optional Competencies T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
Level 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
The absence of a guide benchmark for assessing graduate competency levels is the key factor that arises from this analysis. 10.1.3 RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives The industry respondents indicated that there is only an average level of awareness of all three NRM initiatives. 40% of respondents expressed above midpoint awareness levels for Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning which is already published which drops to around 20% for the other two initiatives. The levels of importance of these initiatives follow a similar pattern. The Whole Life Costing initiative can be considered as the least important of the three. 10.1.4 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor Refurbishment has been ranked highest as the growth area for work for quantity surveyors while closely followed by Building Construction and Building services. Notably Civil Engineering construction received a lower ranking. 10.1.4.1 Order of importance of QS competencies All 7 Core competencies were ranked high as being most important with top 4 competencies form all 24 competencies being (in order of mean scores): 1. 2. 3. 4. T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T062 Procurement and tendering 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):
Part 5 Conclusions
1. T016 Contract administration 2. T077 Risk management These would be as mostly expected with T067 Project financial control and reporting seen to be the most important of all competencies.
46
Views of Industry 10.1.5 Views on Quantity Surveying Education 10.1.5.1 Employers level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement Mean scores (Figure 24) in respect of all competencies lie within the range 2.00 to 3.00, that is, between partially satisfied and undecided . This indicates that the industry employers are generally not satisfied with the level of graduate performance. The highest satisfaction levels are indicated for 4 Mandatory competencies. The top 5 competencies are: 1. M007 Data management 2. M010 Team working 3. M009 Sustainability 4. M008 Health and safety 5. T022 Design economics and cost planning The least satisfied Core competency is T074 Quantification and costing of construction works followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two most important competencies ranked in the previous analysis. This raises an important issue that there is significant level of dissatisfaction in the industry as to the ability of graduates to perform core QS functions. 10.1.5.2 Level of awareness and satisfaction with the curriculum Of the respondents to this survey (Table 13), over half (53%) indicate that they are either not at all or only partially aware of the content of the curricula taught in university. A further 29% perceive to be reasonably aware. This leaves only 18% of this sample of the industry who perceive to be fully aware. This indicates a high degree of disconnect with the QS education system which is worrying as professional education requires good degree of industry-academia collaboration. 60% of Employer respondents were dissatisfied or only partially satisfied with the curriculum. Those reasonably satisfied or better amounted to only 40%. This directly corresponds with lack of awareness indentified above. Curricular used for programme delivery are continuously updated and it may not be surprising that most senior industry practitioners not being aware of the curricular used in universities. Most respondents when further probed on areas that they feel need more coverage identified technology, measurement and estimating as the areas need attention. 10.1.5.3 The level of confidence on programme delivery The Industry respondents were fairly confident (reasonably confident to fully confident) that very good standards are maintained with respect to: Academic knowledge (93%), QS practice knowledge (56%) and use of teaching material (84%). In comparison to the level of dissatisfaction expressed in terms of graduate quality and curricular this is quite striking. 10.1.5.4 The role of universities producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor A resounding 57% indicated that Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation to be more valuable than the production of a Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying at 43%. This indicates that industry ethos is Training for professional employment as opposed to Educating graduates for professional employment.
47
Part 5 Conclusions
Views of Industry 10.1.5.5 Industry Academia Collaboration 54% of industry respondents indicated that they are willing to collaborate with universities on QS education. However, the figure drops to 29% when asked about the likelihood of committing time for university-industry collaborative activities. 10.1.6 Modes of Study & Industry Placement 10.1.6.1 Perceived Success of different Modes of Study Industry respondents were of the view that part time undergraduate studies produce the best quality of QS graduate which was very closely followed up by full time study with 1 year industry placement. It is important to note that the emphasis and value attached to the role of industry placement as highly valued by industry respondents. 10.1.6.2 Industry Placement A high degree of commitment to placement was expressed by industry respondents with 80% committed to placement dropping 56% during recession. A placement training model was considered very to extremely important for the success of industrial placements by 64% of respondents. A further 26% stated it as important. This implies there is a very good need to provide such structured training during industrial placements. Industry respondents also indicated that Placements act as an employment test bed for the employer and it allows two way flow of knowledge indicating that placement help to improve the organisational knowledge base. 10.1.7 RICS Membership Routes and Training 10.1.7.1 Routes of membership The Graduate route of membership is clearly the most well understood route of membership (with 72% understanding it very well) followed by Senior Professional route (46%) and Assoc RICS (40%). Same patter was found in terms of appropriateness of routes. Over 70% APC candidates supported by the industry went through the Graduate route followed by Senior professional route (17%) and Assoc RICS (13%). 10.1.7.2 Importance of RICS professional qualification The RICS membership was by far the most important qualification for a QS graduate followed by CIOB. 93% ranked membership of RICS as very or extremely important with comparative figures for CICES and CIOB dropping to 27% and 43% respectively. It is interesting to note that 33% and 46% respectively indicated that CICES and CIOB membership is not important. 10.1.7.3 Structured Training Programme for APC Only 56% of organisations reported as having a structured training programme for APC candidates with the lowest reported from the Public Sector (43%). This is a significant drawback in provision of required training for Quantity Surveyors. More than 85% considered it as important (to extremely important). In analysing the sectors it was clear that both the Public sector and Contractors had less belief in structured training programmes than Consultants.
48
Part 5 Conclusions
Views of Industry 10.1.8 Views on the Role of RICS 10.1.8.1 Quality of services provided by the RICS The top 3 services provided by the RICS with over 60% rating it highly or very highly rated service are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession - G Developing standards and new methods of practice B World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession - D
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating of 38% for highly or very highly rated service is seen as a negative reflection of views on RICS involvement in graduate education. The lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services G and Influencing related national policy F as lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the profession at national level and be able to influence national policy. 10.1.8.2 Overall level of satisfaction Only 24% indicated overall higher level of satisfaction with the majority (44%) stickling to a mid level of satisfaction. 31% has indicated a degree of dissatisfaction. This indicates that industry expect a higher level of service from the RICS than what is currently provided. 10.1.8.3 Level of Communications with Industry Only 33% indicated that there is good level of communication between Industry and RICS whereas 28% expressed a degree of dissatisfaction. This is an important aspect the RICS as a professional body would have to consider. 10.1.8.4 Appropriateness of Services Only 25% of industry respondents perceive that RICS provide an appropriate type and level of service to the industry members with further 36% indicating a mid level and 39% expressing dissatisfaction. This is an area RICS could consider how they can improve and greater dialogue and liaison with industry would be recourse for improvement. 10.1.8.5 The value of RICS services There is significant discontent here with 56% expressing there is poor value for money in RICS services as a professional body. 29% reminded at mid point while 15% indicated that they see value for money in RICS services. Value is a direct function of cost and level of service received in return. This indicates that there is a generally higher fee in proportion to the level of service received. This can also be a result of detachment with the professional body and its activities.
49
Part 5 Conclusions
Alignment of Professional, Academic and Industrial Development Needs for Quantity Surveyors: Competency Mapping
Part 6 Competency Mapping Case Studies

January 2011
Part 6 Contents
ii
List of Contents
PART 6 CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................III LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... V 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 COMPETENCY MAPPING METHOD .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Mapping Process............................................................................................................................... 3 2 3 4 OVERALL TOTAL COVERAGE OF ALL COMPETENCIES BY UNIVERSITIES ....................................................3 INTER-LEVEL SPLIT ACROSS UNIVERSITIES ...............................................................................................4 COVERAGE OF SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES BY UNIVERSITIES ......................................................................4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ....................................................................................................................... 4 CORE COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................................................. 7 OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ......................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................12 5.1 5.2 KEY FINDINGS OF THE COMPETENCY MAPPING............................................................................................... 12 LIMITATIONS OF MAPPING ......................................................................................................................... 13
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Competency Mapping Matrix form .......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Mandatory Competency mapping scores: Level 1.................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 1 .............................................................................. 9 Figure 4 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2 ............................................................................10 Figure 5 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1......................................................................12
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Map scoring system.................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Total mapping score comparison ............................................................................................... 3 Table 3 Final Scores by competency level............................................................................................... 4 Table 4 Summary of scores for Mandatory competencies ..................................................................... 5 Table 5 Summary of scores for Core competencies ............................................................................... 8 Table 6 Summary of scores for Core competencies .............................................................................11
Competency Mapping
1 Introduction
A detailed competency mapping exercise was carried out based upon 4 RICS accredited quantity surveying programmes offered by 4 leading universities (referred to as case studies A, B, C and D). This involves mapping RICS QS competencies to the individual module specifications of the respective QS programmes. These are referred to as mapping case studies. The RICS Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived relevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor: 1 2 3 Mandatory Competencies: personal, interpersonal and professional practice and business skills common to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates. Core Competencies: primary skills of the candidates chosen [RICS] pathway 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
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 defines that an APC candidate needs to achieve all Mandatory competencies at Level 2 or above, all Core competencies at Level 3 (except one not relevant to specialisation depending on employment in consulting or contracting practice which is at Level 2) and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above.
1.1 Competency mapping method

The main method of competency mapping involved the use of a two dimensional matrix comprised of QS competencies on the Y axis (vertical listing) and Programme specifications on the X axis (horizontal listing). Each competency was subdivided in to the three Levels (1 to 3). Figure 1 illustrates an example of this mapping matrix created as a protected spreadsheet form.
Competency Mapping
Figure 1 Competency Mapping Matrix form
A detailed map scoring system (Table 1) was devised to enable to indicate perceived level of achievement of competencies through the evaluation of the individual module specifications pertaining to a programme.
Table 1 Map scoring system
Score criteria Achieves small parts of a competency Partially achieves a competency Considerably achieves a competency Fully achieves a competency at respective level
Score 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.00

The respondents completing the form were required to make a judgement as to what amount of a competency at which Level (Levels 1, 2 or 3) was achieved by each module of a programme.
Competency Mapping
1.1.1 Mapping Process Competency mapping to programme specifications was carried out in 3 stages: 1. Scoring the mapping matrix by the researchers 2. Scoring the mapping matrix by programme directors of the respective programmes 3. Consensus adjustment of scoring by the researchers to eliminate bias This three stage process established the final scores of competency mapping to programme specifications which were then used for the evaluation explained in this report. Programme Directors of the respective programmes selected as case studies were requested to complete the matrix form based on their judgement of the level of attainment of competencies. These case studies are referred to as Case study A, B, C, D. Each was asked to allocate approximate scores, at each Level, as defined above, on a scale of 0.25 to 1.00 depending upon their estimation of the coverage they achieved of each of the RICS Mandatory, Core and Optional Competencies through delivery of the modules making up their Undergraduate Quantity Surveying Programme. Through this exercise total scores were achieved in respect of each of the above competencies for each University, together with totals relating to all Modules delivered. This last figure can be split to show total estimated delivery at each of the Levels, 1, 2 and 3. The overall figures are shown in Appendix D. There are three possible levels of analysis; the overall total coverage of all competencies for each University, the split between levels for each University and the individual Universities actual coverage of specific competencies. These are each analysed in the following sections.
Part 6: Overall total coverage of all competencies by Universities
2 Overall total coverage of all competencies by Universities

There is some variation between the universities studied. Two Universities return total scores of 45 to 48, as against the others who both score 37, a difference between the two pairs of 25%. This would seem to be a significant variance, given that all are offering broadly the same overall programme of delivery and assessment, within broadly similar timescales, and all leading to the same award.
Table 2 Total mapping score comparison
Total Score University A University B University C University D
45.25
37.25
37.75
48
Competency Mapping
3 Inter-Level split across Universities

The aggregated level of competency mappings for each university is evaluated in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Final Scores by competency level
Cumulative Level Score Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 University A 32.5 12.25 0.50 University B 27 10 0.50 University C 26 11 0.25 University D 37 11.25 0.50
The main reason for the high level of variance between total coverage of competencies (Table 2) is the level of variance in built in due to different volumes of coverage at Level 1. Both Level 2 & 3 scores are very similar between universities. This suggests that they have a similar appreciation of the significance of the value of the higher two levels required of new graduates by the RICS. As would be expected, in all cases the total score for Level 1 far exceeds that for Level 2, and that for Level 2 is far in excess of that for Level 3. The Level 3 hardly features at all, as one might expect for it is a competency level only expected of candidates at the time they come to sit their APC, one year or more after graduating.
4 Coverage of specific Competencies by Universities

This section examines the coverage of competencies at the three different levels by the four QS programmes studied. The coverage of competencies are analysed separately for Mandatory, Core and Optional competencies.
4.1 Mandatory Competencies

Every graduate wishing to become a Chartered Quantity Surveyor must meet the RICS requirements in these areas. All should be achieved to Level 1 or greater, some to Level 2 and, in the case of M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice, to Level 3.
Part 6: Inter-Level split across Universities
Competency Mapping
Table 4 Summary of scores for Mandatory competencies
Total Cumulative Score by Level
Mandatory Competency M001 Accounting principles

and procedures
Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
University A
University B
University C
University D
0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 1 0.25 0 1.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 2 1 0.25 2.25 0.5 0 2.5 0 0 1.5 1.25 0
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 0.25 1.5 1.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.75 0.25 0 1.5 1 0.25 0.5 0 0 1.75 0.25 0 1.25 1.75 0
0.25 0 0 0.75 0 0 0.5 0.25 0 1.5 1 0 1 0.25 0 0.75 0 0 1.25 1.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 0 1.25 0 0 1.5 1.5 0
0.5 0 0 1 0.25 0 1 0.25 0 2 0.5 0 1.75 0.25 0 1.5 0.25 0 2.25 1 0.5 0.75 0 0 1.5 0.25 0 2.25 0.75 0
M003 Client care
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
M004 Communication and

negotiation
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
M005 Conduct rules, ethics

and professional practice
M006 Conflict avoidance,
management & dispute resolution procedures
M009 Sustainability
M010 Teamworking
M001 Accounting Principles (Level 1 required): Only one University progresses beyond Level 1 in this area. University A does not address it at all. M002 Business Planning (Level 1 required): This area is addressed significantly by all Universities at Level 1. Two progress even to level 2.
Part 6: Coverage of specific Competencies by Universities
Competency Mapping M003 Client Care (Level 2 required): All Universities address this up to and including Level 2 to some extent. M004 Communication and negotiation (Level 2 required): This competency features strongly across all universities, as might be expected of a generic, transferable skill at university level. University A progresses this to Level 3. M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice (Level 3 required): All Universities address this important area though to differing extents, even at Level 1 where the total score ranges from 0.5 to 1.75. Universities B,C and D progress this to Level 2 to some extent but University A stops at Level 1. This variance between Universities may be a cause for concern, especially when this has always been considered by the RICS to be one of the most important competencies. M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution (Level 1 required): All Universities address this Competency at level 1 to varying degrees, all progress this to Level 2 with the exception of University C. M007 Data Management (Level 1 required): As with M 04 above, this competency is addressed at all Levels by all Universities, though to varying degrees. All show some evidence of coverage at Level 3. This competency often involves dissertation modules and as such high level of coverage is expected. M008 Health and safety (Level 2 required): This important area appears to be addressed in a varied manner. Only two Universities, A and C, progress beyond Level 1 M009 Sustainability (Level 1 required): Again, an area which is considered by most to be significant for the future, this is addressed reasonably well to Level 1 by all Universities, but only two achieve any coverage at Level 2. Perhaps although it is being met at present, the RICS might reconsider their requirement due to increasing significance and developments in this area. M010 Team working (Level 1 required): Whilst the RICS only require attainment of Level 1 in this area, all three Universities give equally strong ratings, well into Level 2. This is probably a reflection of the emphasis placed by most Universities on project work, involving teams of students as it does. Generally, given that the required attainment levels set by the RICS for the Mandatory Competencies do not seem very high, most Universities are already meeting or working towards acceptable targets in most areas for their students at this stage in their education.
Competency Mapping
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 M001 M002 M003 M004 M005 M006 M007 M008 M009 M010 A B C D
Figure 2 Mandatory Competency mapping scores: Level 1
Figure 2 above illustrates the scores for Level 1 for Mandatory competencies. The yellow benchmark line is set at a score of 1 to indicate competencies not meeting this requirement. It is clear that many universities are below this threshold for M001, M002, M003, M005, M006 and M008 competencies. This indicates some aspects that universities need to address.
4.2 Core Competencies

It is in this area that the most demanding requirement is made of those seeking membership, for they must have attained Level 3 in all Core Competencies before being admitted to full membership of the RICS. If there is any one area which Universities might be expected to equip the students with a sound grounding, even in the early stages of their education and training, then this is it.
Competency Mapping
Table 5 Summary of scores for Core competencies
Cumulative Level Score

Core competency Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 University A University B University C University D
T010 Commercial
management of construction
2.25 0.25 0 3.25 0.75 0 1 0.5 0 2 0.75 0 1.25 0.75 0 1.25 0.75 0 1.25 1 0
1 0.25 0 1.75 0 0 1 0.25 0 1.75 0.75 0 0.75 0.25 0 1 0.25 0 2.5 0.75 0
2 0.25 0 2 0.5 0 1.5 0.75 0 1.25 0.75 0 1.75 0.25 0 1.75 0.75 0 2.75 1.25 0
1.25 0.25 0 3 0.75 0 1.5 0.75 0 1.5 0.75 0 1.25 0.25 0 2.75 1 0 3.25 1.25 0
T013 Construction
technology and environmental services
T022 Design economics and

cost planning
T062
Procurement tendering
T067 Project financial control

and reporting
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
T074 Quantification and
costing of construction works
T013 Construction technology and environmental services: This is one of the key areas for the QS where there is a strong attainment at Level 1. However, there is more variance at Level 2, with University B, remarkably, failing to claim any score at all at this Level. T017 Contract practice: Scores are reasonably consistent across all Universities across Level 1, although Universities C and D are higher at Level 2. T022 Design economics and cost planning: Scores are quite healthy and pretty much the same across all Universities at both Levels. T062 Procurement tendering: Mostly as for T022 above, although University B is lower at Level 1. T067 Project financial control and reporting: Both Levels 1 and 2 are addressed by all Universities but the figures show some variance at each Level.
T010 Commercial management of Construction: All Universities display a strong performance in this area at Level 1. All achieve the same (0.25) at Level 2. This seems appropriate at this stage in students development.
Competency Mapping T074 Quantification and costing of construction works: works In this, one of the most traditional of the Quantity Surveyors skills there is quite a range of results at Level 1, (from 1.25 through to 3.75) which may reflect the differing emphasis placed on teaching the basics of this skill. At Level 2 there is more agreement between the figures submitted by the four Universities. Generally, the Universities s in this section of the study are addressing the targets targets set them although there are some exceptions, as noted above. Perhaps Perh the RICS should be slightly concerned at these last, occurring as they do in Core Skills T013, T067 and T074 those skills which specifica specifically define the Quantity Surveying specialism. Core competencies can be further analysed using the following Figure 3 and Figure 4 at Level 1 and 2 respectively.
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 T010 T013 T017 T022 T062 T067 T074 A B C D
Figure 3 Core Competency mapping g scores: Level 1
The illustration above (Figure 3) ) indicates that core competencies are well achieved by all universities. However this is based purely on our interpretation interpretation of map scores and when you consider a benchmark score of 1 only.
Competency Mapping
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 T010 T013 T017 T022 T062 T067 T074 A B C D
Figure 4 Core Competency mpetency mapping scores: Level 2
Figure 4 indicates that Core Competencies are achieved to some extent by the universities but nowhere near completely. . Since core competencies for the most part define the profession it is some area where universities might ight ought to make a greater effort to progress.
10
Competency Mapping
4.3 Optional Competencies

Candidates are required to attain Level 2 in a choice of two optional Competences of their choice. As might be expected, being specialist areas, availability of which may vary across Universities according to the specialism of their staff, there is no uniformity of provision. Correspondingly, there is no sensible detailed comparison which can or should be made. As a general rule, the Optional Competencies are not being covered beyond Level 1 which is perhaps appropriate at this stage.
Table 6 Summary of scores for Core competencies
Cumulative Level Score

Optional competency Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 University A University B University C University D
T008
Capital Allowances
0.5 0 0 1.5 0.75 0 0.75 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 1.25 0.75 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.25 0
0.25 0 0 0.75 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0 2.75 0.75 0 1.25 0 0 1.75 0.5 0
0 0 0 1.25 0.5 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 0 0.75 0.5 0 0.75 0 0
0 0 0 2.25 0.75 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.75 0.25 0

T016
Contract administration
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
T020
Corporate recovery and insolvency
T025
Due diligence
T045
Insurance
T063
Programming and planning
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1.75 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 1.25 0.5 0
TO66 Project Evaluation
T077
Risk management
11
Competency Mapping
3 2.5 2 A 1.5 1 0.5 0 T008 T016 T020 T025 T045 T063 TO66 T077 B C D
Figure 5 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1
Figure 5 indicates that most optional competencies are not adequately achieved except 4 4. For example; ple; T016, T063, T066 and T077 are reasonably attained by some universities with scores well over 1 for Level 1 and some approaching Level 2 as well. This is may be due to lack of direction on to what extent universities should deal with optional competencies. competenc
5 Conclusions
Competency mapping in this analysis is carried out based on the limited guidelines provided in the QS pathway documents. . This document does not provide in depth information on the actual knowledge areas which should be covered. covered As such, these are open for interpretation by individuals and organisations. The less prescriptive nature of these documents may help innovation and freedom to design curricular. On the other hand this very feature inhibits the full attainment of competencies across all institutions due to narrow or incorrect interpretation. Therefore, a score of over 1 for a competency may not assure that a competency is fully attained to the level expected. In any case RICS do not specify a level of attainment of competencies by a graduate completing a an accredited degree. The absence of such a benchmark means that it is at the discretion of the individual universities to set these benchmarks at levels they see suitable. This means that invariably there will be differences in the level of graduate quality expected by the industry employers and the ones set by individual universities.
5.1 Key findings of the Competency Mapping

The key findings of the competency mapping study can be summarised as follows: 1. There is no threshold standard standard or benchmark for level of competencies to be achieved by QS graduates completing a RICS accredited programme. 2. Different universities aim to achieve competencies at different levels, levels based on their own interpretations.
12
Part 6: Conclusions
Competency Mapping 3. In the absence of a detailed competency specification, the level of achievement of competencies judged by our own interpretation seems satisfactory for the most part. There are inadequacies in level of coverage of some competencies. 4. Programme leaders tend to interpret levels of achievement of competencies differently to one another resulting in apparent differing levels of achievement of competencies and different levels of coverage. 5. There is no standard way to interpret the actual achievement of competencies. 6. There is no formal competency mapping process available for universities in curricular development or revision. 7. Most mandatory competencies are not achieved to a significant extent by the universities studied to date. 8. 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. 9. 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.
5.2 Limitations of Mapping

The mapping of competencies using a scoring system attempts to allocate a map score for each competency by each module specification of an accredited programme. The scoring was carried out by individual Programme Directors of the four programmes analysed and moderated by the researchers to eliminate bias and impact of individual interpretation. This is a very difficult activity as degree of interpretation varies considerably across individuals. There are no standard guidelines as to what curricular content should exist, to map directly to a competence. As such it is difficult to achieve a uniform and even scoring of competencies across all case study universities. This is an inherent limitation which could only be eliminated by proper and full definition of competencies to include standard curricular content expressed as sub competencies. Competency mapping then has to be carried out by a third party interpreting curricular and negotiating with module tutors responsible for delivery. This is an impossible task to be achieved within the resource levels for this research. Therefore, the method adopted was a compromise in order for the research team to make a reasonable judgement of the mapping of competencies to programme curricular, to achieve its objective of identifying relative levels of mapping of competencies.
13
Part 6: Conclusions
Part 7 References
Baarttlletttt J. E.., Kottrlliikk, J. W., Higgins, C. (2001) Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research, Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2001, pp 43-50. Davis, Langdon and Everest.(1991) Quantity Surveying 2000. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, RICS. Lowe, D. And Leiringer, R. (2006), Commercial Management of Projects, Defining the Discipline, Blackwell Publishing. Perera R S, (2006), Views of Prospective Graduate Surveyors on their Professional Career Plans, Final Report, RICS NI, August 2006. RICS (1971),The Future Role of the Quantity Surveyor RICS. RICS (1983) The Future Role of the Chartered Quantity Surveyor. RICS. RICS, (2009) (1) RICS Employability Threshold Consultation Document letter to Partner Institutions RICS Oct 2009. RICS,(2009) (2), Requirements and competencies, RICS Education and Qualification Standards, RICS, http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/download_info.aspx?fileID=3729&categoryID=98 . Rowe and Wright (2001): Expert Opinions in Forecasting. Role of the Delphi Technique. In: Armstrong (Ed.): Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook of Researchers and Practitioners, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. UNN Returns, (2001- 2008), UNN Returns Annual 1st Destination returns from the University of Northumbria to RICS Partnership Accreditation Board 2001 2008. Walker, I. and Wilkie, R. (2002), Commercial Management in Construction, Blackwell Publishing.
Part 8 Appendices
Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Expert forum interview questions Academic survey questionnaire Industry survey questionnaire Competency mapping scores
Appendix A Expert forum interview questions
Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial Development Needs for Quantity Surveyors Northumbria University are currently carrying out a piece of investigative research to assess the degree of fit between RICS competencies, Academic teaching curricula and industry needs for new and emerging graduate Quantity Surveyors. This work is co-funded by Northumbria University and RICS and aims to accrue major benefits to all three parties (Academia, Industry and RICS) the quantity surveying graduates and wider community by providing: Cohesion and unified view towards professional development of Quantity Surveyors. Greater satisfaction derived for all parties and stakeholders. A systematic and verifiable partnership agreement between RICS and Universities Producing balanced and employable quantity surveying graduates. As part of this research we will be carrying out semi-structured interviews to gather the views of each group of stakeholders. The results of these interviews will inform a set of questions to be distributed via an online survey and set the broad context for the research. We would be extremely grateful if you could give an hour of your time to discuss the attached questions. All responses will be treated confidentially and reporting of any findings will be aggregated and anonymous. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact Professor Srinath Perera on details given below.
Professor Srinath Perera Professor of Construction Economics School of the Built Environment Wynn Jones Building Northumbria University Ellison Place Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST UK Tel: 0044 (0) 191227 3172 Fax: 0044 (0) 191227 3167 e-mail: srinath.perera@northumbria.ac.uk Co investigator: Mr John Pearson Director of Quantity Surveying Subject Group Northumbria University Lyn Dodds, Senior Research Associate, SCRI, Northumbria University
Forum Interview 01
1. Role of Quantity Surveyor 1.1. What do you see as the present role of the Quantity Surveyor in the construction industry? 1.2. How would you project the future role of QS? In what way will it change? 2. RICS Competencies for QSs Note: Provide details of competencies and briefly explain it. 2.1. How relevant do you think the RICS competencies are to what you would expect from a graduate QS? 2.1.1. Mandatory competencies 2.1.2. Core competencies 2.1.3. Optional competencies 2.2. Would future QSs require any additional competencies/skills? 2.3. What are your views on the extent of coverage (for academic forum members) of these competencies in the undergraduate curricular? OR for non-academic forum members 2.4. Do you think that present graduate QSs have acquired these competencies to at least Level 2 as expected by the RICS? 2.4.1. Explain why you think so? 3. What are your views on present QS education system? 3.1. Nature and system of education 3.2. Level of employer/prospective employer engagement? 3.3. The academic curricular content? 3.4. The relevance of curricular; are there obsolete content? New content to consider? 3.5. What areas of the curricular needs greatest attention? 3.6. What are your views on placement? 3.7. Do you see a difference between Part time and Full time students level of knowledge, dedication and attitude to work? 4. RICS-Industry-Academic Institution communication 4.1. Have you communicated with these parties with respect to QS education? What is your experience in this regards? 4.2. What are your views on current RICS partnership arrangements with the academic institutions? 4.3. Do you think there is good communication between: 4.3.1. Universities and RICS
4.3.2. RICS and Industry 4.3.3. Universities and Industry 5. RICS Membership path ways 5.1. What are you views on the different pathways to membership? 5.1.1. Graduate 5.1.2. New, Associate pathway 5.1.3. New, Senior Professional route For Industrial forum members; 5.2. Do you provide training for graduate QSs for APC? 5.3. Could you explain your views on this process? 6. Do you think that Universities should provide overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying or Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for direct QS employment? 7. Is there anything else you would like to add? Thank you for your time.
Appendix B Academic survey questionnaire
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2 AC: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial De... Page 1 of 23
Ver 2 AC: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial Development Needs of Quantity Surveyors
Northumbria University are currently carrying out a piece of investigative research to assess the degree of fit between RICS competencies, Academic teaching curricula and Industry needs for new and emerging Graduate Quantity Surveyors. This work is co-funded by Northumbria University and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and aims to accrue major benefits to all three parties (Academia, Industry and the RICS), the quantity surveying graduates and wider community by providing: Cohesion and unified view towards professional development of Quantity Surveyors. Greater satisfaction derived for all parties and stakeholders. A systematic and verifiable partnership agreement between RICS, Universities, and employers Producing balanced and employable quantity surveying graduates.
As part of this research we are carrying out an online survey. All responses will be treated confidentially and reporting of any findings will be aggregated and anonymous. We would be grateful if you could take the time to fill in as much of this questionnaire as possible. This should take approximately 20 minutes.
There are 41 questions in this survey
Respondent Profile
General information that is useful to categorise respondent profile.
1 [1]Which university do you work ?

Please write your answer here:
Name of the university
2 [3]What is your age? *

Please choose only one of the following:
18 - 24 Years 25 - 34 Years 35 - 45 Years Over 45 Years

Indicate the age category you belong.
3 [4]How many years experience do you have in Quantity Surveying? *

http://northumbria-qs.org/limesurvey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintablesurvey...
03/06/2010
Up to 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 11 - 20 Years 21 - 30 years Over 30 Years

Select the category best describes your experience in Quantity Surveying
4 [5] Are you a member of any of the following professional bodies? *

Please choose all that apply:
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Chartered Institute of Builders (CIOB) Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors (CICES) Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineering (CIBSE) Not a member of any Professional Body Other:
You may select more than one Professional Body if you are a memeber of several Professional Bodies. Please indicate the full name of the Professional Body if it is not listed above.
5 [6]How much time (expressed as a percentage) do you spend on the following: *

* Total of all entries must equal 100 Please write your answer(s) here:
Teaching & Learning activities Research Academic Enterprise Administration Other

Enter percentages for each of the type of activities. (Total = 100%) Do not leave any field blank: If none enter zero "0"
6 [2]Are you a course leader (having management responsibility)? *

Yes
03/06/2010
No
Course management responsibility such as Programme Leader, Course Director etc.
7 [2a]How many students are there in all years of Quantity surveying?
RICS accredited programmes in Quantity Surveying only.

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '6 [2]' (Are you a cour se leader (having management responsibility)?) Please write your answer(s) here:
Full time undergraduate Part Time undergraduate Full time postgraduate Part time postgraduate
Enter the student numbers for Full Time and Part Time modes for all years of the course. The question relates only to Quantity Surveying students in RICS accredited programmes. Do not leave any field blank: If none enter zero "0"
8 [2b]How many years has your Quantity Surveying course been accredited
by the RICS ?
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '6 [2]' (Are you a cour se leader (having management responsibility)?) Please write your answer here:
Do not leave any field blank: If none enter zero "0"
9 [2c]How many full time core Quantity Surveying staff do you have?
Members of RICS Others

Inluclude all Tutors, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Orinciple Lecturers, Readers, Professors etc. All grades of full time staff. Do not leave any field blank: If none enter zero "0"
10 [2d]What are the course contact hours per student per week ? Include lectures, tutorials, seminars, workshops, studios etc..
03/06/2010
QS Undergraduate QS Postgraduate
All contact hours per student per week. Do not leave any field blank: If none enter zero "0"
03/06/2010
Quantity Surveying Competencies

Full details of Quantity Surveying competencies can be found from the link below: Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction Note: this will open in an new window.
11 [7] Considering the list of competencies below please state which of these a new graduate Quantity Surveyor should possess, and at which level: Level 1 = knowledge (theoretical knowledge) Level 2 = knowledge and practical experience (putting it in to practice) Level 3 = knowledge, practical experience, and capacity to advise (explaining and advising) you may find details of Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction here. *
Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
03/06/2010
Level 1 M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence
Level 2
Level 3
03/06/2010
Level 1 T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
Enter 1, 2 or 3 only.
Level 2
Level 3
12 [8] Indicate your level of awareness of the following three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) initiatives and Rate the level of importance of each of these initiatives, respectively. Details of NRM Initiatives can be found here: http://www.rics.org/nrm *
Level of Awareness 1 2 3 4 5 Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning Procurement an alternative to SMM7 Whole Life Costing
1 - Least aware or Least important 5 - Most aware or Most important
Level of Importance 1 2 3 4 5
03/06/2010
Future role of the Quantity Surveyor

This section attempts to indentify your views with respect to the future role of the Qunatity Surveyor.
13 [9]Which of the following areas of work will become more important to the role of Quantity Surveyor in the future? *
1 Building Construction Civil Engineering/Infrastructure Building Services Offshore Oil & Gas Facilities Management Refurbishment
1 - Least important 5 - Most important
14 [9a]Is there any other area you think will be more important in the near future? If so please state the Area and it's level of importnace using the same scale of 1 - 5 as before.
1 - Not important 5 - Very important
15 [11] Rank the following RICS competencies in order of importnace 1 to 5. (1 being the least and 5 being the most)
03/06/2010
1 M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
16 [12]Are there any competencies you think will be important in the future that are not listed? If so could you please state the two most important below. Also indicate how you would rank it on 1 - 5 scale.
Please write your answer(s) here:
Additional Competency 1 Additional Competency 2 Additional Competency 3 Additional Competency 4 Additional Competency 5
03/06/2010
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2 AC: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial ... Page 10 of 23

This section attempts to capture your views on Quantity Surveying education system. The questions primarily refer to courses accredited by the RICS.
17 [13]Do you think there is a difference in teaching to produce a graduate to
become a Consultant Quantity Surveyor or a Contractor Quantity Surveyor?

1 2 3 4 5
1 - No difference 5 - Completely different
18 [14]To what extent is this difference in teaching to produce a graduate to
become a Consultant Quantity Surveyor or a Contractor Quantity Surveyor reflected in your curricular?
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not refelected at all 5 - Fully refected in curricular
19 [16]How satisfied are you with the curriculum taught at universities in producing a graduate quantity surveyor "fit for purpose"? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not satisfied 2 - Partially satisfied 3 - Reasonably satisfied 4 - Satisfied 5 - Perfectly satisfied
03/06/2010
20 [17]List areas you feel are not adequately covered by the curriculum?
List as many items that you think that are not covered in RICS accredited Quantity Surveying degree courses.
21 [18]How confident are you in the level of knowledge you have in the following:
1 Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Practice Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
22 [19]Please choose which of the following statements most closely describes the role of universities in producing a graduate Quantity Surveyor: *
Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
Select what you think most appropriate.
03/06/2010
23 [20]How willing do you find industry is to collaborate with Universities in Quantity Surveying education related matters ? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all Willing 2 - Partially Willing 3 - Unsure 4 - Willing 5 - Very Willing
24 [21]How likely are you to be able to commit time for industry collaborative activities? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all Likely 2 - Partially Likely 3 - Unsure 4 - Likely 5 - Very Likely
03/06/2010
Modes of study & Placement

This section attempt to capture your views on different modes of studies and placement.
25 [22]Which mode of study do you feel produces the best graduate Quantity Surveyor? *
Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 7
Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study Full time postgraduate study - non-cognate route Part time postgraduate study - non-cognate route
Rank in order. Non-cognate route implies graduates of other disciplines following a RICS accredited postgraduate masters degree in Quantity Surveying to enter in to the profession of Quantity Surveying.
26 [23]Please indicate your university's level of commitment to

industrial placement. Do you encourage placement or the course structure do not support placement. * Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
1 General long term view During a recession
03/06/2010
1 - Not at all committed 2 - Partially committed 3 - Committed 4 - Very Committed 5 - Fully committed
27 [24]How important is it for an organisation providing placement to have a structured placement training model? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all Important 2 - Partially Important 3 - Important 4 - Very Important 5 - Extremely Important
28 [24a]Should RICS should determine and regulate the entry requirements for RICS accredited programmes: *
Yes QS Undergraduate study QS Postgraduate study
Uncertain
No
29 [25a]Should the entry level for RICS accredited Quantity Surveying programmes change? Is it too low, appropriate or too high at present? *
1 QS Undergraduate study QS Postgraduate study
03/06/2010
1 - Very low 2 - Low 3 - Appropriate 4 - High 5 - Very High
03/06/2010
RICS Routes of membership and training

These question attempts to capture your views on RICS routes of mebership
30 [26]How well do you understand the following routes of RICS membership? *

1 Graduate route Assoc RICS route (Associate ) Senior Professional route

1 - Not at all 5 - Perfectl well
31 [27]How appropriate are the following routes in producing competent

Quantity Surveyors? Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
1 Graduate route Assoc RICS route (associate) Senior Professional route

1 - Not at all appropriate 5 - Very Appropriate
32 [29]How important do you think it is for early career graduates to

attain Chartered status in the following institutions? Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
1 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors RICS Chartered Insttute of Builders CIOB Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors CICES Other
03/06/2010
1 - Not important 2 - Little important 3 - Important 4 - Very Important 5 - Extremely important
33 [30]If answered Other to previous question please indicate what other institution (s) and how imprtant.
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was '4' or '2' or '3' or '5' at question ' 32 [29]' (How important do you think it is for early career graduates to attain Chartered status in the following institutions? (Other)) Please write your answer here:
Type as text the name of Institution(s) and level of importance in 1 - 5 scale as before. 1 - Not important 5 - Very important
34 [33]How important is it for an organisation to have a Structured Training Programme to prepare candidates for APC? *
1 2 3
03/06/2010
4 5
1 - Not important at all 5 - Extremely important
03/06/2010
RICS - Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

This section attempt to capture your views on RICS as a professional body regulating the Quantity Surveying profession.
35 [34]How would you rate the following services provided by the RICS? Use the Scale of 1 - 5 provided.
1 Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession Developing standards and new methods of practice Regulation of Quantity Surveying education World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession Dissemination of related information Influencing related national policy Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession Genral member services (directory, journal, benefits sheme etc..)
1 - Very poor service 5 - Very highly rated service
36 [35] Are there any other services providded by the RICS which you value as important?
03/06/2010
Service 1 Service 2 Service 3

Give a brief description of such services.
37 [36]What is the overal level of satisfaction for the services provided by the RICS? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not satisfied 5 - Fully satisfied
38 [37] How do you rate the communications between you and RICS? *
1 2 3
03/06/2010
4 5
1 - Very poor 5 - Ver good
39 [38]Are the services provided by RICS appropriate to your academic/professional needs? *

1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all appropriate 5 - Very appropriate
40 [39]Do you think RICS membership provide value for money? *

1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all 5 - Very good value for money
41 [40]How successful is the RICS partnership agreement related process in producing good quality graduate? *
03/06/2010
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all successsfull 2 - Partially successful 3 - Undecided 4 - Successfull 5 - Very successfull
03/06/2010
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact Professor Srinath Perera on details given below. Professor Srinath Perera Chair in Construction Economics School of the Built Environment Wynne-Jones Building Northumbria University Ellison Place Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST UK Tel: 0044 (0) 191227 3172 Fax: 0044 (0) 191227 3167 e-mail: srinath.perera@northumbria.ac.uk Co investigator: Mr John Pearson Director of Quantity Surveying Subject Group Northumbria University Lyn Dodds, Senior Research Associate, SCRI, Northumbria University 31.12.1969 19:00 Submit your survey. Thank you for completing this survey.
03/06/2010
Appendix C Industry survey questionnaire
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2Ind: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial De... Page 1 of 22
Ver 2Ind: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial Development Needs of Qunatity Surveyors
Northumbria University are currently carrying out a piece of investigative research to assess the degree of fit between RICS competencies, Academic teaching curricula and Industry needs for new and emerging Graduate Quantity Surveyors. This work is co-funded by Northumbria University and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and aims to accrue major benefits to all three parties (Academia, Industry and the RICS), the quantity surveying graduates and wider community by providing: Cohesion and unified view towards professional development of Quantity Surveyors. Greater satisfaction derived for all parties and stakeholders. A systematic and verifiable partnership agreement between RICS, Universities, and employers Producing balanced and employable quantity surveying graduates.
As part of this research we are carrying out an online survey. All responses will be treated confidentially and reporting of any findings will be aggregated and anonymous. We would be grateful if you could take the time to fill in as much of this questionnaire as possible. This should take approximately 25 minutes.
There are 39 questions in this survey
Respondent Profile
General information that is useful to categorise respondent profile.
1 [1]What type of company do you work in? *

Private practice Quantity Surveyor (consultant) Contracting organisation Public Sector Specialist sub-contractor Specialist supplier Other
Indicate the type of organisation you currently work for.
2 [2]How many employees does your organisation have? *

Micro (1 - 10) Small (11 - 99) Medium (100 - 499)
03/06/2010
Large (> 500)

Select the category that best describes your organisation based on employee numbers
3 [3]What is your age? *

18 - 24 Years 25 - 34 Years 35 - 45 Years Over 45 Years

Indicate the age category you belong.
4 [4]How many years experience do you have in Quantity Surveying? *

Up to 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 11 - 20 Years 21 - 30 years Over 30 Years

Select the category best describes your experience in Quantity Surveying
5 [5] Are you a member of any of the following professional bodies? *

Please choose all that apply:
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Chartered Institute of Builders (CIOB) Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors (CICES) Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineering (CIBSE) Not a member of any Professional Body Other:
You may select more than one Professional Body if you are a memeber of several Professional Bodies. Please indicate the full name of the Professional Body if it is not listed above.
03/06/2010
Quantity Surveying Competencies

Full details of Quantity Surveying competencies can be found from the link below: Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction Note: this will open in an new window.
6 [6] From the following list, which of these activities makes up your organisations current workload? *
* Total of all entries must equal 100 Please write your answer(s) here:
Pre-contract cost control (preliminary estimating, cost planning) Tender documentation Post-contract cost control (Interim valuations to final accounts) Value management Risk management Whole life costing Project management Disput resolution Managing claims Estimation and bidding Contract formulation and negotiation Payments and cash flow management Supply chain management Performance management Other
Please express these as a percentage (%).
7 [7] Considering the list of competencies below please state which of these a new graduate Quantity Surveyor should possess, and at which level: Level 1 = knowledge (theoretical knowledge) Level 2 = knowledge and practical experience (putting it in to practice)
03/06/2010
Level 3 = knowledge, practical experience, and capacity to advise (explaining and advising) Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction can be found here. *
03/06/2010
Level 1 M001 Accounting principles and procedures M002 Business planning M003 Client care M004 Communication and negotiation M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management M008 Health and safety M009 Sustainability M010 Team working T010 Commercial management of construction T013 Construction technology and environmental services T017 Contract practice T022 Design economics and cost planning T062 Procurement and tendering T067 Project financial control and reporting T074 Quantification and costing of construction works T008 Capital allowances T016 Contract administration T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency T025 Due diligence
Level 2
Level 3
03/06/2010
Level 1 T045 Insurance T063 Programming and planning T077 Risk management
Enter 1, 2 or 3 only.
Level 2
Level 3
8 [8] Indicate your level of awareness of the following three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) initiatives and Rate the level of importance of each of these initiatives, respectively. Details of NRM can be found here. *
Level of Awareness 1 2 3 4 5 Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning Procurement an alternative to SMM7 Whole Life Costing
1 - Least aware or Least important 5 - Most aware or Most important
Level of Importance 1 2 3 4 5
03/06/2010
Future role of the Quantity Surveyor

This section attempts to indentify your views with respect to the future role of the Qunatity Surveyor.
9 [9]Which of the following areas of work will become more important to the role of Quantity Surveyor in the future? *
1 Building Construction Civil Engineering/Infrastructure Building Services Offshore Oil & Gas Facilities Management Refurbishment
10 [9a]Is there any other area you think will be more important in the near future? If so please state the Area and it's level of importnace using the same scale of 1 - 5 as before.
1 - Not important 5 - Very important
11 [11] Rank the following RICS competencies in order of importnace 1 to 5. (1 being the least and 5 being the most)
03/06/2010
12 [12]Are there any competencies you think will be important in the future that are not listed? If so could you please state the two most important below. Also indicate how you would rank it on 1 - 5 scale.
Additional Competency 1 Additional Competency 2 Additional Competency 3 Additional Competency 4 Additional Competency 5
03/06/2010

This section attempts to capture your views on Quantity Surveying education system. The questions primarily refer to courses accredited by the RICS.
13 [13]
Do graduates meet your expectations with respect to the following competencies:

1 - Not at all 2 - Partialy 3 - Undecided 4 - Almost fully 5 - Perfectly If you are not sure of an answer please select 3.
14 [14]If you chose 1 or 2 for more than half the competencies can you state why?
03/06/2010
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2Ind: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial ...
Page 10 of 22
15 [15]How aware are you of the content of the curriculum taught in university? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all aware 2 - Partially aware 3 - Reasonably aware 4 - Aware 5 - Perfectly aware
16 [16]How satisfied are you with the curriculum taught at universities in producing a graduate quantity surveyor "fit for purpose"? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not satisfied 2 - Partialy satisfied 3 - Reasonably satisfied 4 - Satisfied 5 - Perfectly satisfied
17 [17]List areas you feel are not adequately covered by the curriculum?
03/06/2010
Page 11 of 22
List as many items that you think that are not covered in RICS accredited Quantity Surveying degree courses.
18 [18]How confident are you in the level of knowledge that the lecturers
have in the following:

1 Academic Knowledge Quantity Surveying Practice Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
19 [19]Please choose which of the following statements most closely describes the role of universities in producing a graduate Quantity Surveyor: *
Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
Select what you think most appropriate.
20 [20]How willing are you to collaborate with Universities in Quantity Surveying education related matters? *
1 2 3
03/06/2010
Page 12 of 22
4 5
1 - Not at all Willing 2 - Partially Willing 3 - Unsure 4 - Willing 5 - Very Willing
21 [21]How likely are you to be able to commit time for collaborative activities? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all Likely 2 - Partially Likely 3 - Unsure 4 - Likely 5 - Very Likely
03/06/2010
Page 13 of 22
Modes of study & Placement

This section attempt to capture your views on different modes of studies and placement.
22 [22]Which mode of study do you feel produces the best graduate Quantity Surveyor? *
Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 7
Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience no placement Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement Full time undergraduate university study summer placements Part time undergraduate university study Full time postgraduate study - non-cognate route Part time postgraduate study - non-cognate route
Rank in order. Non-cognate route implies graduates of other disciplines following a RICS accredited postgraduate masters degree in Quantity Surveying to enter in to the profession of Quantity Surveying.
23 [23]Please indicate your level of commitment to industrial placement. *

1 General long term view During a recession
03/06/2010
Page 14 of 22
1 - Not at all committed 2 - Partially committed 3 - Committed 4 - Very Committed 5 - Fully committed
24 [24]How important is it for an organisation to have a structured placement training model? *

1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all Important 2 - Partially Important 3 - Important 4 - Very Important 5 - Extremely Important
25 [25]Which of the following statements apply to the benefits of offering a placement? *

Yes It is a good test bed for potential staff after graduation It is a source of economic and flexible labour It provides source of new ideas from current education It allows for a two way flow of knowledge between universities and industry
Uncertain
No
03/06/2010
Page 15 of 22
RICS Routes of membership and training

These question attempts to capture your views on RICS routes of mebership
26 [26]How well do you understand the following routes of RICS membership? *

1 Graduate route Assoc RICS route (Associate ) Senior Professional route

1 - Not at all 5 - Perfectl well
27 [27]How appropriate are the following routes in producing competent

Quantity Surveyors? Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
1 Graduate route Assoc RICS route (associate) Senior Professional route

1 - Not at all appropriate 5 - Very Appropriate
28 [28]What percentage of the candidates has your organisation

supported through any of the following routes of membership? * Total of all entries must equal 100 Total of all entries must not exceed 100 Please write your answer(s) here:
03/06/2010
Page 16 of 22
Graduate route Assoc RICS route (Associate) Senior Professional route

Indicate the percentage (%) category.
29 [29]How important is it for your organisation to enable your graduate

quantity surveyors to attain chartered status in the following institutions? Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
1 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors RICS Chartered Insttute of Builders CIOB Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors CICES Other
1 - Not important 2 - Little important 3 - Important 4 - Very Important 5 - Extremely important
30 [30]If answered Other to previous question please indicate what other institution (s) and how imprtant.
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was '3' or '2' or '4' or '5' at question ' 29 [29]' (How important is it for your organisation to enable your graduate quantity surveyors to attain chartered status in the following institutions? (Other)) Please write your answer here:
03/06/2010
Page 17 of 22
Type as text the name of Institution(s) and level of importance in 1 - 5 scale as before. 1 - Not important 5 - Very important
31 [31]Please state any negative aspects which would limit your

encouragement to graduates to join the RICS Please write your answer(s) here:
Negative aspect 1 Negative aspect 2 Negative aspect 3

Indicate the three most important negative aspects.
32 [32]Does your organisation have a Structured Training Programme to prepare candidates for APC? *
03/06/2010
Page 18 of 22
Yes No
33 [33]How important is it for an organisation to have a Structured Training Programme to prepare candidates for APC? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not important at all 5 - Extremely important
03/06/2010
Page 19 of 22
RICS - Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

This section attempt to capture your views on RICS as a professional body regulating the Quantity Surveying profession.
34 [34]How would you rate the following services provided by the RICS? Use the Scale of 1 - 5 provided.
1 Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession Developing standards and new methods of practice Regulation of Quantity Surveying education World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession Dissemination of related information Influencing related national policy Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession Genral member services (directory, journal, benefits sheme etc..)
1 - Very poor service 5 - Very highly rated service
35 [35] Are there any other services providded by the RICS which you value as important?
03/06/2010
Page 20 of 22
Service 1 Service 2 Service 3

Give a brief description of such services.
36 [36]What is the overal level of satisfaction for the services provided by the RICS? *
1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not satisfied 5 - Fully satisfied
37 [37] How do you rate the communications between you and RICS? *
1 2 3
03/06/2010
Page 21 of 22
4 5
1 - Very poor 5 - Ver good
38 [38]Are the services provided by RICS appropriate to your need? *

1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all appropriate 5 - Very appropriate
39 [39]Do you think RICS membership provide value for money? *

1 2 3 4 5
1 - Not at all 5 - Very good value for money
03/06/2010
Page 22 of 22
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact Professor Srinath Perera on details given below. Professor Srinath Perera Chair in Construction Economics School of the Built Environment Wynne-Jones Building Northumbria University Ellison Place Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST UK Tel: 0044 (0) 191227 3172 Fax: 0044 (0) 191227 3167 e-mail: srinath.perera@northumbria.ac.uk Co investigator: Mr John Pearson Director of Quantity Surveying Subject Group Northumbria University Lyn Dodds, Senior Research Associate, SCRI, Northumbria University 31.12.1969 19:00 Submit your survey. Thank you for completing this survey.
03/06/2010
Appendix D Competency mapping scores
Competency Code
Name
Competen cy Level
A Final Score
B Final Score
C Final Score
D Final Score
Mandatory
M001 Accounting principles

and procedures
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Mandatory
Mandatory
M003 Client care
Mandatory
M004 Communication and

negotiation
Mandatory
M005 Conduct rules, ethics

and professional practice
Mandatory
M006 Conflict avoidance,

management and dispute resolution procedures M007 Data management
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
M009 Sustainability
Mandatory
M010 Teamworking
Core
T010 Commercial
management of construction
Core
T013 Construction
Level 1 technology and Level 2 environmental services Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3
Core
Core
T022 Design economics and Level 1

cost planning
Core
T062 Procurement tendering Level 1
Core
T067 Project financial

control and reporting
Level 1
0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 1 0.25 0 1.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 2 1 0.25 2.25 0.5 0 2.5 0 0 1.5 1.25 0 2.25 0.25 0 3.25 0.75 0 1 0.5 0 2 0.75 0 1.25 0.75 0 1.25
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 0.25 1.5 1.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.75 0.25 0 1.5 1 0.25 0.5 0 0 1.75 0.25 0 1.25 1.75 0 1 0.25 0 1.75 0 0 1 0.25 0 1.75 0.75 0 0.75 0.25 0 1
0.25 0 0 0.75 0 0 0.5 0.25 0 1.5 1 0 1 0.25 0 0.75 0 0 1.25 1.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 0 1.25 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 2 0.25 0 2 0.5 0 1.5 0.75 0 1.25 0.75 0 1.75 0.25 0 1.75
0.5 0 0 1 0.25 0 1 0.25 0 2 0.5 0 1.75 0.25 0 1.5 0.25 0 2.25 1 0.5 0.75 0 0 1.5 0.25 0 2.25 0.75 0 1.25 0.25 0 3 0.75 0 1.5 0.75 0 1.5 0.75 0 1.25 0.25 0 2.75
Competency Code
Name
Competen cy Level
A Final Score
B Final Score
C Final Score
D Final Score
Mandatory Core
and reporting Accounting principles M001 control
Level 2 Level 3
T074 Quantification and
Level 1 costing of construction Level 2 works Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3
Optional
T008 Capital Allowances
Optional
T016 Contract administration Level 1
Optional
T020 Corporate recovery and Level 1

insolvency Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Optional
T025 Due diligence
Optional
T045 Insurance
Optional
T063 Programming and

planning
Optional
TO66 Project Evaluation
Optional
0.75 0 1.25 1 0 0.5 0 0 1.5 0.75 0 0.75 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 1.25 0.75 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.25 0 45.25 32.5
0.25 0 2.5 0.75 0 0.25 0 0 0.75 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0 2.75 0.75 0 1.25 0 0 1.75 0.5 0 37.25 27
0.75 0 2.75 1.25 0 0 0 0 1.25 0.5 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 0 0.75 0.5 0 0.75 0 0 37.75 26
1 0 3.25 1.25 0 0 0 0 2.25 0.75 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.75 0.25 0 1.75 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 1.25 0.5 0 48 37
Guidance Notes
Knowledge
TOTAL ALL LEVELS

Level 1 Level 2
Application of knowledge in to practice Ability to advice clients Level 3 on aspects of knowledge gathered
12.25
10
11
11.25
0.50
A
0.50
D
0.25
C
0.50
D

Qs-Alignment of Views Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Qs-Alignment of Views Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ALIGNMENT OF PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR QUANTITY SURVEYORS:

THE POST RECESSION DYNAMICS

Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne UK

Professor Srinath Perera Mr John Pearson

Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne UK

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D.

Srinath Perera and John Pearson

Part 1 Executive Summary

3.1 The status of the RICS QS Competencies

3.2 Views of Academia

Part 1: Key findings

4 Proposed Alignment of views framework

4.1 Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB)

4.2 Competency mapping framework

4.3 Detailed competency specification

4.4 Re-evaluation of status of competencies

4.5 University-Industry collaboration

4.6 RICS-University-Industry partnership

4.7 Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 1: Proposed Alignment of views framework

Part 2 Main Report

Professor Srinath Perera Mr John Pearson

Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne UK

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401 January 2011

1. List of Contents 2. List of Figures 3. List of Tables 4. Main Report

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Contents

CROSS COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF EXPECTATION, ACHIEVEMENT AND IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES ..................... 21

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Contents

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Contents

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Figures

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Figures

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Tables

Quantity Surveying Education

Figure 1 Key stakeholders influence on Quantity Surveying education

Perera & Pearson, 2011

1.2 Aim & Objectives

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: Research Method

Figure 2 Research Method

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: Research Method

3 The survey respondent profiles

Figure 3 Respondent QS experience profile: Academia

Figure 4 Respondent QS experience profile: Industry

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: The survey respondent profiles

Over 30 Years, 43.20%

Administra tion, 24.53%

Public Sector, 14.60% Contractin g organisati on, 16.90%

Research, 15.04% Academic Enterprise, 5.09%

Figure 5: Academic Respondent Work

Figure 6: Type of Company

4 Role of the QS & Developments

4.1 Organisations Current workload

Perera & Pearson, 2011