A combination of reduced inspiration and the increase in financial processing associated with the end of the financial year here, have led to me not posting anything the past few weeks.
During this period I have read a number of interesting posts and articles, many of them “starred” in Google Reader and Twitter for future review, but two in particular inspired me to want to write again.
Earlier this week Nathaniel Forbes published a post entitled “BCI-DRJ alliance: Jeeves & Wooster meet The Dukes of Hazzard“.
The next day Dave Snowden posted on “wilful Blindness” – or why we ignore the obvious at our peril
I had always thought this BCI/DRJ alliance was a strange relationship – and no doubt motivated by marketing and the drive to expand membership in North America. Despite this I was not motivated to comment on it until I read Nat’s post.
Do we think that this type of relationship will generate thought leadership – or do these large-scale vendors ( DRJ , BCI and DRII all vendors – selling training and certification to the masses) in the business of protecting their own proprietary ‘bodies of knowledge’?
I had an intersting conversation during the WCDM Conference this year, with a professional I met there, about the DRJ sponsored “Generally Accepted Practices” and how these were developed. Perhaps one day I will take their advice and get actively involved in the process.
I also visited the Canadian DRII Chapter’s booth at WCDM. I chatted to the guy there about the BCI marketing campaign to recognise their members certifications, and offered to join his organisation on the spot if they recognised my BCI exam. I was willing to allow them the right to peer review the experience part – but surely the exam should be accepted?
The answer was no, the DRII had concluded that recognising the BCI credential would devalue their member’s qualification. Yes, they believe they offer a more demanding, more highly regarded qualification than the BCI.
I should point out that I dont think the BCI qualification is any better or worse than the DRII qualification. Too often we forget that both these entities are vendors – they sell training and recognition. I would happily pay membership dues to both if it encourages the BC industry to become a profession – but I am not going to pay either of them for training on their idea of what BCM should be.
The section of Nat’s post that really got me going was his description of what a thought leader is and does. Very powerful, and it reminded me of why I started this blog project in the first place – to explore new ideas and cross fertilise ideas with new people, who have different perspectives.
The concept of ‘Wilfull blindness’ applied to business and organisational world seems to result in cult-stlye limitations on thinking. This can manifest as the personality cult of the star CEO, or the though cult of the ‘definitive body of knowledge’ or Standard.
Both these imperatives require thinking and writing, not silence.
Resilience is not a new form of Business Continuity Management, or Risk Management or Emergency Management or any of the related disciplines. It is the understanding and appropriate application of all these – it is the result of real management and leadership in an organisation.
Transmission has been resumed – lets hope the comments start again too!
I have seen some excellent planners who never paid a sou for a certificate and I have seen people with a long string of alphabet soup following their name who I would not trust to plan my way across a deserted country road. Unfortunately, thanks to the power of advertising, certification often is a requirement for employment, both consulting and staff varieties. As to DRJ’s publishing practices, it seems to publish almost everything that’s decently crafted (and some that’s not). It may not (always) be a thought leader, but I would refrain from writing that it restricts content.
Truth in posting: DRJ has been publishing my words twice-a-year since 2004. I won’t claim to be a “thought leader,” I just want practitioners to think.
G’day John, good to hear from you.
Your point is well taken. As per your own recent post, I reviewed the meaning I intended and the words I had used in that section.
We can only hope that employers learn to hire the right people for a job rather than the generally accepted certification.