Forgot your password?
Does achieving IIP actually improves business effectiveness
Does achieving IIP actually improves business effectiveness; or could it simply mean that those businesses that had the time, resources and motivation to go for a nationally recognised quality mark were already effective organisations, and that the award itself has added little value?
Participants in this section of the discussion argued both for and against the value of IIP. Some saw IIP as "just another hoop to jump through rather than an opportunity to critique organisational practice with a view to improvement," others point to evidence of its benefits.
Anecdotally, there was one employer who as part of seeking IIP accreditation did a massive qualifications audit of their staff. They then used the existing qualifications of their employees of evidence of a learning culture in an exercise that appeared to be so cynical the whole endeavour was discredited in the eyes of many of its employees. For example, within the personnel department there was a CIPD qualified staff member who was actually working in a scale 1 part time clerical role during a career break whilst raising a family. Yet her qualification was cited as evidence of the professional calibre of the team even though it was not utilised as part of her work. Arguably the high level of qualifications within the team reflected not a commitment to investing in staff development, but under-employment of skilled individuals at a time when their was a shortage of suitable opportunities in the labour market.
A great deal of the preparation for the initial assessment seemed to focus on coaching staff on what to say if they were interviewed. It was about playing a game and projecting an image. We were literally told that it was important to identify that we had had an induction, and that we knew we had access to training even when these were blurred and contentious areas where paper work policies were in place, but everyone recognised they weren't followed in practice. Nevertheless, IiP was presented as important, and crucial to the ongoing success and reputation of the institution (and therefore by implication your jobs) so now was not the time to rock the boat by being honest with external visitors about what really happened.
If staff are cynical about the difference between the rhetoric of the framed certificates and the reality they experience then e.g. IiP is perceived to be worthless window dressing. Yet at the same time, in seeking e.g. preferred supplier status, matrix accreditation or IiP is a necessary pre-requisite as whatever limitation it may have it offers some external measure of organisational ethos.
My experience suggests its just another hoop to jump through rather than an opportunity to critique organisational practice with a view to improvement.
A report by Mark Cox and Rod Spires in June 2002 on behalf of the DfES, ' The wider role and benefits of Investors in people' identifies their survey showed that half the companies working towards investors anticipated increased quality of goods and services as a result of the award and 25-30% see it as a means to increased profitability and/or business growth. Many of those involved evidenced the effects of the standard accumulated over time.
A report from The British Quality Foundation- The impact of Business excellence on financial performance- found that award winners out performed average firms significantly- Operating income for award winners increased by 91% over the post implementation period. It concludes" Business Excellence improves profitability, leads to higher growth and improves efficiency"
Last modified
2004-06-30 02:17 PM
Last cached: 2008-05-20 11:26 AM
Last cached: 2008-05-20 11:26 AM