Beyond Certification

Two Standards?

This Wednesday, representatives from ASTM International and NOCA and stakeholders of a standard for certificate programs (government, associations, colleges, corporate training) will convene to discuss the impact of having two standards in the marketplace.  I'll be participating in the discussion, and would love to hear from you on this.  What do you think the impact would be (of having two independent standards in the marketplace)?  Positive, negative, negligible/none?

Some feel having two independent standards will be confusing to stakeholders.  Others feel competition is a good thing that provides choices for the market, and it's okay to let the market choose which standard meets their needs.  Some feel the standards will be used by different audiences, which mitigates the impact. 

Of course we have an example of this now in credentialing.  There are two independent sets of standards for certification programs:  ANSI-ISO/IEC 17024 which is an international standard used by ANSI as the basis of their accreditation system and the NCCA standards which serve as the basis of their own accreditation system. 

And, this is even an oversimplification.  There are actually many more than two sets of standards for certification programs, some complementary and others not.  And, in addition to the two accreditation systems described, there are also independent standards (and accreditation systems) for nursing certification, food safety, and others.

What do you feel has been the impact of having these independent sets of standards in certification?  Is the current situation the same or different?  Thoughts?

Update on ASTM Standard for Certificate Programs

Just a few updates on the standard for certificate programs. 

The first ballot by ASTM International on the standard for certificate programs passed!  That doesn't mean it was finalized; it means that the standard draft proceeds in development.  After the ballot closed, we worked on incorporating the feedback provided into the draft.  Thank you so much to the many of you who provided helpful feedback to make the standard even better, either as a member of the ASTM subcommittee or as an interested party.  This does bring me to something I wanted to clarify:  you do NOT need to be a member of ASTM to view and comment on the draft!!!  All you need to do is e-mail me or Rick Lake of ASTM and ask for a copy.  We welcome and encourage feedback from everyone who is impacted in any way by the standard.  As a member you can participate formally in the voting process, but all feedback submitted (from members and non-members alike) is considered in the draft revisions.  By the way, I'm thrilled to say that our interested party list has grown exponentially over the past month!!  The word is really getting out about this standard, and we're receiving much input and support, especially from the training community.   

A new and updated draft of the ASTM International standard for certificate programs is out to ballot through October 26th.  If you would like to view the current (and I encourage you to do so!!), e-mail me and I'll have the draft sent to you.

As chair of the task group charged with considering feedback and revising the standard accordingly, let me say that I am particularly interested in constructive feedback on the standard.  While it may be nice to hear kudos, I want to hear what are the potential problems with the standard.  I want to hear from those who will play devil's advocate and ask, "well, what about this...?"  or "what happens when...?"  If that describes you, please do contact me!  Only with this type of constructive criticism will this standard be the best possible.