NCMA Accreditation Working Group
Board Status Report
21 July 2013
Gary Poleskey
Accreditation Working Group Members
• Gary Poleskey, Past National President 2010, Chair
• Lenn Vincent, Past National President 2007
• Gary Zura, Past National President 2004
• Chuck Woodside, NCMA’s Director of Certification and
Past National President 2005
• Dr. Rene Rendon, Professor at U. S. Naval
Postgraduate School and Chair of November 2011
Accreditation Project Team
• Larry Trowel, National President Elect
2
NCMA Accreditation Working Group
Board Status Report – Overview
• Vision
• College and University Survey Results
• Impact of DAU Equivalency
• Program Focus vs. Course Focus
• Recommendation & Way Forward
3
Vision for NCMA Accreditation
• Advance Contract Management academic instruction quality
through accreditation to serve students and their families,
colleges and universities, sponsoring bodies, governments, and
employers.
• Establish NCMA as the right entity to provide this service to the
Contract Management profession
– “The genius of this (U.S.) system is that, unlike other
countries, we do not have mandatory national curricula for
colleges; we do not have a national ministry of education that
regulates academic standards; and students are free to choose
the type of education that they pursue, depending on their
ability, financial resources, and educational goals.”
• Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), Policy, p.17
4
Working Group Vision Corollary
• Firmly establish NCMA as the preeminent Association in
the field of Contract Management with education
providers and educational institutions.
• We are the Association that the education world turns to
first for the knowledge and the intellectual rigor needed
to educate in the field of Contract Management.
5
NCMA Accreditation Working Group
Board Status Report – Overview
• Vision
• College and University Survey Results
• Impact of DAU Equivalency
• Program Focus vs. Course Focus
• Recommendation & Way Forward
6
Survey of Colleges and Universities
• In March, we proposed an on-line survey of 35 colleges
• Working Group decided that we would learn more if we
called and interviewed a subset of that list
– Contacted 14 institutions who teach CM courses (40% of orig. list)
– Selected a cross-section of degree granting institutions, certificate
granting institutions, and those just offering CM courses
• Ten institutions did agree to be interviewed
– Bellevue, Cal Poly, Howard, Naval Postgraduate School, Old Dominion
St. Louis, Maryland, West Florida, Webster, Catholic Univ.
– Interviewees very open to serving as our “Sounding Board” in future
• Four institutions chose not to participate
– U of Dallas, Keller, St. Edwards, Florida Inst. of Tech
7
Survey of Colleges and Universities (Continued)
Category
Working Group
Survey Results
BS, MS, or MBA Degree in
Contract Management (CM)
3
Certificate in CM *
5
CM Courses Only (No Credential)
3
Total Colleges or Universities *
10
Number of Courses
60
Number of Instructors
86
Number of Students
874
* Cal Poly offers both a Degree and a Certificate
8
Survey of Colleges and Universities (Continued)
Working Group
Survey Results
Working Group
Est. – Total U.S.**
BS, MS, or MBA Degree in
Contract Management (CM)
3
5
Certificate in CM *
5
15
CM Courses Only (No Credential)
3
30
Total Colleges or Universities *
10
50
Number of Courses
60
300
Number of Instructors
86
430
874
4370
Category
Number of Students
* Cal Poly offers both a Degree and a Certificate
** Rendon Group (11.27.11) & Working Group Analysis
9
Survey of Colleges and Universities
(Continued)
• Would your institution value NCMA review of your Program or
your courses *
– 70% (7 of 10) Valuable to Extremely Valuable (Ave. Score 4.6)
– 30% (3 of 10) Low to Marginal Value (Ave. Score 2.3)
• Value to you if NCMA review was based on an ANSI CM
Standard *
– 70% (7 of 10) Valuable to Extremely Valuable (Ave. Score 5.1)
– 30% (3 of 10) Low to Marginal Value (Ave. Score 3.0)
* Rating Scale Range was 1 to 6
10
NCMA Accreditation Working Group
Board Status Report – Overview
• Vision
• College and University Survey Results
• Impact of DAU Equivalency
• Program Focus vs. Course Focus
• Recommendation & Way Forward
11
Impact of DAU Equivalency
• Courses offered by DAU and equivalent courses taught by
colleges and training houses are prevalent in market place
– High demand because of DAWIA and FAC-C Certifications
• DAU equivalency process important to Federal Government
– Overcomes the training “bottle neck” that would otherwise exist
– Extends DAU’s reach into courses taught by colleges and training houses
– Ensures common quality of course work behind Certifications
• DAU has developed a rigorous equivalency process
– College and training house courses validated against DAU courses
– “Heavy lifting” done by review subcontractors (ACE and CTS)
– Subcontractor report approved by DAU OPR (Mr. Camporini)
12
Impact of DAU Equivalency
(Continued)
• DAU’s rigorous equivalency process colored our survey
– Vast majority of courses offered by institutions who did not value NCMA
accreditation or validation are subjected to DAU equivalency review
• 100% of Naval Postgraduate School
• 100% of Webster University
• 50% of University of West Florida
• However, our Working Group estimates that DAU equivalent
courses only account for approximately 40% of the CM
courses* offered by all colleges and universities
• Whatever NCMA does in this area must be compatible with and
not in competition with DAU
* Based Upon Working Group Research Results
13
NCMA Accreditation Working Group
Board Status Report – Overview
• Vision
• College and University Survey Results
• Impact of DAU Equivalency
• Program Focus vs. Course Focus
• Recommendation & Way Forward
14
Program Focus vs. Course Focus
• Working Group chartered to determine if NCMA could –
– “Advance Contract Management academic instruction quality through
Accreditation to serve students, colleges, employers, etc.”
– Accreditation: Formal program review process defined by CHEA
• Our research and assessment leads us to conclude that a
focus on Accreditation alone will not achieve that vision
– We estimate that 5 institutions offer Bachelors or Masters degrees in
Contract Management
• Many courses in those programs covered by DAU equivalency process and
colleges see little value in additional NCMA review of DAU courses
• Little need for institutions to differentiate themselves from each other
– Therefore: Focus on CM degree-granting institutions is not sufficient to
justify the time, energy, and expense to set up NCMA as an Accrediting Body
15
Program Focus vs. Course Focus (Continued)
• Focus on CM courses provides vehicle for achieving NCMA’s
overarching goals
– Validation: Working Group defined term focused on CM course quality
– Much larger market:
• Estimated approximately 300 courses
• Estimated 50 colleges and universities offer CM courses
– Review would be against criteria set by NCMA, based upon the CMBOK
• Validation process: Less complex than Accreditation process
– No CHEA rigor required, but would still require independent body
– Would be designed to be less onerous for the institution
– “Grunt” review work could be subcontracted out and paid by course
provider (DAU model)
– Would complement, not compete with DAU equivalency process
16
Program Focus vs. Course Focus (Continued)
• Validation potentially impacts all institutions offering CM
courses rather than the 5 CM Degree granting schools
• Many of the institution we’ve interviewed would welcome
NCMA Validation of their courses (Approximately 70%)
– Differentiate themselves from their approximately 50 competitors
– Respond to student and employer desire for officially sanctioned courses
– General consensus that NCMA is the right organization to fill the role of
course content validator
• We would achieve our vision: “Association that the education
world turns to for CM knowledge and intellectual rigor…..”
17
NCMA Accreditation Working Group
Board Status Report – Overview
• Vision
• College and University Survey Results
• Impact of DAU Equivalency
• Program Focus vs. Course Focus
• Recommendation & Way Forward
18
Recommendation & Way Forward
• Working Group Recommendation:
That the Working Group be re-named from the Accreditation Working
Group to be the Validation Working Group to:
– Investigate the feasibility of establishing a Validation review process
focused on ensuring the quality of CM courses offered by colleges
and universities
– Report back to NCMA leadership and recommend a course of action
19
Recommendation & Way Forward
(Continued)
• Working Group near-term tasks:
– Recommend steps to be included in an NCMA Validation Process
• Address independence and governance structure
– Recommend the membership of the Implementation Group
– Provide estimate of the timing and cost of the Implementation Group
– Determine what role, if any, should be played by the ANSI standard
setting process
– Suggest a potential fee structure
– Recommend an approach to stakeholder interaction
• Contracting leadership in Government and industry
• Colleges and Universities offering CM courses
• NCMA educational partners
• NCMA membership and all acquisition professionals
20
Recommendation & Way Forward
(Continued)
• Potential future tasks:
– Examine use of Validation Process to assess effectiveness of all of an
institution’s courses taken together
• Do they fully cover the breadth of the CMBOK ?
• Is the graduate prepared for CFCM or CPCM exam ?
• If not, present Gap Analysis feedback to institution
– Determine if an NCMA Validation Process for college courses could be
adapted to create a parallel process for Training House short courses
21
Recommendation & Way Forward
Time
By Program Year
2013
3rd Qtr.
2013
4th Qtr.
2014
1st Qtr.
2014
2nd Qtr.
2014
3rd Qtr.
(Continued)
2014
4th Qtr.
2015
1st Qtr.
Board Meetings
Working Group
Board Decision
Impl Grp Go/No-Go
Start CMI Legal
Re-Alignment
Implementation
Group
Board Decision
Validation Process
Go/No-Go
Now
22
Recommendation & Way Forward
• Working Group Recommendation:
That the Working Group be re-named from the Accreditation Working
Group to be the Validation Working Group to:
– Investigate the feasibility of establishing a Validation review process
focused on ensuring the quality of CM courses offered by colleges
and universities
– Report back to NCMA leadership and recommend a course of action
23
Back-Up Charts
24
Survey of Colleges and Universities
Contract Management
Credential
CM
Courses
# of
Students
# of
Profs.
Value of
Acc./Val.
ANSI
Std. Val
Bellevue Univ.
BS in Bus Admin &
MS in Acq. & CM
9
15
6
4
5
Cal Poly Univ.
BS in CM & CM Cert.
4
25
1
5
5
Catholic Univ.
None
4
34
4
5
3
Howard Univ.
None
5
60
2
4
5
Naval Postgrad.
MS/MBA in CM
12
55
7
3
3
Old Dominion U
Cert. in CM
6
60
11
5
6
St Louis Univ.
Cert. in CM
5
60
5
4
5
U of Maryland
Cert. in CM
5
400
18
5
6
U of West Fla
None
4
15
2
2
3
Webster Univ.
Cert. in CM
6
150
30
2
4
---
60
874
86
--
--
Name
Totals
25
Re-Purpose CMI
• CMI would figure prominently in Validation Process because
independence from NCMA would still be essential feature
• Review to date focused on Accrediting Body vis a vis CHEA
–
–
–
–
Independence from parent entity
Appropriate and fair procedures in decision making
Adequate financial resources to perform accreditation functions
Independent authority to deploy resources
• CMI could be separate organization or independent
commission within NCMA, but former is better option
• Jack Horan’s assessment: this can be done pro-bono as a
part of McKenna, Long, and Aldridge’s commitment to NCMA
26
University Questionnaire – Page 1
27
University Questionnaire – Page 2
28