MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
INDUSTRY WORKING PARTY REVIEWING THE “NZ
DIPLOMA IN CONSTRUCTION ” WITH STRANDS IN
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUANTITY
SURVEYING
Date:
Time:
Venue:
Thursday, 30 January 2014
9.00 am
BCITO Conference Centre, Level 6,
234 Wakefield Street, Wellington
PRESENT (Sector and Industry Representatives):
Quantity Surveying
Barry Calvert
Chris Prigg
Jeremy Chan
Keith Power
Rob Cunningham
Beca/NZIQS
ITP-Unitec
Fletcher Construction
NZIQS/ITP – CPIT
Stevenson & Williams/
RMBF
Construction Management
Peter Robson
Wood Robson
Chris Prigg
ITP - Unitec
Graeme Goss
NZIOB/Hindhope
Developments Ltd
Rob Cunningham
Stevenson & Williams/RMBF
Mike King
NZIOB/Summerset
Management Group
Christian Wilson
Fletcher Construction
Paul Roberts
ITP – Bay of Plenty Polytechnic
IN ATTENDANCE (BCITO):
Helen Hines-Randall
Kate Hopkins
Senior Qualifications Project Manager
Minute Secretary
APOLOGY:
Audrina Stanley
Naylor Love
1.
WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
Helen Hines-Randall opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. Audrina Stanley’s
apology was accepted.
2.
MINUTES/NOTES FROM NOVEMBER MEETING
Clarification was given on some of the commentary. Issues discussed were as follows:

Item 4 – US 27153: There was some confusion around the correctness of the words
“contract selection” in the title and whether the meaning could be misconstrued, and
whether “tendering” was appropriate.
Agreed: That the title of US 27153 be changed to read “Demonstrate the
process of contract selection and procurement for a medium building”.

The meeting noted that US 27153 had grown in size which meant it would take
longer to teach and the suggestion was made that the increase in content should be
reflected in the credit value.
Keith said he was more concerned about the overall credit value of the whole
qualification which should ideally be 2 years full time study equalling 240 credits, and
then working out how to get students to that point, rather than taking a
“smorgasbord” approach and tweaking individual unit standards.
Helen commented that unit standards should reflect the extent and duration of
learning if someone wanted to pick up a unit standard on its own, and asked if an
increase to 20 credits for US 27153 was acceptable to the group.
Agreed: That US 27153 credit value be increased to 20 credits.
1
3.

Item 2, Page 3, 7th bullet point: Agreed that it should read ”The ITPs would have
huge concerns if NZQA became the moderation body for these programmes
due to their lack of industry knowledge.”

Item 5, Page 5 “Education Pathways”: Agreed that the Pre-requisites should be
“A minimum of 50 NCEA credits at Level 2, including 12 credits at Level 2 in
Maths and a minimum of 10 Literacy credits at NCEA Level 1.”
Keith commented that the entry criteria needed to ensure that students completed
and passed the course and that there should be no barriers to them entering the
programme. The poor communication skills of students was also noted by Paul
Roberts.
THEORY OF MANAGEMENT, NEGOTIATION SKILLS, CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
This issue was raised at the previous meeting, and Helen had included in the circulated
papers copies of Unit Standards which might be been suitable. She asked for
comments around the suitability of any of them. She also reminded the meeting that
they had the option of writing an Outcome Statement which could state “Understands
the principles of professional practice, ……. etc.”
Chris Prigg said it was accepted that US9735 “Demonstrate knowledge of theory in
relation to management in organisations” was set two levels too low on the framework
and in reading through the Definitions and Explanatory Notes it did not focus on
Construction. He advised that Unitec ran a Degree course called “Construction Team
Management” which covered most of the issues covered in 9735 which could be useful
for the Diploma students. Chris said he would be happy to email a copy of the relevant
resources to Helen. He also emphasised the importance of making it clear that these
skills will be applied specifically to the New Zealand Construction Environment.
Action:
Chris Prigg to email Helen tomorrow with the relevant Construction Team
Management resources from their Degree programme.
Mike felt that the Evidence Requirements were too focused and that much of the content
could be combined under a general heading. He felt that an Outcome Statement was
the obvious solution. Employers didn’t need a graduate quoting the principles of
management but wanted a leader who could encourage staff to wear their hard hats (as
an example) and exhibit Team Leadership skills.
It was agreed that the Outcome Statement should be succinct and contain:
Demonstrate and show Team Leadership, Communication, Active Listening,
Negotiation.
Barry stated that these skills could also be used in the Consulting environment because
a number of students graduating will want to work in a slightly different environment but
there are still teams and they will be working with people who can be difficult, so these
soft skills will be required.
In the extensive discussion about whether US 9735 would suitably cover the Theory of
Management, Negotiation Skills and Conflict Management, the following points were
made:
 The importance of record-keeping and Maintaining a Site Diary should be included.
 The qualification is not only about Team Leadership but also Management which
includes allocation of resources, organisation, strategic planning, managing labour,
materials and delegation.
 The Management Theory unit standard could be adapted to a construction context.
2






The Schools of Thought mentioned in the Evidence Requirements could refer to the
Construction Industry.
From a QS point of view some of the content is appropriate as regards interaction
with bankers, developers, engineering consultants, people in big organisations which
would give the student an understanding of that structure and give them an insight
as to what is going on in the business.
This wouldn’t increase the potential of the students in the eyes of an employer.
Management Theory would be a “nice to have” and wouldn’t form a major part of the
qualification but would give the benefit of future-proofing the students as to what
they will come up against later in their careers.
There needs to be something on a “broad-brush” basis and Chris Prigg’s document
will assist in determining what that should be.
Helen said she would be looking for an Outcome Statement that was fairly succinct
and then attach conditions to ensure consistency of content at various ITPs.
The meeting agreed that no firm decision could be made on this subject until they
had seen Chris Prigg’s document and a draft Outcome Statement from Helen
which captured the essence of Management Theory, which could be
“Demonstration of how to lead a team in a construction and consulting
environment”.
Action:
Helen to distribute a draft Outcome Statement to working party.
Mark Somervell from the BCITO’s Quality Assurance Team joined the meeting during
the next item.
4.
CREDIT LEVELS (raised by Keith)
Keith noted that the qualification currently stood at 211 credits for the Compulsory plus
CM strand and 223 with the QS strand. He outlined the difficulty in managing
consistency with a range of credits and said it needed to be a specific number. He also
gave his reasons for requesting that credit levels within the qualification be in 15 or 20
credit parcels. Odd numbers had been created because unit standard credits had been
added to the Outcome Statement.
Keith proposed that the qualification be the equivalent of 2 years full time study and 240
credits. He said the ITPs would all be able to manage that and create consistency
nationwide. Keith commented that the “jury was out” about whether the ITP sector was
in favour of using unit standards.
The credits within each unit standard are a guide to the weighting that the industry
places on the skills involved – probably about 60 credits (¼ of the programme) on
building construction, and say ¼ of core qualification in estimating and measurement,
and about ¼ to do with generic inter-personal teamwork in business communications,.
The potential for the clumping together of unit standards listed under each specification
for ease of delivery was discussed and Keith and Chris both advised that this was how
they currently delivered their programmes. Chris advised that he used unit standards as
a benchmarking exercise to track the credits of people moving from one ITP to another
in order to work out what they have already gained.
Clarification was given that 15 credits was the equivalent of a 3 hour class for 16 weeks.
The meeting suggested where additional credits could lie to bring the Compulsory + CM
strand and Compulsory + QS strand up to 240 credits and these were noted by Helen.
3
Paul Roberts advised how the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic dealt with students enrolling in
their programme who had already paid for and gained some of the unit standards
contained in the course. They were not asked to pay twice for something they had
already achieved.
Further points raised around the table included:
 The fact that Outcome Statements were not recorded by NZQA, and therefore how
are the achievements acknowledged for students who have undertaken courses
which are not based on unit standards?
 Was it possible that someone who only did unit standards at, say, the Open
Polytechnic and who therefore did not complete the full qualification could come out
with an NZQA Diploma? It was noted that ITPs had to prove to NZQA that their
programmes conformed with the qualification and must pick up all its Outcome
Statements.
 The BCITO still intends to facilitate the Annual Moderation Meeting.
 In future ITPs will be responsible for the QA of their own programmes.
 ITPs acknowledge their responsibility to industry in the delivery of their programmes.
 The students must undertake “true tasks” eg setting out, running of levels, contours
etc. Look for an additional unit standard regarding Setting Out. Reference was
made to US 27154 which was heavily weighted to surveying and would need beefing
up in relation to the levelling aspect. More information could be added to the
Outcome Statement but important to ensure the credit weighting is on the right
subject matter.
Action:
Helen to look up the relevant unit in the Carpentry Qualification to see if it
is suitable and circulate it to IWP members.
5.
UNIT STANDARD 10042 “Negotiate and apply specified types of contracts to
tendering situations for quantity surveying”
Helen tabled a copy of this unit standard for the meeting to review. The meeting
agreed not to include it in Construction Management.
6.
WHERE TO FROM HERE?
After liaison between IWP members, Helen will produce a revised document together
with a draft email, which she will ask that IWP representatives circulate to their sectors,
together with an attestation form, requesting confirmation that they agree they have
been consulted with and that there is a need for the qualification. If some members wish
to give feedback they may do so but it must be justified. .
There being no further business, Helen thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting
at 12.05 pm.
4