The following are the recommendations contained in the final report of the review of the CILIP Framework of Qualifications and Accreditation conducted by Education for Change and Acumen.

Please remember that any recommendations about staffing matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive and will not be considered until changes to processes and procedures have been agreed.


RECOMMENDATION 1
CILIP should initiate a systematic consultation and evidence-gathering exercise with a wide range of employers, focusing on what it is they want from the awards, and how they fit in the context of the changing employment practices. This should provide the foundation for a continuing employer engagement strategy

RECOMMENDATION 2
The current Revalidation award should be replaced by a lighter-touch, more collaborative approach to continuous professional development, which is nonetheless mandatory. The emphasis should be on personal development, quality learning outcomes, improving skills and competences and maintaining standards of practice. In our view, this would be more a shift of focus and emphasis than a complete revision of the principles and content of revalidation in its current form.

RECOMMENDATION 3
The current Assessment Panels and the Chartership Board should be disbanded, removing a layer of procedure from the process of assessment. This does not, however, do away with the role of the assessors themselves, who will then be empowered to take final decisions on acceptance or rejection of portfolios, working as at present in pairs, with reference to a third assessor should the pair fail to agree.

RECOMMENDATION 4
CILIP should recruit and maintain a smaller body of assessors (no more than 30), reflecting as wide a range of regional and specialist knowledge and experience as possible, who will assess portfolios for all levels of awards, only with FCLIP assessments reserved for a few suitably qualified and experienced individuals

RECOMMENDATION 5
CILIP should establish four fixed deadlines throughout the year for submission of each type of award portfolio, staggering them so that, for example, ACLIP applications are accepted in month one, MCLIP in month two and FCLIP in month three. This will allow a more evenly spaced and regular flow of portfolios for assessment to be sent to assessors

RECOMMENDATION 6
All candidate portfolios should be created, submitted and circulated entirely and only as electronic documents either sent as zipped attachments to email or downloaded onto a CD-ROM.

RECOMMENDATION 7
CILIP should move quickly to set up candidate registration and application procedures online

RECOMMENDATION 8
All documentation related to the awards including the outputs of the Career Development Group should be critically reviewed, revised and rewritten. Careful attention should be paid to the quality and consistency of all ‘non¬official’ supporting material provided to candidates, and its provenance should be clearly indicated


RECOMMENDATION 9
CILIP should review the roles of the Career Development Group and the Candidate Support Officers once the recommended changes to procedures and revision of the awards documentation have been implemented

RECOMMENDATION 10
Central administrative support for any candidate and mentor training events should be provided by a restructured Qualifications and Professional Development Department, as part of a greater emphasis on candidate support in general.

RECOMMENDATION 11
To underpin the whole mentor scheme, there needs to be dramatic and immediate improvements in the tools and procedures around matching mentors to candidates.

RECOMMENDATION 12
As a matter of some urgency, the requirements of the Qualifications and Professional Development Department in relation to defining, accessing and using membership records should be analysed in order to ensure that those requirements are properly reflected in development plans for the CARE database.

RECOMMENDATION 13
To progress the operation of the Framework on all these ICT-related fronts we strongly recommend that a dedicated ICT development officer should be recruited as soon as possible for the Qualifications and Professional Development Department on a fixed term contract.

RECOMMENDATION 14
CILIP should consider accrediting institutions instead of courses and, in so doing, should aim to build on the existing working relationships with the providers

RECOMMENDATION 15
CILIP should, in a dialogue with providers of degrees in library and information studies, seek to design a package of benefits that could be offered to the institutions as part of the accreditation service, for which the institutions would pay an annual fee.

RECOMMEDNATION 16
As a first step to implementing the changes recommended in this Review, CILIP should establish a new Awards and Accreditation Department to replace the existing Qualifications and Professional Development Department.

RECOMMENDATION 17
A number of changes to the departmental staffing structure, roles and responsibilities should accompany the setting up of the new department.

RECOMMENDATION 18
CILIP should establish a single Awards and Accreditation Board. The Board should be concerned with establishing CILIP’s awards and accreditation strategy and with setting policies for the implementation of the strategy. It will also provide a means of ensuring a line of accountability to CILIP Council.

RECOMMENDATION 19
The current structure and level of fees for application for awards should remain unchanged.

Click here to view the PDF of the final report (this page can only be viewed by CILIP members)