NCMA Accreditation Working Group

Board Status Report

21 July 2013Gary Poleskey

2

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

3

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

4

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

Board Brief 3-23-13

5

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.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Survey of Colleges and Universities (Continued)

Category 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

Number of Instructors 86

Number of Students 874* Cal Poly offers both a Degree and a Certificate** Rendon Group (11.27.11) & Working Group Analysis

300

430

4370

10

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

11

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

12

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)

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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…..”

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

TimeBy Program Year

20133rd Qtr.

20134th Qtr.

20141st Qtr.

20142nd Qtr.

20143rd Qtr.

20144th Qtr.

20151st Qtr.

Board Meetings

Working Group

Board DecisionImpl Grp Go/No-Go

Start CMI Legal Re-Alignment

Implementation Group

Board DecisionValidation Process

Go/No-Go

22

Now

Recommendation & Way Forward (Continued)

23

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

24

Back-Up Charts

25

NameContract Management

Credential

CM Course

s

# of Student

s

# of Profs

.

Value of

Acc./Val.

ANSI Std. Val

Bellevue Univ.BS in Bus Admin &

MS in Acq. & CM9 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

Totals --- 60 874 86 -- --

Survey of Colleges and Universities

26

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

27

University Questionnaire – Page 1

28

University Questionnaire – Page 2