The Road to Recognition

Hi there,

I missed all of this as I was out of the country on a job so taking each of the questions in turn.

(1) Do we need to be recognised / certified / accredited or graded?

I’m assuming that you mean a professional qualification like a membership of the Chartered Management Institute. Why not, it can only increase the credibility of planners, schedulers and project controls professionals. Different grades of membership according to qualifications and experience is fairly standard. Associate Member, Member, Fellow and if you want to get really posh Companion.

At the same time, though, you have to keep entry criteria fairly tight. Where someone has a reconised degree in Project Planning or something similar, let them have a basic membership. But at the same time don’t debar the person with no formal qualifications who has been doing the job for twenty years. Have your own exams for membership grades, maybe along the lines of PRINCE2 qualifications where you start off with the foundation qualification then move on to practitioner (the equivalent of Associate Member and Member maybe?)

Further progression through achievements, experience, further qualifications (professional, academic?)

(2) Do we need a professional body such as APM or PMI to do this, or should, or could we, organise and accredit ourselves?

It will need to be a professional body, with professional standards, but whether you organise a new one from scratch or tie in with an existing related professional body, I suppose would need a poll of the members. Asking what is probably a really daft question, don’t we already have such a body? The Planning Engineers Organisation or maybe that is a little bit too oriented towards planning without due emphasis on the other skills mentioned in your post.

(3) Irrespective of how such certification or accreditation is carried out, what Core Competences / Skills should be recognised and how could we grade such skills?

Possibly the first run at this would be to poll the members and find out what they see as their key skills. From this it should be possible to build the ideal skill sets for planners, schedulers and project controls professionals. The next bit is the really tricky bit, you need a team of highly skilled, highly qualified Planning Planet members in the various disciplines to map the skills from the skill sets to the different grades of membership. It takes a lot of time and a lot of effort.

(4) How can we assure the market / employers that such accreditation is unbiased and indeed accurate?

There isn’t any quick or certain way of doing this. What it needs, unfortunately, is years of employers finding that members of the Planning Planet affiliated professional body are very good at their jobs. Eventually this will lead to confidence that any member of this professional body will be able to do the job, and thus confidence in the accreditation and the professional body responsible. But it isn’t going to happen quickly, if you take a look at a brief history of the Chartered Management Institute, you’ll see what I mean.

Sorry this has gone on a bit but my excuse is I’m on sick leave fo another couple of weeks, and I’ve got time on my hands. If you think that this post is more trouble than it’s worth bin it.

Regards

Chris Oggham

Good One Chris,

But grading on basis of face-to-face interview is not at all a good idea. Then there is always a possibility that the expert will be bias.

Exam for 2 or 4 or 8 hours shud be fine to test on theoretical, practical and teachnical fronts just like EVP or CCE.

Cheers,

Rav

Planning Planet becoming serious? I think you need to re-baseline everything and consider some significant things like:

1. How does it feel to be called Planning Planet Certified Planner? (PP Admin, you need to change your image, you need to wear tie from now on! or you’ll lose some serious members - like me!).

2. face-to-face interview, and going global? (this is going to be Big Time! - how much is the membership fee by the way? is there a free tea or coffee?).

3. how about the free forum? (oh i really love this one!), i hope it remains free!

4. Are you going to put the PP Headquarters in China?

anyway, Congratulations! despite the global crisis, Planning Planet is becoming an institution (a serious one hopefully!)....where’s the bin?

Christian

Very good analysis, that could work as it defines the planners knowledge.

As a Director and Trustee of APM, can I suggest you get closer to the APM Planning Special Interest Group?
As APM will (hopefully) get it’s Royal Charter next year, an affiliation to a Chartered body will do you no harm at all.
Now is the time to structure what you think a Planning qualification could look like - you have a blank canvas.

Dear All

It would be worth you all reading the recent CIOB survey ’Managing the Risk of Delayed Completion in the 21st Century’. You can download a copy for free at www.ciob.org.uk/resources/research.

The research revealed that a high proportion of complex construction projects are likely to be finished more than six months late, due to poor time control. Amongst other things, those responding to the survey felt that very few projects are currently managed by reference to modern methods of time control, and that improved facilities for the education, training and accreditation of planning engineers and project schedulers are needed.

Following on from this,the idea is that to start with the CIOB (which already has its Royal Charter) will develop a "CIOB Guide to Good Practice in Project Scheduling"

The purpose of this guide is to set down the standards of project scheduling necessary in order to facilitate the effective and competent management of time in construction projects.

The recommended use of the guide is that it will form the basis for the education of project schedulers. It will also be the standard by which project schedules will be prepared, quality controlled, updated, reviewed and revised in practice. It should also be identified in contract conditions, project specifications, and bills of quantities as the required standard for the preparation and updating of construction programmes, progress reporting and time management.

Keith Pickavance, current President of the CIOB is heading this initiative up, and it has support from a number of leading industry players including Gary France of the PEO.

I actually spent a session at the recent Planning Planet conference speaking on this very subject, and if anyone wants a copy of my slides, please feel free to drop me an e-mail to tobyhunt@hillintl.com, and I will forward you a copy.

Regards

Toby

How is this different to existing certification bodies? Or is this because you want to have something UK centric?

Dave

what existing certification bodies specifically give a qualification or accreditation in planning / scheduling?

The CIOB is a global organisation, and the idea is that it works with other bodies and groups to make sure best practice is promoted in this field globally.

Regards

Toby

Toby,

I think that having a detailed CIOB specific planning standard that integrates contractually is a great idea.

However, having a CIOB accredited course, although global, will only hold any weight within the construction and possibly engineering sectors.

I think what is needed is a ’project control’ accreditation that (1) is universally recognized as guaranteeing the standard of the individual that holds membership and (2) can be used as a key reference document for all industries.

If a detailed standard was created by bodies such as the APM/PMI and recognized globally, then a supporting CIOB standard could be put in place to integrate planning best practice into construction contracts and indeed many other sectors.

In addition, i think that the planning community from the construction / delay sectors would play a key role if such a direction was taken, as from my experience there are still some sectors that are lagging behind in project controls.

Oliver

It is hoped that other bodies such as APM and PMI will work with the CIOB to ensure that the accrediation is recognised across different bodies and organisations.

Keith Pickavance is involved with PMICOS, so is already aware of the work done by them, and will maintain the lines of communication. As earlier poster in this thread was on the board of the APM, so perhaps he can encourage them to get in touch with the CIOB on this issue.

There are also a number of Universities interested in looking at this as a possible module to an MSc or post grad diploma.

Regards

Toby

Rod and all

As a member of the APM and an interest in the Planning and Programming SIG (and I have a great respect for many of the active members of the SIG). have you read their recent publication ‘Introduction to Project Planning’?

To be frank, I read the ‘book’ in about 15 minutes and have never read such an anodyne jargon-laden tome in all my life. With respect, if this is the best the APM can come up with (the Project Planning introduction has had a gestation period longer than an elephant) then I don’t think the APM is the ideal organisation for planners to be affiliated with. Fingers-crossed that the CIOB initiative bears more fruit.

Whilst the Planning Engineer’s Organisation has had a bit of a static period of late it is about the only place where there are some decent, topical and serious papers on planning and programming. Yes, the PEO is only two or three years old but if more of us get behind it, it could well become our natural home. The entry criteria, I think, are pretty fair too. As has been said on Planning Planet many times before passing exams and being able to drive software does not make you a good or competent planner and a global organisation cannot survive or grow with the need for face-to-face interviews.

And taking up what Toby says, the good universities in the UK do already offer planning modules as part of, say, their construction management courses. Our problem is to get those people into specialist planning and programming careers and not to loose them in to general project management and so on.

Regards

David

Hi All

I have contended in the PP forum that you cannot plan a project if you don’t know how to build it.

I raised this at Reading when Toby had the floor.

A degree in software manipulation will not automatically create a competent planner.

First demonstrate that you can build - then demonstrate competence in the software - then get planning accreditation.

I agree with David - The PEO is very nearly there and it gives accreditation by a panel judging a submitted thesis.

It is simple and it works.

Anyway an MPEO trumps my GCE carpentry O level any day.

Best regards

Mike Testro

But Mike...

I guess you, and your GCE ’O’ level carpentry is something that most of us haven’t got - does that make you (and it) special???

Hi David

I forgot to mention C&G Bricklaying 1961

Before MPEO my career has been an unqualified success.

Best regards

Mike T

I still don’t understand what is fundamentally different about what is being proposed here and what other organisations already do. E.g. PMI.

"what existing certification bodies specifically give a qualification or accreditation in planning / scheduling?"

I would imagine the PMI would be mortified that you had not considered a PMP to fit this definition.

I am not suggesting that a PMP is the best possible qualification for a project manager. I am asking what is fundamentally different about this proposal and (for example) a PMP?

Dave

PMP is a PM certification rather than a scheduling / planning accreditation.

In the 1970s the trend was to think that effective time management lay in the hands of Project Managers. In those days it was thought that the project manager, by defining relationships and managing people and information, could achieve what the QS and cost management alone could not.

However, it is clear that without competent project control and contracts that permit effective process management, managing people and information does not secure timely completion of projects.

Project Managers often do not understand how to use the schedule as a project management tool. Therefore PMP is not the solution I don’t believe

Regards

Toby

We do need to be accredited and recognize as Planning and scheduling professional.

What do I have in mind??

Planning Planet Professional Planner and Scheduler.

WOW

What will be the difference with AACE Accredited Planning and Scheduling Professional???

The CIOB Guide will be in much more detail, and will form the basis for the education of project schedulers. It will also be the standard by which project schedules will be prepared, quality controlled, updated, reviewed and revised in practice. The guide’s draft contents is:

1 Introduction
2 Terminology
3 Types of schedule
4 Managing the process
5 Method statement (those in general relevant to programme preparation)
6 Preparing the schedule
7 Quality assurance
8 Progress records
9 Monitoring the schedule
10 Updating the schedule
11 Change management
12 Reviewing and revising the schedule
13 Reporting

I have seen the website of AACE, and they do have a substantial amount of information, I believe, which is similar maybe the same, as what is being proposed here. Is there a difference? Just asking.

Would it be more beneficial if the 2 organizations collaborate on this?

Majority of Planning Planet members comes from UK influence line of thinking (basically, former colonies of the once mighty British Empire, now member of the Commonwealth Countries).

But, the once upon a time is not really the best thinking in the planning universe.

In our quest for regocnition and accreditation, we have to look back to our humble beginning and trace how we in planning planet becomes a dynamic, responsive, intellectual, all the best adjectives that we can describe ourselves and of course sometimes crazy, hilarious, fighters of planning ideas.

What I’m trying to say is that Planning Planet is a brand, a very unique brand, that differentiates us from other planning organization.

and it is preferable for this PLANNING PLANET BRAND will remain forever, as what our founding fathers (PP admin) have originally in mind.

If we loss this PLANNING PLANET BRAND, then we will be like the other planning organization, the pretenders to have the absolute representation of planners, in papers, but not in reality.

Hi All

We must not forget that planning today is a young discipline - before computers there were no planners.

Very complex structures got built without our specialist input - just a few lines on some graph paper.

Neither was there a burgeoning claims industry.

I go back to my usual theme - If you can’t build it you can’t plan it.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Charlie…

“Majority of Planning Planet members comes from UK influence line of thinking (basically, former colonies of the once mighty British Empire, now member of the Commonwealth Countries).
But, the once upon a time is not really the best thinking in the planning universe.”

I thought you had passed your racist, nationalistic, ‘chip on your shoulder’ phase - but it seems not.

Whilst you seem to love bitching about the status quo you never seem to do anything about it. If you think the UK influence is not really the best thinking in the planning universe why don’t you do something about it. My opinion is that cream will rise to the top so, who ever you think is the current ‘best thinking in the planning universe’, will no doubt show their hand eventually, be it the US, China or any other established or emerging nation.

As Toby has pointed out a number of times, a few people have bothered to do something, and they just happen to be UK centric (although Keith Pickavance is based in Hong Kong). They have identified problems in the UK Construction Industry in particular and are now trying to do something about it. If you are not happy with the way things are going, well why not you do something about it? Let’s say you start by doing some fundamental research into the state of planning and programming in the UAE or any other part of the world that you feel more comfortable with other than the once mighty British Empire.

No matter how many times I scour the Internet or the resources of the British Library I have yet to find any serious research, publication or original thought emanating from the great mind of Charleston-Joseph Orbe. Maybe if you contributed a little more to the development of our discipline then maybe it would be in a better state (but somehow I doubt it). I am passionate about planning so I got off my fat arse and volunteered to assist in the initiative Toby talks about - why haven’t you?

Regards

David

Hi David

Nothing like a good rant to clear the air - even if it is a bit Pythonesque.

Let us leave him alone nd get on with the work.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

THE VERY ESSENCE OF PLANNING IS TO PLAN FOR THE BETTER. IF YOU GUYS ARE NOW DOING THAT PLANNING ACCREDITATION TASK, I MAY SAY THAT ITS LEAST EXPECTED OUTCOME WOULD BE FOR THE GOOD AND BETTERMENT OF OUR PLANNING PROFESSION.

BY NATURE, TRULY CHANGE IS MOST OFTEN CRITICIZED AND RESISTED. BUT, WITHOUT THAT CRITICISM AND RESISTANCE, ONE MAY NOT FULLY FIND A NEAR PERFECT APPROACH AND SOLUTION TO THE TASK. IN A WAY, CRITICISM AND RESISTANCE MAKES THINGS EVEN MORE BETTER.

MOVE ON GUYS. I AM ONE OF THOSE WHO ANXIOUSLY WAITS FOR ITS GOOD RESULT. THANK YOU.

Beautifully said and written David

Cheers mate

I believe that the road to recognition is not cheap. If it comes from the UK then it means tons of sterling pounds.

And going global? A few questions might be asked:

1. How simple it is?
2. How long will it take?
3. How much will an aspiring member is supposed to spend in acquiring such certification?
4. How many serious and experienced Planners exist or alive?
5. How to attract and convince aspiring Planners?
6. What is the minimum level of education or experience (minimum and standard requirement) required to be considered for membership?
7. Language to be used (only English)?
8. Is personal attendance necessary, or can this be done on web?
9. Where’s my bin???

One of the drawbacks about any certification like this is that it attracts people who are good at passing exams.

There are lots of people who will study the material, pass the exam with the objective of adding it to their CV. That is their sole objective. They aren’t actually interested in professional standards, learning, etc. They just want a great CV that will get them a well paid job. They may have no aptitude at all. They will have forgotten anything they learned within 6 months.

There are several problems with this but the main one is that the certification itself becomes rather meaningless.

The flip side of this are folk who genuinely want to break into this field and find they need such certifications just to get their first break. The certification works like another hurdle they have to jump over.

These factors combine to create a pool of certified yet inexperienced people who have less aptitude for the work than if the certification didn’t exist.

I don’t know what the answer is but I can certainly point to many instances where other certifications are not achieving their original aims and have become rather meaningless due to these issues.

I must say I am amazed that this thread has not seen a overall thumbs up for the intiative the CIOB has embarked upon.

After I spoke at the PP conference in Reading, I had a large number of people contact me to see how they could become involved and the feedback was very positive. This thread is entieled "The Road to Recognition", and yet when. Framework is put forward to assist in the process it is not fully welcomed.

I would suggest that everyone read the CIOB research and goals of the initiative and then comment to improve upon on it not dismiss it from the outset.

Dave and other naysayers

Ask yourself this…

Doctors have to pass exams and get ‘certified’ to practise. No doubt some of those people ‘will study the material, pass the exam with the objective of adding it to their CV. That is their sole objective. They aren’t actually interested in professional standards, learning, etc. They just want a great CV that will get them a well paid job. They may have no aptitude at all. They will have forgotten anything they learned within 6 months’.

I don’t know about you but if/when I am ill I would rather trust someone who has gone through all that rigmarole rather than someone who wants to break into the field, has experience but no formal learning and so on and so on (okay I am talking about western medicine).

Similarly, there might be a few people in planning who are as you describe but I bet the majority will be the ones who do want to progress in the discipline. All things being equal, would you rather trust a ‘certified’ planner with the time management or a Johnny off the street who says he his keen and has lots of experience - even if there is no way of gauging how keen and if the experience is relevant.

Like Toby, I am amazed by the negative comments this is getting. This is an initiative from the CIOB. There is nothing to stop anyone else, any other organisation, any other country producing their own standards and certification. Pretty much like the BMA for UK doctors, other places have their own standards. If you don’t like what the CIOB are doing, well fine but may I suggest (and I am not speaking on behalf of the CIOB) the you either shut up and ignore what they are doing or do something that suits you, your country, your industry or your language.

How the heck are planners supposed to get any recognition if we remain a rag-bag of people who say we are good but have no way of demonstrating it?

Second rant of the thread complete!

David

The fundamental glich if we follow CIOB is that we lost that Planning Planet Brand.

We will becomes imitators

NO ONE WILL RESPECT US because we will be clone.

And I dont want to be a clone of CIOB.

There must be a solution somewhere considering our brilliant planning minds.

It may take time , 6 months, 1 year, 2 years ...

In the meantime, let the discussions, debate, brainstorming,

GOES ON AND ON

Cheers,
Charlie

FFS Charlie

If you don’t like the CIOB ’brand’ then don’t support it - I am sure the CIOB ’brand’ will survive without your support. And don’t worry too much about no-one respecting you - are you sure if anyone does at the moment?

I like how you use the word ’our’ when you refer to brilliant planning minds - in my humble opinion you are flattering yourself.

May I suggest, as you are so vociferous about not wanting to be aligned with anyone except for Planning Planet, that you elect yourself head of the Planning Planet Recognition and Accreditation Taskforce (PRAT) - another oppourtunity to be viewed as the biggest prat. Let’s see how far you get - hot air and moaning about others’ initiatives tends not to produce very much.

Love and peace

David

David,

Admirably concise and superbly targeted. However, in mitigation, (yes I know I must have had a bang on the head if I’m defending Charlie), in a brainstorming process like this even nay-sayers and bullsh1t merchants have a part to play, so for once Charlie may be fulfilling a useful function.

Chris

Chris

You are correct of course - I always rise to the bait, maybe Charlie just loves toying with me!

David

Dear All,

Nice sharing from everyone.

Say we finally agreed on something, how is the structure would be?

We are talking global while I understand the planning practices are not 100% the same from the 2 sides of the globe.

Cheers..

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not nay saying this idea at all. I didn’t know the background so I asked for the rationale behind it.
I then suggested an issue to be considered when designing it - i.e. how to target it for people with more genuine or more in line with the original professional intention. Please don’t assume this means I am opposed to the idea because I’m not. I didn’t offer a solution to this issue only because I don’t know the best way to deal with it. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad concept.

ALSO ME.

Please dont misunderstand me.

In my first salvo, I said

WOW:

Planning Planet Planning and Scheduling Professional.

I really wanted us to be a planning brand or some sort of planning ambasador of goodwill,

NOT THE PLANNERS LIKE PEO, CIOB, PMI, APMI, etc.. or any of their clones

(I love the PSP of AACE), but I prefer our very own PLANNING PLANET BRAND.

Cheers and happy,
planning and scheduling

Charlie

I think the main issue of contention here is how this accreditation will be branded. There are those who think that accreditation through an existing Chartered Institute, Cost Management Group, Project Management Group is one way. The other, is to come up with an independent accreditation for schedulers/planners by schedulers/planners.

I believe if we go by the first option, that would not achieve the goal of producing a “universally” accepted standard, if this is really the objective. Doing the 2nd option could do otherwise, maybe.

IMO.

Have we ever tried asking the schedulers/planners on this issue? Why don’t we put it to a survey? So that we would know what schedulers/planners stand in this issue. Not what Chartered Institute, Cost Management Group, Project Management Group want.

Se

I agree that we have to move on with the accreditation using our unique planning planet brand.

The essence of planning planet brand is FREE, free membership irrespective of religious belief, affiliation to other planning organization. It is not discriminatory to newbie planners, to wedding planners, to keyboard planners, to pretenders to the throne of planning expers, to the real professional planners, etc.

FREE free for anyone to log in,
FREE freedom to share ideas with anyone especially the real profesional planners,
FREE to access Planning Planet materials.

"The essence of planning planet brand is FREE, free membership irrespective of religious belief, affiliation to other planning organization. It is not discriminatory to newbie planners, to wedding planners, to keyboard planners, to pretenders to the throne of planning expers, to the real professional planners, etc."

Is that the only way you can assure yourself you will get membership Charlie? Are we allowed to discriminate against nationalistic, racist, ’chip-on-your-shoulder’ planners?

And don’t forget, the value of something that is FREE is nothing.

Hi folks,

Se is absolutely right. Before any decision is made concerning the direction to take we need to know what it is that people want. Not only that we need to know what they don’t want, after all it’s no good developing an organisation that no-one wants to be part of.

As for Charlie pointing out that Planning Planet is free, he is absolutely correct. But the only reason it is free is because of the efforts of a small group of dedicated individuals who work hard and for free to keep it that way. If, however, a professional organisation with recognised certification or accreditation is formed (see PP Admin post#1) it won’t be free.

There is a great deal of expense in running a professional organisation, and it won’t be covered by the revenue from a few ads by Google. An Annual membership fee will be a necessity, this alone, means finding out what people want and what they don’t want just as Se pointed out.

Chris Oggham

This has started but didn’t progressed I supposed.

May I suggest to PP Admin the following:

1. At the moment, instead of sending Job Openings to all the members (thru free e-mail), why not send a pre-qualifying examination to each and every member (this is done in private). You may prepare several types of examination and send it on random, so that no one knows what he or she is going to receive.

2. Granting that the membership is Free, I believe that the results of the examinations (considering that it is valid)can be used as a filtering device, for any purpose that you may want, i.e. access to the PP pages or database, categorization (leveling) or whatever (I just hope the forum remains free for all without discrimination, even for those who did not pass the exams).

3. The examination(s) should be done only once (for each member to take), if you fail, there’s no second chance. This will assure that only serious takers or members will take the chance.

Godspeed!

Dear All

One small point on this.

The CIOB recognises that it may not be the best long term vehicle through which to accredit planners and schedulers, and that is why Gary France from the PEO is involved. The initial thoughts were that they might be the more suitable (through IPEO, MPEO, FPEO etc).

Is it not perhaps better for us all to pull in the same direction now with the CIOB to get the guide completed, and then argue about the better long term vehicle further down the line?

Regards

Toby

i supposed you got 20K+ PP members behind you...?

Toby

You have more stamina than I.

I can hear the cheers when I say that i am no longer going to post on this thread. Why bother - there sems to be such amount of negative feeling without a scintilla of positive thought.

I say sod ’em. If they don’t want to come to our party then why bother with them. At least the CIOB is doing something.

I am beginning to wonder if there is any correleation between the number of post and the stupidity/lack of awareness of the poster (hello Charlie).

Rant #3 over

David

David

This is also my last posting on this thread. I am genuinely surprised, and also rather disappointed by the resposes of some, who say that an accreditation is wanted, but then do not want to join in with an existing initiative which could then be tailored and adopted by all organisations at a later date.

Once again, if anyone does want to get involved with the current CIOB initiative, please feel free to e-mail me at tobyhunt@hillintl.com

Regards

Toby

A good planner’s real test is scheduling a task that seem is imposible to build. He gets idea from the expert and how much the client is willing to spend. On the process he will get lots of criticism from the very team that he is working with. At the end of the day, he has proven he can do it and he got rewarded.

I can see many potentials in formalizing the body to govern the planning planet and its members. It will only happen at a certain cost. Let’s continue finding a way how it could be done.

Cheers to all..

The idea of CIOB getting PEO or Planning Planet involved in CIOB planning accreditation was

similar to PMI getting AACE’s PSP program into PMI planning agenda.

or maybe I’m wrong

CIOB- Chartered Institute of Builders
PMI- Project Management Institute


What is interesting to note is both organization are lacking in substance with regards to planning ideas and practice. Why????

Because planning is only a miniscule of the whole project management or bulding concept.

Unfortunately, both organization realize their shortcomming and found out that PMP or Chartered members are ignorant of the whole planning process, the use of planning software, the forensic side of planning

AND THEY THOUGHT THAT BY ENTICING PP TO GET ACCREDITED, IT WILL SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM.

They are dead wrong

WHY,why, y??????????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as my project managers used to say

AND I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE WILL GET ACCREDITATION THROUGH OUR OWN PP EFFORT, OUR OWN PP VALUES AS PLANNING AND SCHEDULING ENGINEERS SOMETIMES CALLED PLANNERS AND SCHEDULERS (if you happen to be not an engineer but practicing planning and scheduling).

The would be pp body has not to be just another organization. In the process of forming the body a lot of consultation with the industry’s major players may be required. Some strong representation will be a great help.

If you are experienced planner then you knew exactly how it is and what is needed.

I don’t want to sound too ambitious but what for the planners and schedulers need accreditation, professional growth, is not it? Why would I want to be a member? Besides no one is going to get it free.

Just an opinion.

Cheers to all..