Attack on Investors in People was justified

Paul St John Bennett’s response to our Investors in People (IIP) survey was disappointing (Letters, Personnel Today, 9 May).

Our research was an analysis of preceding research, together with a due diligence review of published information and an investigation of IIP (some of which was available from IIP itself). It is a pity that he missed the point altogether – though reading the related summary, the main report or the submission to the Office of Fair Trading (all available in the public domain) would have provided him with considerable context.

Unfortunately, IIP is too often seen as nothing more than a management gimmick. It is also marketed as a business improvement tool rather than as a training standard, which is very questionable and misleading.

Our review clearly showed the lack of clarity in direct evidence of IIP benefits, particularly the 148-plus case studies that were reviewed.
While there may be some benefits to using IIP, it is possible to get results without it – and there are alternatives in the market.

The IIP often uses the “improved profits” rebuttal in its defence. When about half of the organisations that subscribe to it are public sector, how does that square up?

Also, there are some real issues we have uncovered that bring the whole accreditation process into question, quite apart from the issue of funding. Why state-fund IIP as a marketing agency if the ‘standard’ is that good?

Nicholas Higgins, chief executive, Valuentis

 

 

Comments are closed.