There appear to be two different camps with regard to the CMI formula:
One (I’ll call it the Farsetta argument for lack of a better title) says that applicants should be granted no credit for performing a number of unsupervised inspections as theoretically they could have all been performed wrong and MICB should not be giving credit to an applicant for doing something wrong a number of times. Furthermore, merely checking to see if a report is generated to comply with SOP means nothing as all reporting forms and reporting software do that already these days.
One (I’ll call it the Wiley argument for lack of a better title) says that applicants should be granted some credit for experience and longevity. Although number of inspections and time in business doesn’t prove competence, neither does sleeping through a number of continuing education courses, but all are legitimate indicators of competence. Furthermore, an experienced inspector, through real inspections, has been more thoroughly alerted to his/her own weaknesses and thus has been forced to go back and plug holes in his/her own skill sets. An inexperienced inspector is likely far less aware of what he/she doesn’t know.
Both arguments are strong and valid.
The prior CMI formula I proposed last month satisfied both arguments through a three prong formula based on (Continuing education fulfilled, time in business, and number of inspections performed). However, the latter two prongs were so strongly correlated that the formula was biased toward experience over education 2 to 1.
So I dervied a new proposed formula which gives credit for education, longevity and experience while preventing an incompetent but experienced applicant who has been in business for some time to slip through the approval process by requiring an even greater number of lifetime continuing education hours (200 total).
With the vast realm of continuing education options out there (initial licensing courses, NACHI’s online continuing education, inspection events, CMI approved schools, home study courses, online courses, etc.), I don’t see raising the total lifetime hours of CE to 200 to be a problem for someone seeking to call themselves a “Certified Master Inspector.”
Here is my new formula:
Number of continuing education hours completed in lifetime (200 minimum) + number of weeks in business + number of inspections performed in lifetime must be equal to or greater than 1,000.
Under this formula the only way an inexperienced, new inspector could qualify is if he/she completed 1,000 hours of continuing education. But by the same token the only way an experienced inspector could qualify is if he/she completed 200 hours of continuing education.
I’m going to receive some resistance from the schools, their argument being that their carrot is being placed on too long of a stick (Few will be enticed to take that much continuing education to achieve a professional designation)
And I’m going to receive some resistance from veteran inspectors, their argument being that they got their education in the real world by doing actual inspections. (200 hours is the equivalent of many years of continuing education requirements at an inspection association).
There are always reasons to be against something however I ask that you step back and look at this formula in its entirety… and I ask for your support.