It appears to me that there are two groups that have to agree (for this to succeed):
NACHI’s Professional Development (as a professional designation would be in their realm) which is why it has to be meaningful.
The schools outside of NACHI. (You can’t get this thing taught if we don’t have the schools on board) which is why it has to be attainable.
To some extent these two are at odds.
I can’t see much of a legitimate criticism being waged at http://www.nachi.org/cmirequirements.htm
John,
It seems as if you and a few others have been against the designation from the get go. As I recall, three of you contacted Nick the other day, knowing full well that the program was underway, and some of the requirements which were set. You and I discussed the fact that 1000 hours and 1000 inspections, as a threshold proposed by you, was unrealistic and would bar participation by the bulk of NACHI’s membership.
I cautioned you that the proposed plan would create a tiered membership environment, potentiually alienating much of the rank and file. I also cautioned you that such a plan would, potentially, allow any inspector in a geographic market, despite their dislike for NACHI, its founder, and membership, to waltz in, plop down $289 along with an inspection log, and use a NACHI designation to help destroy the businesses of otherwise qualified, loyal NACHI members.
This position does not serve the membership in any way, shape, or form.
Today’s jaunt only helps to solidify my belief that we should beconcerned with the members of this organization, and giving them workable and achievable parameters by which that can continue to learn, market, and succeed, and we should say to hell with the other orgs who either do not like us, are jealous of us, or who have tried to belittle and destroy us.
We’re better than that. We’re stronger than that. We’re smarter than that. NACHI succeeds where others said we’d fail.
What will not happen here is another good, viable, workable, meaningful, achievable, and fair-to-everyone idea dying on the vine in committee. The logo belongs to Nick and to this organization. It has sat on the shelf for far too long. The program is being rolled out. It will not be short-circuited at this juncture.
The requirements should be double any industry standard, along with a class and the test. Why are we watering this down. A watered down designation in as meaninless as the MCSE I got 7 years ago.
A truly master level of certification should not be easily attainable. It should be worked for and difficult to get, there by making the reward worth the struggle.
Joe,
I am not against the program, and actually I think it has it’s merits. I don’t believe however that a program that will be viewed by the public as the buyer being able to hire one of the best inspectors in business should be viewed by our eyes as needing the bulk of NACHI members to qualify. The thousand hours was combined 1000 hours and CE, not both.
Nick is correct in that people need to take the course for schools to offer it. We must do our part though to insure that someone who carries a master designation, is truly a master. I’ll wait to see the entire program, but I’m not impressed with a 250 inspection threshold, which is the minimum requirement for several states and other associations.
Again, this is different than a designation for a class. This is a designation that means the inspector is at the top of the profession. I would expect that any CMI should also be able to be an expert witness, no?
Being hard or easy has nothing to do with whether something is meaningful. I offer a proof by extremes: If we required members to carry a block on their head and hike 50 miles to attain CMI… it would make it much more difficult without being any more meaningful.
Play on words Nick that is all you are using now. You know that when I say it difficult, I mean that 1st year inspectors shouldn’t be able to attain it.
As with Blaine, I think the CMI can be a great think and a valuable tool in yoru business. I just question the watering down of the requirements.
That is too far off of the deep end for comment. There is nothing wrong with pracitcal difficulty.
A master is defined as an expert. An expert will not gain that from a book, a test, a class, or field experience alone, it needs to be a combination of all. The practical experience however, seeing what was in the book, class and test, knowing how to recoginize, comminucate and report it are what will make the difference.
Do you think that attorneys will call our CMI’s to testify against the other associations expert witnesses. If so, I would hate to see a three year wonder who passed the class and test, but can’t recognize a defect because he has little practical application get called!
When writing out the CMI requirements including the pre-existing NACHI member requirements one gets the following:
OK, so in essence, those four things are the only difference between our first year rookie, and the Master Inspector.
#1 is meaningless. If someone does 300 their first year, and 500 their second, they have seen more than the guy with 251 in 21/2 years.
#2 is what ASHI requires for full members
#3 is good
#4 is good
Where’s Nick. He doesn’t write or post in this manner.
I hope that members email me with their thoughts. I would like to get a quick feel of how the members feel.
Screw the email, here is what I think…
Shelve the CMI it is a joke; anyone can pass our on line exam (and we have no way of verifying that the applicant actually took the exam), plunk down $298 and call themselves a Certified Home Inspector. As an example; you can be a disgraced, bankrupt hearing aid salesman bereft of any practical construction experience yesterday, and before the sun set today… you can become a brand spanking new NACHI Certified Home Inspector, its a proven fact and a disgrace.
Instead of CMI, work on creating meaningful membership requirements and enforcing the ones already on the books prior to promoting another meaningless non-recognized designation for newbie inspectors seeking a marketing edge.
Why have a CMI?
Is there someone out there with 1000 inspection sunder their belt and 1000 hours of CE that really needs a few initials?
It’s just a marketing gimmick. It isn’t worth polarizing the membership and creating an internal class structure.
Of course, if we had a STRATEGIC ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN and we could see how this played an important role in our progress or development as an association, well then it would be easy to follow…
On the surface is seems to me that you are admitting that our membership requirements are lax and easily circumvented, I do believe that you may have experienced an epiphany, pleased to see you have come to your senses.
Forget the CMI, focus your attention on bringing our membership requirements in line with industry standards, then you will really be accomplishing some good for both NACHI and our profession.
Joe B., I often agree with you , but on this point we part company.
Let the industry do whatever they want. The opinion of other organizations is meaningless. Industry standard is a code word for control and I choose not to be controlled by those who run the other organizations.
The real strength of an organization is the membership - and ours is excellent. And there seems to be far less concern about bashing organizations or other inspectors here than there is elsewhere…and that aloone tells me that the “industry standards” are concerned about being threatened and their own bottom line.
Is there a lot I would love to improve about NACHI? Damn right there is, but the essence of NACHI should not be altered and that includes the ability for rookies to contribute and become an active part of the community.
Joe & Joe I agree, I believe as time goes on and more states come online with licencing and regulation, asscoiation will be just that associations.
These (ASHI, NAHI, & NACHI) are just trade associations that offer its members recourses, and others in the industry recourses as well. It is how well we (NACHI) serve our industry and that is how we will be perceived by the industry we serve.
After that point it will just be what association will offer the most to its members, the industry it serves and the consumer. This is the desired industry perception that we need to work on as an association, bottom line do we want to be # 1 or # ??
Joe