Alignment of Views Final Report PDF

ALIGNMENT OF PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR

QUANTITY SURVEYORS:
THE POST RECESSION DYNAMICS
Professor Srinath Perera
Mr John Pearson
Northumbria University
Newcastle upon Tyne
UK
RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401
January, 2011
Alignment of Professional, Academic and

Industrial Development Needs for Quantity
Surveyors: The Post Recession Dynamics

Mr John Pearson
Newcastle upon Tyne
UK

January 2011
Main Contents
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Contents
Part 1.
Executive Summary
Part 2.
Main Report
Part 3.
Analysis of Expert opinion
Part 4.
Analysis of Perception of the academia
Part 5.
Analysis of Perception of the Industry
Part 6.
Competency Mapping Case Studies
Part 7.
References
Part 8.
Appendices
Appendix A.
Expert forum interview questions
Appendix B.
Academic survey questionnaire
Appendix C.
Industry survey questionnaire
Appendix D.
Competency mapping scores
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance they received from the following in the
preparation of this report and in the conduct of the research;
Lyn Dodds, Research Associate, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria
University, for her assistance in conducting and transcribing interviews and her analysis of the same
and for her assistance in the formulation of questionnaires,
Damilola Ekundayo, Graduate Tutor, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria
University, for his assistance with data analysis, unflinching support at all times,
Anushi Rodrigo, Doctoral Student, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria
University, for her assistance in the cover design,
Colleagues from the Quantity Surveying Subject Group and the Construction Management and
Economics Research Group (CEMRG) within the School of the Built and Natural Environment,
Northumbria University, for piloting questionnaires,
All members of the Expert forum who gave time to be interviewed,
Academic staff from the four Schools of the Built Environment, comprising the Case Study Group,
who completed detailed programme-related competency mapping exercises,
All respondents to both the nationwide Academic and Industry Surveys,
Mrs Vivian Small and all officials of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), for access to
and permission to use their membership database,
Steve Hodgson, Dean of School and Professor David Greenwood, Associate Dean (Research) of the
School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, for their help and
encouragement with this work.
Srinath Perera and John Pearson
List of Abbreviations
RICS
QS
CIOB
CIES
HND
APC
PQS
CQS
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Quantity Surveying
Chartered Institute of Building
Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors
Higher National Diploma
Assessment of Professional Competence
Private sector consultant Quantity Surveyor
Contractors Quantity Surveyor
Part 1 Executive Summary

1 Background
The entry of graduates and others into any faculty of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS) as fully qualified Chartered surveyors comes only after they have successfully passed the
Assessment of Professional Competence (APC). This is true of the Quantity Surveyor, the specific
subject of this study, as much as for any other. Key to this last is the demonstration, by the
candidate, of their having attained certain competencies determined by the Education and
Membership Board of RICS. In the case of the graduate, these competencies will have been acquired
by the candidates as a result both of their formal university education and the workplace training
which they have received, whether as Part time students in employment or during a work Placement
undertaken. In either case, the applicant will have undertaken a period of full time employment
beyond graduating, further adding to the in-service training element of their overall skills profile.
It will be appreciated that there is a balance to be struck between the level and type of competence
which should be expected, and can be achieved, in the universities and that which arises out of
exposure to experience only available within the workplace. To some extent the two must be
complimentary, as they should be, and it has emerged over the years that both Academia and
Industry have certain expectations of one another, rightly or wrongly, as to what the other can and
will achieve as a vehicle for graduate learning. These last are encapsulated, for some, in the
arguments within the education versus training debate that has dogged the relationship for as
many years as formal Quantity Surveying education has existed.
At this point , the RICS itself should be added as a third stakeholder, for it is they who set the
required Levels of competence referred to above and in this way are the drivers of the qualification
process. The RICS themselves make certain assumptions as to the interpretation and
implementation of the necessary education and/or training which is being carried out in their name
and which will lead to the acquisition of the correct levels. Their control over the process is in fact
limited, as they do no direct delivery or assessment themselves, prior to the actual occasion of the
APC. They must rely upon activities both in the universities and in the workplace, trusting that their
own hoped-for standards are being met. Their chief input to the education process is through the
RICS University Partnership scheme, whereby academic institutions seeking accreditation of their
degrees have to maintain relations with the RICS through annual process of review of
documentation and a Partnership meeting. There is no such routine control over the activities of
trainers in industry, although the latter will, ultimately, have to sign to certify that the candidate
from their workplace has indeed achieved the levels of competency sought.
From the above it will be seen that, at best, there is scope for misunderstandings between the
stakeholders as to what is being required and what is being achieved. At worst there may be actual
gaps in the education and/or training being offered and received or, at least, some discrepancies
between the levels of attainment.
Executive Summary
2 The Study
This study aimed at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyors within a
post recession industrial environment that satisfies the aspirations of industrial, professional and
academic stakeholders. The research sought to review competencies and their application in the
delivery of QS programmes, the views of Industry and Academia aiming to deliver a framework for
alignment of these different stakeholder views.
The research approached the problem from a multitude of angles; a literature review, the views of
an Expert Forum, four case studies of RICS accredited QS honour degree programmes and two
surveys, of Industry and Academia. The Expert forum consisted of 10 members representing Private
Practice (consultants - 3), Contracting (3), academia (3) and the RICS (1). The surveys were
comprehensive with the academic survey receiving 45 complete responses representing all 26 RICS
accredited QS programmes and Industry survey receiving 301 complete responses representing
consultant, contractor, public sector and specialists quantity surveyors.
3 Key findings
The primary areas investigated in the research is summarised in the following subsections.
3.1 The status of the RICS QS Competencies

All 24 QS competencies were examined to see their application in the RICS accredited QS honours
degree programmes. The competency mapping case studies revealed that QS programmes do
consider competencies in the design of modules but are not systematically evaluated. There is often
only a cursory review of programme module specifications to determine the application of
competencies. Knowledge of competencies was limited and the mapping exercise was one of
revelation to them as well. A scoring system and competency mapping matrix was created in order
to carry out a systematic numerical evaluation of extent of competency mapping to curricular (Part
4). It revealed that there is high level of variation in the mapping of competencies between
programmes especially at Level 1 (11 points- 29% difference between top and bottom end of
programmes). Based on the views of programme directors, the mapping indicated that most core
competencies are well mapped but there are deficiencies in mandatory and optional competencies.
There is no standard threshold benchmark to state that persons must have achieved competencies
to a certain level or degree upon graduating from an RICS accredited programme. As such it is a
matter of interpretation open for dispute and debate. . The result is considerably differing standards
right across QS programmes around the country. There is little guidance as to the interpretation of
how mandatory and optional competencies should be dealt with in QS programmes. The RICS
competency documents are primarily designed for the use of APC candidates and therefore of little
use in mapping to module specifications of QS degree programmes.
The academics expected (or assumed) that their graduates would reach Level 2 of most Mandatory
competencies, Level 2 (or 3 in some cases) of Core competencies and Level 1 or 2 of Optional
competencies. These far exceed the levels that can be practicably achieved by a graduate. For
example a Level 3 competency would require experience in advising clients and exhibiting expertise.
These certainly cannot be achieved in a university (classroom) environment.
Perera & Pearson, 2011
Part 1: The Study
3.2 Views of Academia
Executive Summary
The student numbers have been increasing on QS programmes, often reflecting an average number
exceeding 293 full time and part time students with student to staff ratios falling to levels lower than
39:1. There were average 7 to 8 members of staff out of which half would be full members of the
RICS. The average number of student contact hours at a low 12 to 14 hours per week.
The RICS-University partnership agreement was seen as successful to some extent but with a
considerable number dissatisfied with the process. There was a good level of satisfaction on the
entry criteria for postgraduate programmes but mostly split opinion on entry levels for
undergraduate programmes. The part time route was considered the best mode of education while
closely followed by full time study with 1 year placements. The ethos of undergraduate studies was
one of education as opposed to training. Academics were very willing to collaborate with the
industry but saw that same levels were not reciprocated.
The RICS was seen to be performing moderately well in regulating QS education. The top levels of
satisfaction were received for regulating the QS profession, worldwide representation of the
profession and developing standards with lowest satisfaction on member services and, more
importantly, the Institutions ability to influence national policy. There were relatively poor levels of
overall satisfaction with RICS services and poor levels of perceived value for money.
3.3
Views of Industry
The competency level expectations of the Industry were more pragmatic for the most part. But
there were significant levels of unrealistic expectations with over 35% expecting Level 2 for
Mandatory competencies, Level 3 for some Core competencies and Level 2 for some Optional
competencies.
There were considerably low levels of ranking of the current state of achievement of competencies
by new graduates. On a scale of 1 to 5 the overwhelming majority indicated the midpoint for most
competencies and a score of 2 for others. All Core competencies were ranked much lower with the
least satisfied Core competency being T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two most important competencies
ranked highest in importance in another analysis.
In relative ranking of competencies all Core competencies were ranked highest followed by a
selection of Mandatory and Optional competencies. The rank order of the top competencies in each
category was:
1.
2.
3.
4.
T067 Project financial control and reporting

T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
T062 Procurement and tendering
T017 Contract practice
1. M004 Communication and negotiation

2. M003 Client care
The two highest ranking Optional competencies were (in order of mean scores):
1. T016 Contract administration
2. T077 Risk management
Part 1: Key findings
The two highest ranking Mandatory competencies were (in order of mean scores):
Executive Summary
These were very similar to the views of academics.
There was significant discontent with the QS curricular perceived to be used. This might have been
born of a poor knowledge of the curricular used as expressed elsewhere. Although there was good
level of confidence on academic ability/knowledge of lectures and the delivery of programmes there
was poor level of confidence in the knowledge of current QS practice. This is a dilemma where on
the one hand it is difficult to attract high calibre talent to the universities and on the other hand
retaining them in universities distances them from current practice. This dichotomy is one which
needs to be resolved by industry academia collaboration at least for the sake of the profession.
Industry held similar views to academia on modes of study. There were poor levels of commitment
to collaboration with academia although the Industry has an ethos of Training graduates for industry
practice over Education. Their commitment to placement although good at other times dropped by
to 30% during recession. Although the industry values structured training programme for APC
candidates only 56% has one in operation.
The RICS was seen to be performing poorly in regulating QS education. The top levels of satisfaction
were received for regulating the QS profession, continued professional development and developing
standards with lowest satisfaction on member services and more importantly ability to influence
national policy. There is strikingly poor level of overall satisfaction with the RICS with only 33%
expressing satisfaction and28% expressing dissatisfaction. The figures worsen when state of value
for money in RICS services is considered with 56% expressing discontent and only 15% seeing
positive value for money.
4 Proposed Alignment of views framework

Born directly out of this study it has become apparent that the education and training across
academia and the industry has perhaps to become more systematic. The diverse views of industry
and academia can only be harmonised through active mediation of the RICS as the guardian of the
profession. This research therefore, proposes a framework for alignment of views based on 7 key
recommendations. These are explained below.
A clearly defined graduate competency level achievement threshold should be created. This should
clearly identify the expected level of achievement of Mandatory, Core and Optional competencies.
This should clearly align with APC threshold benchmarks already established and should be defined
with graduate career progression in mind.
4.2 Competency mapping framework

A competency mapping framework that describes the process of the mapping of competencies to QS
programme curricular should be developed. This should form the basis of identifying whether a
programme seeking accreditation will have the necessary mapping levels to produce a graduate that
will achieve the Graduate Competency Threshold Benchmark (GCTB). It should contain a numeric or
qualitative map scoring/assessment system with detailed guidelines for usage by universities to
enable them to self evaluate their programmes on the occasion of programme validation and
accreditation.
Part 1: Proposed Alignment of views framework
4.1 Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB)
Executive Summary
4.3 Detailed competency specification

Each QS competency should be further analysed to develop detailed specifications indicating
coverage of knowledge at sufficient depth so that such content could be easily mapped against
module specifications of accredited programmes. These should expand Level 1 knowledge
components and define Level 2 practice and experience.
4.4 Re-evaluation of status of competencies

A detailed study should be undertaken to re-evaluate RICS QS competencies. The list of
competencies should effectively reflect the current professional service profile of the quantity
surveyor whilst also adequately considering their future role. The rate of development of
construction e-business activities (currently manifested as e-procurement, visualisation, building
information modelling, could computing etc.) will have a profound impact on the role of the quantity
surveyor. These should be considered in re-evaluating QS competencies.
4.5 University-Industry collaboration

Greater levels of university and industry collaboration should be made an essential part in
developing and delivering QS programmes. Industry should take a more proactive role in
collaborating with and actively providing feedback to the universities.
4.6 RICS-University-Industry partnership

The current RICS-University partnership should take more of a tri partite relationship with regular
industry representatives forming part of the partnership. The current role of the industry partners
should be increased and formalised through mandatory representations. All QS programmes
accredited by the RICS should conform to the Competency Mapping Framework (CMF) where
compliance will be checked or confirmed at partnership meetings.
The industry should be made aware of the processes by which programmes are accredited and the
role of RICS in this. This should alleviate current levels of industry dissatisfaction with such
processes.
A radical review must be undertaken of how a Chartered surveyor is developed from their early
stages to Chartered status. This should look at all stakeholders in the process (candidates or
students, universities and other academic institutions, all types of employers and the RICS). The role
of each stakeholder needs to be identified and defined to avoid wrong interpretations and
subjugating responsibility.
The successful implementation of the framework for alignment of views proposed above requires
the need for a concerted effort by all these three parties for the development of graduate
Quantity Surveyors who are industrially relevant, professionally qualified and who have a sound
academic background.
Part 1: Proposed Alignment of views framework
4.7 Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities
Part 2 Main Report

Alignment of Professional, Academic
and Industrial Development Needs for
Quantity Surveyors: The Post
Recession Dynamics

Mr John Pearson
Newcastle upon Tyne
UK

January 2011
Part 2 Contents
1. List of Contents
2. List of Figures
3. List of Tables
4. Main Report
List of Contents
1
BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................1
THE STUDY ..............................................................................................................................................2
KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................2
3.1
3.2
3.3
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS FRAMEWORK....................................................................................4

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................... 4

COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 4
DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION........................................................................................................... 5
RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................ 5
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ......................................................................................................... 5
RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ..................................................................................................... 5
REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1
AIM & OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................................................................................3
THE SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILES.......................................................................................................5
ROLE OF THE QS & DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................................................................6

4.1
4.2
4.3
ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 6

PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT .......................................................................... 7
LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM) INITIATIVES ...... 8
RICS QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES ...........................................................................................8

5.1
RICS QS COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 8
5.2
MAPPING OF COMPETENCIES TO PROGRAMME CURRICULAR ............................................................................... 9
5.2.1 Coverage of Mandatory competencies ............................................................................................. 9
5.2.2 Coverage of Core competencies...................................................................................................... 10
5.2.3 Coverage of Optional competencies ............................................................................................... 11
5.2.4 Views of the Expert Forum .............................................................................................................. 12
5.2.5 Key findings of competency mapping ............................................................................................. 12
5.3
EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYORS .................................... 13
5.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory Competencies.................................................................................. 14
5.3.2 Expected level for Core Competencies ............................................................................................ 15
5.3.3 Expected level for Optional Competencies...................................................................................... 16
5.4
PERCEIVED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYORS................................... 17
5.5
RANKING OF COMPETENCIES IN THE ORDER OF PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE .............................................................. 19
5.5.1 Ranking of Mandatory competencies ............................................................................................. 21
5.5.2 Ranking of Core competencies........................................................................................................ 21
5.5.3 Ranking of Optional competencies ................................................................................................. 21
Part 2: List of Contents
THE STATUS OF THE RICS QS COMPETENCIES .................................................................................................. 2

VIEWS OF ACADEMIA .................................................................................................................................. 2
VIEWS OF INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................................... 3
ii
5.6
QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ......................................................................................................23

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
MODES OF STUDY & PLACEMENT..........................................................................................................27

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS..................................................................... 34

OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS........................................................ 35
INDUSTRY LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS .................................................................................. 35
APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO INDUSTRY ................................................................ 36
VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES ........................................................................................................ 37
ALIGNMENT FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................38

10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
11
LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................ 31

LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................... 31
IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................ 32
IMPORTANCE AND AVAILABILITY OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC .......................................... 33
RICS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................34

9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
10
PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY .................................................................................................... 27

INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION AND IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................... 28
PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ..................................................................... 29
ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RICS ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ........................................................................... 30
RICS ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP & TRAINING..........................................................................................31

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS.................. 23
THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LECTURERS PROGRAMME DELIVERY CAPACITY........................................................ 24
THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR .................................................... 24
INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................. 25
RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 26
GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................. 39

COMPETENCY MAPPING FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................... 39
DETAILED COMPETENCY SPECIFICATION......................................................................................................... 39
RE-EVALUATION OF STATUS OF COMPETENCIES .............................................................................................. 39
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ....................................................................................................... 39
RICS-UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP ................................................................................................... 39
REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................... 40
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................40
11.1
SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES................................................................................... 40
11.2
SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF ACADEMIA............................................................................................................. 41
11.2.1
QS Competencies ........................................................................................................................ 41
11.2.2
QS Education & Development..................................................................................................... 42
11.2.3
The role of RICS........................................................................................................................... 42
11.3
SUMMARY OF VIEWS OF INDUSTRY .............................................................................................................. 43
11.3.1
QS Competencies ........................................................................................................................ 43
11.3.2
QS Education & Development..................................................................................................... 44
11.3.3
The role of RICS........................................................................................................................... 45
11.4
SUMMARY OF FRAMEWORK FOR ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS ................................................................................... 45
11.5
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 46
11.6
FURTHER RESEARCH AND DIRECTIONS ........................................................................................................... 46
CROSS COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF EXPECTATION, ACHIEVEMENT AND IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES ..................... 21
iii
iv
FIGURE 1 KEY STAKEHOLDERS INFLUENCE ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................................................................... 1

FIGURE 2 RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 3 RESPONDENT QS EXPERIENCE PROFILE: ACADEMIA ............................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 4 RESPONDENT QS EXPERIENCE PROFILE: INDUSTRY ................................................................................................ 5
FIGURE 5: ACADEMIC RESPONDENT WORK ...................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 6: TYPE OF COMPANY ........................................................................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 7 ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD: INDUSTRY ................................................................................................ 7
FIGURE 8 AREAS OF FUTURE GROWTH ............................................................................................................................. 7
FIGURE 9 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES......................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 10 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF NRM INITIATIVES ..................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 11 MANDATORY COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1..................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 12 CORE COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1 ............................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 13 CORE COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 2 ............................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 14 OPTIONAL COMPETENCY MAPPING SCORES: LEVEL 1......................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 15: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (ACADEMIC) .......................................................................... 13
FIGURE 16: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY (INDUSTRY) ........................................................................... 13
FIGURE 17: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ............... 14
FIGURE 18: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ............... 14
FIGURE 19: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC).......................... 15
FIGURE 20: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY).......................... 15
FIGURE 21: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (ACADEMIC) ................... 16
FIGURE 22: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR NEW GRADUATE QS (INDUSTRY) ................... 16
FIGURE 23: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION ON ACHIEVEMENT OF COMPETENCIES BY QS GRADUATES .............................................. 18
FIGURE 24 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS COMPETENCIES............................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 25 CROSS COMPARISON OF COMPETENCY EXPECTED LEVEL, IMPORTANCE RANKING AND GRADUATE ACHIEVEMENT ............ 22
FIGURE 26: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY (INDUSTRY) ............................ 23
FIGURE 27 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS.............................................. 23
FIGURE 28: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING (ACADEMIC) ............................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 29: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY (INDUSTRY).................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 30: ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING ......................... 25
FIGURE 31 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: EDUCATION V TRAINING (INDUSTRY DETAILS)
..................................................................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 32: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (ACADEMIC) .................... 26
FIGURE 33: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION (INDUSTRY) ..................... 26
FIGURE 34: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (ACADEMIC)............................................ 26
FIGURE 35: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES (INDUSTRY)............................................. 26
FIGURE 36 RICS-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT................................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 37: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (ACADEMIC)..................................... 28
FIGURE 38: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR (INDUSTRY)...................................... 28
FIGURE 39: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (ACADEMIC)....................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 40: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY)........................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 41: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (ACADEMIC)......................................................... 29
FIGURE 42: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL (INDUSTRY).......................................................... 29
FIGURE 43: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT (INDUSTRY) ..................................................... 30
FIGURE 44 SHOULD RICS DETERMINE AND REGULATE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ............................. 30
FIGURE 45 APPROPRIATENESS RICS SET OF ENTRY LEVELS ................................................................................................ 30
Part 2: List of Figures
List of Figures
FIGURE 46: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)............................................................ 31

FIGURE 47: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ............................................................. 31
FIGURE 48: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC)................................................................ 31
FIGURE 49: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY)................................................................. 31
FIGURE 50: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP (INDUSTRY) ........................................................... 32
FIGURE 51: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (ACADEMIC) ........................................................................... 32
FIGURE 52: IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS (INDUSTRY) ............................................................................ 32
FIGURE 53 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ...................................................... 33
FIGURE 54: AVAILABILITY OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC (INDUSTRY)....................................................... 33
FIGURE 55 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS (MEAN SCORES) ................................................ 34
FIGURE 56 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................. 35
FIGURE 57 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS ................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 58 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 36
FIGURE 59 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 37
FIGURE 60 PERCEPTION OF VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RICS SERVICES: INDUSTRY SURVEY BY SECTORS ........................................... 37
FIGURE 61 NEED FOR A DEFINITION OF GRADUATE COMPETENCY LEVEL ............................................................................... 38
vi
List of Tables
Part 2: List of Tables
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ........................................................................... 14

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR CORE COMPETENCIES ..................................................................................... 16
TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ............................................................................... 17
TABLE 4 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES .......................................................... 33
vii
Main Report
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Significant growth in undergraduate level education of Quantity Surveyors stems from the late
1960s and early 1970s with the switch from Diplomas in Quantity Surveying, firstly to Ordinary
degrees and, within a few years, to Honours Degrees. From the 1971 RICS report The Future
Role of the Quantity Surveyor (RICS, 1971) identifying specific competencies of the time the
profession began to evolve rapidly, and in 1983 a further report was produced, The Future of
the Chartered Quantity Surveyor (RICS, 1983) as if to further consolidate the professional
status of the QS. Nearly twenty years ago, with the publication of the document QS2000
(Davis Langen Everest, 1999) there was recognition of a number of forces acting on the QS
profession, highlighting both the changes to the client body and to the construction industry.
Academia
Quantity
Surveying
Education
Industry
Professional
Body (RICS)
Consultants
Contractors
Public Sector
Other
Today, the academic, professional and training needs of Quantity Surveyors are pulled by three
different stakeholders in three different directions (Figure 1). Academics are interested in
producing a rounded graduate with the basic foundation in knowledge for further development
whereas professional bodies are interested in graduates who can be progressed to full
professional status through the achievement of the required core competencies (RICS, 2009).
The industry is looking for a graduate who can straight away contribute both to the daily
functions of business activity and to its growth. Hence, there is a tripartite three directional pull
on the development needs of the Quantity Surveyor. The present education system of the
Quantity Surveyor does not recognise these multi-directional needs of the QS and hence often
produces a graduate whom the industry sees as not fulfilling their requirements. This leads to
many problems, with greater levels of employer and graduate dissatisfaction and obstacles to
early career development of the QS graduate.
Part 2: Introduction
Figure 1 Key stakeholders influence on Quantity Surveying education
Main Report
These conflicting concerns have long fuelled the education versus training debate and some
conflict between Educators and Employers through which the RICS steers a sometimes difficult
path. On the one hand it sends messages to the universities that it wishes to see programmes
which lean more towards the academic rather than the technical, whilst on the other hand
it sends messages to employers that they should accept graduates issuing from its accredited
degree programmes as being appropriately qualified to take positions at higher than technician
grade (for which the RICS itself has a specific training route via the HND / Foundation Degree).
For its own part, the RICS has created a set of Core Competencies which, if they are to be fully
achieved by candidates for membership, requires active cooperation between the academic
sector (providers of basic subject knowledge and certain academic skills) and the industrial
sector (providers of practical skills training) through the operation of their business.
Both the RICS and the educational sector show similarities in their lack of appreciation of the
specific requirements industry may have of its newly graduated student members. At the same
time the industry does not seem to appreciate that a graduate is a person with higher
intellectual capacity to rapidly further develop their professional skills and technical knowledge
once in employment. This conflict and lack of alignment of industry, academic and professional
perspectives create a barrier to the development of the profession as well as the career
development of the graduate Quantity Surveyor.
Leading Quantity Surveying professional bodies the world over have already begun to recognise
these developments and trends. For example, recently the Australian Institute of Quantity
Surveyors (AIQS) established a separate pathway for contractors Quantity Surveyor for
completing professional qualification.
Added to this is a more fundamental failure on the part of all parties to appreciate the dynamics
of the market sector. The majority of new graduates appear to be entering more non-traditional
quantity surveying routes. It has been shown both through research (Perera, 2006) and through
records of 1st destination Surveys (UNN Returns, 2001 2008) that a large majority of new
graduates find employment not in Private Consultancy Practice (PQS) or the Public Sector, as
was the case until the mid 1980s, but with Main Contracting and specialised subcontracting
organisations. Perera (2006) shows that in the University of Ulster more than 80% of graduates
either seek employment or prefer to be employed in the non- PQS sectors of the industry. The
situation is very similar at Northumbria University and in many other universities in the UK.
Feedback from Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) workshops has noted a certain
Private Practice bias within the presentation of advice and, indeed there is feedback at
university level suggesting this. Both much of the academic content and the structure of the
RICS would seem directed at those employed in the PQS and Government Sector, paying less
attention to the skills inherent in the role of the Contractors Surveyor. For their part, those
engaged in developing Quantity Surveying within the construction sector may see this as
another barrier to cooperating with the RICS when required. This is evident from the fact that
RICS membership does not grow in the same proportion to the growth in Quantity Surveying
student numbers (Perera, 2006). The emergence of Commercial Management (Lowe and
Leiringer, 2006; Walker and Wilkie, 2002) as a distinct discipline encompassing the role of the
contractor Quantity Surveyor is a fact that RICS should
consider in detail in its future
development of career paths for the Quantity Surveyor.
Main Report
In summary, it is suggested that the present education system of the Quantity Surveyor does
not recognise the multi-directional needs of the Quantity Surveyor and hence often produces a
graduate whom the industry sees as not fulfilling their requirements. A further factor in the
willingness on the part of the Industry to accept and train new graduates must be born of the
financial insecurity being experienced by existing Members who might otherwise be more
willing to accept the risk of employing and training new recruits. The problem is compounded
and exacerbated by the resource constraints brought about by the economic recession being
experienced severely by the construction industry in particular.
It is possible that through its most recent initiative, aimed at measuring the level of transferable
skills built into degree programmes, there will be the roots of some agreement between the
RICS, Academia and Industry (RICS 2009) (1). However, this process is a part of developing an
effective understanding of the issues referred to above.
1.2 Aim & Objectives

This research aims at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyors
within a post recession industrial environment; one which satisfies the aspirations of industrial,
professional and academic stakeholders.
This core aim of the research is further analysed into a set of objectives as follows:
Analyse the Core Competencies of Quantity Surveyors to establish their relevance to the
current and anticipated future needs of the industry.
Examine the curricula and the views of academic providers and its delivery in respect of
the Core Competencies.
Examine the views of industry employers on QS education and the nature and content
of engagement between academic providers and industry.
Investigate the implications of RICS routes of membership and development pathways
and their compatibility with QS education.
Make recommendations as to practical measures to coordinate the effective provision
of an appropriate balance of academic and professional skills through constructive
cooperation between the academic and industry sectors.
Suggest a model in which the RICS can motivate and manage the input of both industry
and academia, such that it maintains appropriate control of standards, thus upholding
its relevance in the process.
2 Research Method
The research was carried out in 4 distinct data gathering phases culminating in data analysis and
reporting. The key stages and process are illustrated in Figure 2.
Part 2: Research Method
The following section provides details of the research method adopted for the study.
Main Report
Figure 2 Research Method
These stages are further detailed below:

1. A detailed literature review was carried out to identify the RICS QS competencies and their
interpretation.
2. Expert forum: was the catalyst for the identification of key issues related to academia,
industry and the RICS. A total of 10 interviews were carried out comprising 3 academics
(programme leaders), 3 consultant quantity surveyors, 3 contractor quantity surveyors and
one RICS official (member of the RICS Education and Qualification Standards
Standards). Refer Part 3:
Analysis of Expert Opinion for a comprehensive report.
4. Survey of the Industry: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed the
basis of the survey questionnaire. A comprehensive web-based
based survey with 39 questions
was carried out covering quantity surveying industrial and professional community across
firms in the UK. These included 2946 chartered surveyors randomly selected from the RICS
member database.. A total of 615 responses were received. Refer Part 5: Analysis of
Perception of the Industry for a comprehensive report.
Part 2: Research Method
3. Survey of the academia: the issues identified from the literature and expert forum formed
the basis of the survey questionnaire.
questionnaire A comprehensive web-based
based survey with 41 questions
was carried out covering academics representing all 26 RICS accredited quantity surveying
programmes. The survey was issued to 106 academics from
fr
which 65 responses were
received. Refer Part 4: Analysis
Analysi of Perception of the academia for a comprehensive report.
Main Report
5. Competency mapping case studies: All 24 RICS QS competencies were mapped against
curricular for 4 RICS accredited QS Honours degree programmes and are reported as 4 case
studies. These provide a full picture of the extent of coverage of RICS QS competencies in
the programmes accredited by the RICS. Refer Part 6: Competency mapping case studies for
a comprehensive report.
6. Alignment framework: this is an attempt to bring the key findings of the two surveys, 4 case
studies and expert forum to a conclusion directing activities that needs to be carried out to
align disparate views of the key stakeholders. This is provided in the Part 2: Main report (this
report).
Both surveys reported were first piloted among a small sample of volunteers representing industry
and academia. The review of feedback obtained through a discussion session lead to the
modification of the questionnaires.
The following section provides a detailed account of the primary areas of investigation listed below:
1. The survey respondent profiles
2. Role of the QS & Developments
3. RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies
4. Quantity Surveying Education
5. Modes of study & placement
6. RICS Routes of Membership & Training
7. RICS Services
3 The survey respondent profiles

The survey respondents for both surveys were well experienced in QS work, there being over 90%
with more than 10 years experience. The academic respondents included 44% programme leaders.
6 - 10
Years ,
6.67%
Over 30
Years ,
26.67%
11 - 20
Years ,
31.11%
21 - 30
years ,
35.56%
Figure 3 Respondent QS experience profile: Academia
Up to 5
Years,
0.70%
Over 30
Years,
43.20%
6 - 10
Years,
7.00%
11 - 20
Years,
19.90%
21 - 30
years,
29.20%
Figure 4 Respondent QS experience profile: Industry
Part 2: The survey respondent profiles
Up to
5
Years ,
0.00%
Main Report
Specialist
subcontractor,
1.70%
Other,
5.71%
Administra
tion,
24.53%
Teaching
and
Learning
Activities,
49.62%
Research,
15.04%
Specialist
supplier,
0.00%
Other,
15.00%
Public
Sector,
14.60%
Contractin
g
organisati
on,
16.90%
Private
practice
Quantity
Surveyor
(consultan
t), 51.80%
Academic
Enterprise,
5.09%
Figure 5: Academic Respondent Work
Figure 6: Type of Company
No direct comparison could be made between the nature of the workloads of each group. The
academics spent roughly half of their time engaged in teaching and or assessment, the rest in either
administration (25%) or research (15%).
Just over half of the industry respondents were engaged in Private Practice, the rest being spread in
equal measures over contracting (17%), the public sector (15%) or other (15%). In terms of the
number of students enrolled at any one time, the age of the course and its student make-up these
mostly fell into similar ranges. This suggests that in its own way, each group was representative.
4 Role of the QS & Developments

The role of the QS is defined by current and future workloads and trends in development. This
section evaluates the respondents views on both academic and industry surveys bringing in views of
the expert forum where appropriate.
4.1 Organisations Current workload
Part 2: Role of the QS & Developments
The industry survey indentified (Figure 7) the key areas of work presently important for the QS. The
top 3 core competencies: T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control and
reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works directly maps to the highest
workloads identified.
Main Report
Activities which make up your organisations current workload
Percentage
17.36%
Post-contract
contract cost control (Interim valuations to final
final
13.39%
Project management
12.97%
Pre-contract
contract cost control (preliminary estimating, cost
cost
12.19%
Tender documentation
6.46%
Other
5.70%
Estimation and bidding
5.18%
Payments and cash flow management
4.58%
Contract formulation and negotiation
4.27%
Dispute resolution
Risk management
Value management
Managing claims
Supply chain management
3.94%
3.85%
3.14%
2.71%
Performance management
2.23%
Whole life costing
2.03%
Figure 7 Organisations current workload:

workload Industry
4.2 Perception of areas of work becoming more important

Both professionals and academics appear to agree
agree that the largest growth area will be that of
Refurbishment followed by Building construction and Building services (Figure
(
8).
). The similarity in
median scores together
her with low deviation suggests agreement amongst most academics.
Professionals, for their part, show a wider variety of opinion over this.
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
Figure 8 Areas of future growth
Mean - Ac
Mean - Ind
Part 2: Role of the QS & Developments
1.50
Main Report
There was a strong feeling among the expert forum that the role would become more complex,
taking more concepts such as sustainability and whole life costing into account. The expert forum in
general indicated the need to up skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and its impact on the
profession. They also agreed that collaboration and team working should be more important skill
skills to
develop. Sustainability and project management skills were seen as areas for further development
while civil engineering construction, infrastructure development and mechanical aand electrical
(energy related) projects were seen as growth sectors for the future.
4.3 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of
Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Here, quite significant differences appear between the two groups of respondents,
responde nts, with academia
seeming to be more aware generally of each element of the New Rules. Only in the area of Whole
Life Costing documentation does industry appear to begin to match the awareness demonstrated by
the academics. Perhaps the industry representatives
representa
apparent interest in WLC- related
documentation mirrors their perception elsewhere (Part
(
3 Expert Forum)) of WLC as a growing area
of client interest. In terms of their ratings for the importance of the various elements of the
documentation academia afford far higher weightings than do industry to the first element
(elemental cost planning, 67% to 46% respectively) and the last (whole life costing, 54% to 31%
respectively). Only in the case of the proposed alternative to SMM7, not yet published, are the two
groups in approximate agreement as to its importance.
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
Mean - Ac
0.00
Whole Life
Costing
Order of cost Procurement

estimating
an
and elemental alternative to
cost planning
SMM7
Mean - Ind
Figure 9 Level of awareness of NRM initiatives
Mean - Ac
Whole Life
Costing
Mean - Ind
Figure 10 Level of importance of NRM initiatives
5 RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies

5.1 RICS QS Competency Requirements
The RICS Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived
relevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor:
1
Mandatory Competencies: personal, interpersonal and professional practice and business skills
common to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates.
Part 2: RICS Quantity Surveying Competencies
Order of cost Procurement

estimating
an
and
alternative to
elemental
SMM7
cost planning
Main Report
2
3
Core Competencies: primary skills of the candidates chosen [RICS] pathway

Optional Competencies: selected as an additional skill requirement for the candidates chosen
[RICS] pathway from a list of competencies relevant to that pathway. In most cases there is an
element of choice, though driven, usually, by their employers specialism.
The RICS distinguish between three possible levels of attainment in each of a range of competences
when setting its requirements of those seeking membership. Briefly, these are as follows;
Level 1: Knowledge (theoretical knowledge)

Level 2: Knowledge and practical experience (putting it into practice)
Level 3: Knowledge, practical experience and capacity to advise (explaining and advising)
There are 10 Mandatory competencies, 7 Core competencies and 7 Optional competencies (two only
of these last to be selected by the candidate). The RICS stipulates that an APC candidate needs to
achieve all Mandatory competencies at Level 2 or above, all Core competencies at Level 3 (except
one not relevant to specialisation depending on employment in consulting or contracting practice
which is at Level 2) and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above.
The RICS QS competencies were analysed in 4 different ways:
1. Map competencies to RICS accredited programme curricular
2. Establish the expected level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors
3. Establish the perceived level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity
surveyors
4. Ranking of competencies in the order of perceived importance to the role of quantity
surveyor
The outcomes related to each of these aspects are discussed in detail in the following sections.
The research devised its own method of mapping competencies to curricular as there is not a
standard systematic method by which to compare the level of attainment of competencies. A
scoring system was used to systematically analyse the extent of mapping of competencies to
individual module specifications of 4 RICS accredited QS honours degree programmes (Case studies
A, B, C, D).
The results revealed that there is considerable variation in the attainment of competencies across
programmes (universities). There was 11points variation in cumulative scores between the highest
scoring and lowest scoring universities at Level 1. The figure narrows to 2.25points at Level 2 and
0.25 at Level 3.
5.2.1 Coverage of Mandatory competencies
Mandatory competencies generally can be expected to be achieved at Level 1. Figure 11 shows how
each university performed in coverage at Level 1.
5.2 Mapping of competencies to programme curricular
Main Report
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
A
Accounting principles and
procedures
Business planning
Client care
Communication and
negotiation
Conduct rules, ethics and

professional practice
Conflict avoidance,
management and dispute
resolution procedures
Data management
Health and safety
Sustainability
Teamworking
M001
M002
M003
M004
M005
M006
M007
M008
M009
M010
B
C
D
Figure 11 Mandatory Competency mapping scores: Level 1
The yellow benchmark line has been set at 1 to indicate below standard coverage of competencies.
It is clear that there are many competencies (M001, M002, M003, M005, M006 and M008) that have
not been adequately covered even at Level 1.
5.2.2 Coverage of Core competencies

The coverage of the core competencies presents the most important analysis as these competencies
are vital for the function of quantity surveyor. Figure 12 illustrates the coverage of Core
competencies by universities.
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
A
Commercial management of
construction
Construction technology and

environmental services
Contract practice
Design economics and cost

planning
Procurement tendering
Project financial control and

reporting
Quantification and costing of

construction works
T010
T013
T017
T022
T062
T067
T074
Figure 12 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 1
B
C
D
10
Main Report
When using a benchmark score of 1 all universities have achieved that for all competencies.
However, as a cumulative score is used this may not fully represent the required level of
achievement of competencies.
Figure 13 indicates the core competency coverage at Level 2. It is clear that set against a benchmark
score of 1 there is inadequate coverage for all competencies across all universities except for T074
Quantification and Costing of Construction works. This is an aspect that needs further investigation
as the survey opinions rank this competency achievement the lowest. The scoring for mapping was
carried out primarily
arily based on scoring by programme leaders. In the absence of a detailed
specification to indicate what level of content coverage is required for a competency be achieved, it
is difficult to have a uniformly interpreted outcome.
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
A
Commercial management of
construction
Construction technology and

Contract practice
Design economics and cost

planning
Project financial control and

reporting
Quantification and costing of

construction works
T010
T013
T017
T022
T062
T067
T074
B
C
D
5.2.3 Coverage of Optional competencies

Only two Optional competencies are required to be addressed for the APC. But, universities attempt
to cover many optional competencies in their curricular often as non-optimal
non ptimal modules. There is no
guidance from the RICS as to how many to what extent (which level) these optional competencies
should be completed upon graduation.
graduation This is again open to interpretation.
Figure 13 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2
11
Main Report
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Corporate recovery and

insolvency
Due diligence
Insurance
Programming and planning
Project Evaluation
Risk management
B
Contract administration
0
Capital Allowances
0.5
T008
T016
T020
T025
T045
T063
TO66
T077
C
D
Figure 14 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1
Figure 14 clearly indicates that all universities do not achieve optional competencies to a benchmark
level score of 1.
5.2.4 Views of the Expert Forum
Most experts were of the opinion that competencies in general should be achieved at Level 1 by
graduates (Part 3). However, some academic experts were of the view that universities achieve more
than Level 1 in some competencies and move greatly towards Level 2. One Consultant QS was of the
view that both Mandatory and Core competencies should be achieved at Level 2.
These reflect the exact situation with respect to coverage of competencies. There is no uniform
view and it is very much open to individual interpretation. These tensions of interpretation are well
evident in the competency mapping analysis carried out (Part 6).
1. There is no prescribed threshold benchmark standard for achieving competencies at

graduate level.
2. There are no detailed specifications to indicate what content should be covered to achieve a
competency.
3. Different universities aim to achieve competencies at different levels, based on their own
interpretations.
4. In the absence of a detailed competency specification, the level of achievement of
competencies as judged by our own interpretation seems satisfactory for the most part.
There are inadequacies in the level of coverage of some competencies.
5. Programme leaders tend to interpret levels of achievement of competencies differently to
one another, resulting in apparent differing levels of achievement of competencies and
different levels of coverage.
5.2.5 Key findings of competency mapping

The main finding related to the competency mapping can be summarised as follows:
12
Main Report
6. There is no standard way to interpret the actual achievement of competencies.
7. There is no formal competency mapping process available for universities in curricular
development or revision.
8. Most mandatory competencies are not achieved to a significant extent by the universities
studied to date.
9. Core competencies are well achieved at Level 1 based on interpretations made by
universities and some attempt made at Level 2. There is greater scope towards achieving
core competencies to some extent at Level 2.
10. Optional competencies are not reasonably achieved at Level 1 by most universities. Some
competencies are however dealt with to a considerably higher level by some universities.
There is greater variation across universities.
5.3 Expected level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity

surveyors
This section analyses the views of academics (Part 4) and industry (Part 5) to establish the expected
level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors. It will also bring in views from
the Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate.
In the absence of a threshold benchmark standard for graduate competencies it is important to
ascertain what key stakeholders perceive a graduate should achieve in competencies. This section
aims to establish consensus view on which level each competency should be achieved by a graduate
from a RICS accredited degree programme.
The overview comparison of all competencies between Academia and Industry is given in Figure 15
and Figure 16 respectively.
80.00%
80.00%
70.00%
70.00%
60.00%
49%
46%
50.00%
52%
37%
52%
36%
37%
40.00%
38%
30.00%
30.00%
20.00%
50%
50.00%
16%
24%
27%
25%
20.00%
15%
11%
10%
10.00%
10.00%
6%
0.00%
0.00%
Mandatory
Competencies
Level 1
Core Competencies
Level 2
Optional
Competencies
Level 3
Figure 15: Overview - Expected Graduate Competency

(Academic)
Mandatory
Competencies
Core
Competencies
Level 1
Level 2
Optional
Competencies
Level 3

(Industry)
In overall terms academics expectation of achievement seem much higher than industrys.
Academics expected levels for all three types of competencies are higher.
60.00%
40.00%
70%
13
Main Report
5.3.1 Expected level for Mandatory Competencies
Whilst academic responses (Figure 17) to this section appear somewhat biased towards Level 2, the
industry response (Figure 18) appears more logical, expecting the highest level of experience to be at
Level 1, falling to the least being at Level 3. In both cases the highest ratings were given in the areas
of M010 Team working and M004 Communication and negotiating and M007 Data management, all
being transferable skills. Of those competencies that do feature at Level 3 within both industry and
Academic assessment M010 Team working appears once again. This acknowledged degree of
expertise may stem from increased use of this as a vehicle of teaching and assessment within
university programmes of study.
M010 Team
working
M009
Sustainability
M008 Health and
safety
M001
Accounting
0.9
M002 Business
0.8
0.7
planning
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
M003 Client care
0.2
0.1
0
M004
Communicatio
M007 Data
management
M010 Team
working
M009
Sustainability
M008 Health and
safety
M007 Data
management
M005 Conduct
rules, ethics
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
Level 1
Level 2
M001
Accounting
principles and
0.9
M002 Business
0.8
0.7
planning
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
M003 Client care
0.2
0.1
0
M004
Communication
and negotiation
M005 Conduct
rules, ethics and
professional
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
management
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 18: Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory

Competencies for New Graduate QS (Industry)
Figure 17: Expected Level of achievement of Mandatory

Competencies for New graduate QS (Academic)
Final assessment of Mandatory competencies can be summarised as in Table 1.
Mandatory Competencies
M001 Accounting principles and procedures

M002 Business planning
M003 Client care
M004 Communication and negotiation
M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional
practice
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and
dispute resolution procedures
M007 Data management
M008 Health and safety
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
Level
Expected
Forum
1
1
1 or 2
1 or 2
1
Level
Expected
Academic
1
1
1
2
2
Level
Expected
Industry
1
1
1
2
1
Level
Recommended
2
1 or 2
1
2
2
2
2
2 or 3
2
1 or 2
1
2
2 (part)
1
1
2 (part)
1
1
1
2 (part)
1
Table 1 Summary of expected levels for mandatory competencies
14
Main Report
The opinions from the expert forum do not provide a consensus view. However, the majority view
indicates that in general those Mandatory competencies are being achieved at Level 1 except for
M006, M007 and M010. Therefore, it is recommended that Mandatory competencies be achieved at
Level 1 for the most part moving on to Level 2 in part for some competencies as indicated in Table 1.
5.3.2 Expected level for Core Competencies

In this, the most discipline-specific area, both the academics and those from industry look for the
most frequent level of competency to be at Level 2. Thus, the pattern for Level2 skills as shown on
Figure 6 is almost identical for the two sets of respondents. Respondents from academia display a
higher expectation of attainment at Level 3 than do those from industry. As above the Industry are
being more realistic in their expectation, as a new graduate would be unlikely to be in a position
immediately to be able to advise clients etc. as the acquisition of Level 3 suggests. Academia is either
perhaps exhibiting wishful thinking, or else is unaware of the actual requirement for the
achievement of Level 3.
T074
Quantification
and costing of
construction
T067 Project
financial
control and
reporting
T062
Procurement
and tendering
Level 1
T013
Construction
technology
and
T017 Contract
practice
T022 Design
economics
and cost
planning
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 19: Expected Level of achievement of Core

T074
Quantification
and costing of
construction
T010
Commercial
management
of construction
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
T067 Project
financial
control and
reporting
T062
Procurement
and tendering
Level 1
T013
Construction
technology and
environment
T017 Contract
practice
T022 Design
economics and
cost planning
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 20: Expected Level of Achievement of Core

What is disconcerting in both these analysis is that there is a considerable number expecting Core
competencies to be achieved at Level 3. The academic survey indicates Level 3 expectancy from 36%
where as comparative figure for the industry survey is 27%. Both these are very high and indicate
possible misinterpretation of level classifications or an unrealistic expectation.
The final assessment of core competencies that can be deduced from this analysis is given in below.
T010
Commercial
management
of
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
15
Main Report
Table 2 Summary of expected levels for core competencies
Core Competencies
T010 Commercial management of construction

T013 Construction technology and
T022 Design economics and cost planning
T074 Quantification and costing of construction
works
Level
Expected
Forum
2
2
Level
expected
Academic
2
2
Level
Expected
Industry
2
2
Level
Recomme
nded
2 (part)
2 (part)
2
1 or 2
2
2
1 or 3
2
2 or 3
2 or 3
2
2 or 3
2
2
2
2
2
2 (part)
2 (part)
2 (part)
2 (part)
2 (part)
Core competencies largely define the primary role of the quantity surveyor and therefore expert
opinion ranks it very important. However, there is no consensus view on achievement of core
competencies with some Industrial experts stating it should be at Level 1 and some academics
stating it should be at Level 2. Therefore, it is recommended that Core competencies be achieved at
Level 2 in part as indicated in Table 2. This also justified by the fact that most programmes currently
proceed to Level 2 to some extent and have the full capacity to do so. The Expert Forum expressed
similar views.
T077 Risk
management
T063
Programming
T008 Capital
allowances
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
T020
Corporate
T025 Due
diligence
T045 Insurance
Level 1
T016 Contract
administration
Level 2
T063
Programmin
T045
Insurance
Level 3
Figure 21: Expected Level of achievement of Optional

T077 Risk
management
Level 1
T008 Capital
allowances
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
T016 Contract
administration
T020
Corporate
T025 Due
diligence
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 22: Expected Level of Achievement of Optional

5.3.3 Expected level for Optional Competencies

With regards to Optional competencies the order of ratings of both respondent groups show much
the same pattern, their most likely expectation being of the graduate having attained Level 1 only,
expectation of Level 3 being by far the least. Again, the industry responses are far less at Levels 2
and 3 than those of academia, reflecting a more realistic picture perhaps, one born of experience.
With the exception of expectations of Level 2 attainment, the respective versions of Figure 21and
Figure 22 mirror one another almost exactly. The specialisms of T008 Capital Allowances, T045
Insurance, T025 Due Diligence and T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency each being the highest
on both charts.
16
Main Report
Both academia and industry attach greater significance to T016 Contract administration giving it an
expected ranking of Level 2. This is born out of the fact that it is often considered a key function of
quantity surveyors.
The final assessment of optional competencies that can be deduced from this analysis is given in
Table 3 below.
Table 3 Summary of expected levels for optional competencies
Optional Competencies
T008 Capital allowances

T016 Contract administration
T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
T063 Programming and planning
T077 Risk management
Level
Expected
Forum
1
1 or 2
1
1
1
1
1
Level
expected
Academic
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
Level
Expected
Industry
Level
Recommended
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 part
1
1
1
1 or 2 part
1 or 2 part
Expert opinion with regard to optional competencies for the most part is closer than for other two
types of competencies. Most expect it to be achieved at Level 1. However, there is considerable
argument for T016 Contract administration, T063 Programming and planning and T077 Risk
management be achieved at Level 2 mostly arising from academics. Therefore, it is recommended
that Optional competencies be achieved at Level 1 for all competencies and extending in part to
Level 2 for competencies as indicated in Table 3. This is again consistent with the competency
mapping which indicates high level of achievement for these 3 competencies.
5.4 Perceived level of achievement of competencies by graduate quantity

surveyors
Noticeably (Figure 23), the industry respondents graduate competency achievement scores against
all competencies lie within the median value range of 2.00 to 3.00, that is, between partially
satisfied and undecided, hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the graduates skill levels.
Industrialists award the lowest score of all to T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
(Measurement has always regarded as a key QS skill).
This resonates more with general industry perceptions, often reported in different forums.
However, the expert opinion was not so critical as that although measurement related inadequacy in
knowledge was clearly reported by many.
This section analyses the views of industry (Part 5) to establish their perceptions of the level of
achievement of competencies by graduate quantity surveyors. The survey did not evaluate the
perspective of academics here as they are intricately involved in the development of graduates. It
will also bring in views from the Expert Forum (Part 3) where appropriate.
17
Main Report
Mean
2.96
M010 Team working
2.90
M009 Sustainability
2.77
2.60
2.59
2.58
2.57
2.55
2.52
T013 Construction technology and environmental
2.51
2.48
2.46
2.46
2.40
M003 Client care
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.38
2.28
2.27
2.11
T045 Insurance
2.07
2.05
T025 Due diligence
2.05
The highest satisfaction levels are indicated for 4 Mandatory competencies. The top 5 competencies
are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
The Core competency with which respondents are least satisfied is T074 Quantification and costing
of construction works followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two
competencies ranked most important in the previous analysis. This clearly indicates that there is
high degree of non satisfaction with graduate quality across the industry.
In the expert forum one PQS felt that some courses do not deliver what employers want and one
academic stated students are going out without the necessary skills to undertake their basic job
Figure 23: Employers' Perception on achievement of Competencies by QS Graduates
18
Main Report
and that is where employees feel that the universities are letting the system down. This being said
the general view was that it is not easy to generalise and some courses are better than others and
also it is down to other factors such as the student, mode of study, and employer.
5.5 Ranking of competencies in the order of perceived importance

This section analyses the views of academics (Part 4) and industry (Part 5) to establish the perceived
level of importance of competencies in quantity surveying. It will also bring in views from the Expert
Forum (Part 3) where appropriate. Figure 24 illustrates the median values scored for each
competency by both groups.
The results from professionals and academia both display low standard deviation. Both the Mean
and Median against competencies were higher for academic respondents than for those in industry
in the majority of cases. In both cases the Optional are scored low. This is particularly so in the case
of the Industry figures. Perhaps the industry respondents have a much clearer view of what is of
importance to the profession.
When considering the relative order of importance of the full list of skills far more are given as 5, the
top score, by academics than by respondents from industry (9 academics, 3 industrialists). Much of
the balance, in the case of the industrialists, falls into the range 4. Roughly the same number of skills
are rated 3 by both parties, but the industrialists then drop to 2 for the rating which they give to 3
skills. There is some consistency here, for both the industrialists and academics agree that the same
three skills should be awarded the same rating (Corporate recovery and insolvency, Capital
allowances and Accounting principles and procedures this last a surprise rather to a profession
dealing so much in financial matters and whose members do require a certain basic understanding
of and ability in this area).
The competency rankings provided resonate very well with current industry workload profile for
quantity surveyors (Figure 7).
19
Main Report
Median - Ind
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
M003 Client care

5.00
4.00
M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice
4.00
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute

4.50
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
M009 Sustainability
3.00
M010 Team working
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00

services
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
4.00

T025 Due diligence
3.00
2.00
2.50
3.00
T045 Insurance
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Figure 24 Order of Importance of RICS Competencies
4.00
4.00
Median - Ac
20
Main Report
5.5.1 Ranking of Mandatory competencies
Academics rank M010 Team working, M004 Communication and negotiation and M005 Conduct
rules, ethics and professional practice above other mandatory competencies and award them the
highest score of 5.
Industry also rank these and M003 Client care, M004 Communication and negotiation and M006
Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures higher than others but with a
maximum score of 4.
Both groups generally have a similar perspective on the relative status of mandatory competencies
for the most part.
5.5.2 Ranking of Core competencies
Academics have ranked all core competencies equal with the highest rating of 5. The industry
respondents have ranked T062 Procurement and tendering, T067 Project financial control and
reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works the highest with a score of 5.
All other core competencies received a ranking of 4.
This reflects a more pragmatic ranking considering industry needs.
5.5.3 Ranking of Optional competencies
Academics have ranked all optional competencies between 3 and 4. Both the industry respondents
and academics have ranked T016 Contract administration and T077 Risk management highest in this
category with a score of 4. The least important optional competencies noted are T008 Capital
allowances and T020 Corporate recovery and insolvency receiving of score of 2.
5.6 Cross comparison of levels of expectation, achievement and

importance of competencies
A cross comparison of industry survey respondents views on Expected level of competency,
Importance of competency and Level of achievement of competency by graduates is cross plotted to
evaluate relationship with these criteria (Figure 25).
Note: Expected level has been re-scaled to a 1 to 5 scale to graphically compare with Importance
ranking (scaled 1 to 5) and perceived Achievement (scaled 1 to 5).
21
Main Report
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00

M003 Client care
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
T013 Construction technology and environmental services
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
Importance Median
Achievement Median
Expected Level
From this comparison it is clear that whilst there is high importance attached to a competence there
may be a comparatively lower level of achievement. This is clearly evident with T067 Project
financial control and reporting and T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
competencies.
Other clear gaps in expectation and achievement are with:
M003 Client care
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures
M010 Team working
Figure 25 Cross comparison of competency expected level, importance ranking and graduate achievement
22
Main Report
T045 Insurance
Those competencies highlighted in bold in the list above show the greatest gap between
achievement and importance. These include 9 of the 24 competencies (3 mandatory, 4 core and 2
optional competencies) which have a significantly high importance in the role of the quantity
surveyor.
6 Quantity Surveying Education

The surveys probed in detail with respect to the views of both academia and industry as to their
level of understanding and awareness of aspects of education, university industry collaboration and
other. These are summarised in the following sections. Full detailed discussion of these issues can
be found in Part 4 & 5 of the full report.
6.1 Level of awareness of and satisfaction with the curriculum used to

produce graduate QSs
Only half of the respondents from industry felt themselves to be either reasonably or fully aware of
the content of the curricula. As to their satisfaction with curricula content 60% expressed
dissatisfaction or partial dissatisfaction with the curriculum. This begs the question as to whether
their dissatisfaction might be linked in any way to their self confessed lack of awareness of the
detail.
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Percentage - Ac
Figure 26: Level of awareness of the content of the

curriculum taught in University (Industry)
Figure 27 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to

produce a graduate QS
The expert forum identified several subject areas that need greater attention:
Construction Technology
Measurement of quantities
Cost planning
Pres-contract estimating
Percentage - Ind
Part 2: Quantity Surveying Education
0.00%
23
Main Report
One consultant QS expressed the view that there was too much mass teaching, with a mismatch
where the learning outcome does not map to the industry requirement. One consultant QS also felt
that the RICS had less than adequate involvement in regulating curricular while one Contractors QS
felt that although there are so many RICS accredited programmes they are not comparable in most
respects.
6.2 The level of confidence in Lecturers programme delivery capacity

On the part of the industry representatives there is generally reasonable to full confidence with the
level of lecturers academic knowledge, QS Practice and use of teaching materials. The academics
themselves indicate a very high level of confidence in the programme delivery capacity.
60%
50%
56%
46%
43%
49%
40%
36%
60%
50%
38%
45%
44%
37%37%
40%
34%
30%
30%
30%
19%
20%
20%
16%
15%
16%
11%
7%
10%
10%
7%
6%
3%
0%
1%
5%
0%
0%
Academic
Knowledge
Quantity
Use of teaching
Surveying Practice material (notes,
handouts,
tutorials etc.)
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 28: Confidence levels in teaching (Academic)
-10%
Academic
Knowledge
Quantity Surveying Use of teaching

Practice
material (notes,
handouts, tutorials
etc.)
1
Figure 29: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability (Industry)
The Expert forum identified they feel that as class sizes get bigger to make courses more
economically viable the ability of tutors to spend more contact time and give more feedback will be
compromised by the numbers of students they have to work with.
There was, perhaps understandably, a clear difference in perceptions between the two sets of
respondents here. Respondents from industry were almost equally split (57% 43%) as to whether
universities should be producing surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon
graduation (Training) or, rather, graduates with overall knowledge and a good foundation in
Quantity Surveying (Education). Academics, for their part took the opposing stance, preferring the
overall knowledge and good foundation (Education) approach by a ratio of 73% to 27%.This
mirrors quite closely the traditional perceptions within the education versus training debate.
6.3 The role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
24
Main Report
80.00%
73%
70.00%
70.00%
57%
60.00%
50.00%
43%
50.00%
40.00%
27%
30.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
30.00%
10.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Graduate with Training Quantity
overall academic Surveyors for
knowledge and a
immediate
good foundation
Quantity
in Quantity
Surveying
Surveying
employment
upon graduation
Percentage - Ac
Percentage - Ind
Figure 30: Role of Universities in producing a Graduate

Quantity Surveyor: Education v Training
10.00%
0.00%
Universities should
Universities should produce
concentrate on training
a graduate with overall
Quantity Surveyors for
academic knowledge and a
immediate Quantity
good foundation in Quantity
Surveying employment upon
Surveying
graduation
Consultant
Contractor
Public Sector
Figure 31 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate

Quantity Surveyor: Education v Training (Industry details)
Expert forum: 6 respondents agreed with statement a (2 PQS, 1 CQS, 1 RICS, 2 academics). 2
respondents agreed with statement b (1 PQS, 1CQS). 1 CQS felt that it should be a bit of both, a
balance of academia with vocational on a 50/50 basis. One academic was undecided. One CQS
stated that over the last 30 years they had seen the quality of technical Quantity Surveying become
diluted and warned that if the trend continues we would lose technical standards forever.
6.4 Industry Academia Collaboration in QS programme delivery

The level of industry and academic collaboration in the delivery of QS programmes is vital to the
success of graduates. As such, academics perceptions of industrys willingness to collaborate and
their willingness to collaborate were evaluated and compared with, from the industry side, their
declared willingness in this field and the latters actual availability to do so. Generally speaking,
academias perception of Industrys willingness to collaborate was closely mirrored by industry
representatives own responses, particularly at the levels of unsure, willing and very willing. A
less promising picture emerged regarding the actual participation of the parties, where 75% of
academia saw the possibility of collaborative activity as likely or very likely but the equivalent figure
for industry amounted to only 28%.
This crucial aspect sets the ethos for university programme provision and industry aspirations. It is
abundantly clear that the industry prefer their graduate recruits to be more directly employable
than they are today. This may provide an explanation for the high level of dissatisfaction expressed
on graduate performance by the industry. But, the question is on the boundary of demarcation
between responsibility for producing a professional between university and industry in converting a
graduate to a professional.
25
Main Report
35.00%
35.00%
30.00%
30.00%
25.00%
25.00%
20.00%
20.00%
15.00%
15.00%
10.00%
10.00%
5.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 - Not
2345 - Very
at all Partially Unsure Willing willing
willing willing
1 - Not
2345 - Very
at all Partially Unsure Willing willing
willing willing
Figure 32: Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with

Universities on QS Education (Academic)
Figure 33: Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with

Universities on QS Education (Industry)
50.00%
50.00%
40.00%
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%
20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 - Not at
23 - Unsure 4 - Likely 5 - Very
all likely Partially
Likely
likely
Figure 34: Possibility to commit time for industry

collaborative activities (Academic)
1 - Not at
2all likely Partially
likely
34 - Likely 5 - Very
Unsure
Likely
Figure 35: Possibility to commit time for industry

collaborative activities (Industry)
47% of academics perceived the RICS University Partnership Agreement process as successful
while 22% saw this as partially or unsuccessful while 31% were undecided. This indicates that there
is consensus on the overall concept of the partnership but a considerable amount of scepticism
about the partnership process, which warrants further investigation.
6.5 RICS - University partnership agreement
26
Main Report
40%
36%
35%
31%
30%
25%
20%
16%
15%
10%
11%
7%
5%
0%
1 - Not at all
successful
2 - Partially
successful
3 - Undecided
4 - Successful
5 - Very
successful
Figure 36 RICS-University partnership agreement
7 Modes of study & placement

7.1 Perceived Success of Modes of Study
Part 2: Modes of study & placement
This section analyses the different modes of study and industry placement offered for
undergraduates undertaking Quantity Surveying programmes. This produced perhaps the greatest
level of agreement of any aspect in the two surveys. Seven alternative modes of study were
presented for evaluation as indicated in Figure 37 and Figure 38. Respondents were requested to
indicate preferences on a scale of 1 to 7 most to least preferred. The representatives of both
industry and academia declared their most favoured mode of study to be Part time undergraduate
university study (45.50% and 46.67% top ranking respectively) and both declared their least
favourite to be the full time postgraduate study non cognate route ( 66.8% and 73.33% bottom
ranking respectively) . For both groups of respondents full time undergraduate university study with
a one year placement was ranked second highest (39.5 % and 35.56% top ranking respectively).
27
Main Report
50
47
45
40
Full time undergraduate university study

no prior experience no placement
36
35

with prior experience no placement
30

1 year placement
25
20
20

summer placements
20
Part time undergraduate university study
15
10
Full time postgraduate study - noncognate route
Part time postgraduate study - noncognate route
0
1
Figure 37: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor (Academic)
50.00
45.00

no prior experience no placement
40.00

with prior experience no placement
35.00

1 year placement
30.00
25.00

summer placements
20.00
15.00
Full time postgraduate study - noncognate route
10.00
5.00
Part time postgraduate study - noncognate route
0.00
1
7.2 Industry Placement in Construction Organisation and in Quantity

Surveying Education
The level of responses of very or fully committed to the placement ideal is noticeably higher for
those in academia than for those in industry (87% as against 52% respectively). Faced with the
possibility of recession, commitment remains high in academia whereas it appears to fall more
sharply in industry (to 64% as against 28% respectively).
Figure 38: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor (Industry)
28
Main Report
67%
70%
60%
70%
60%
50%
44%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
18%
20%
4%7%
10%
11%
4%
20%
20%
18%
20%
8%
10%
4%
0%
0%
-10%
-10%
General long term view
27% 28%28% 26%
During a recession
Figure 39: Level of commitment to placement (Academic)
13%
26%
13%
15%
During a recession
Figure 40: Level of commitment to placement (Industry)
When asked to rate the importance of a structured placement training model there was
considerable agreement between the two sets of respondents as to this being important at some
level though there were differences as to the precise level of importance. Industrys ranking of this
as either very or extremely important came to 64% whereas the equivalent figure for the academic
respondents was 80%. This may be a reflection of the fact that whereas academics are used to
training students along the lines of strict curricula, the industry does not always perceive itself as
providing structured training but, rather, a generalist training opportunity perhaps?
2%
16%
44%
2 - Partially
important
1 - Not at all
important
7%
2 - Partially
important
35%
26%
3 - Important
36%
4 - Very important
5 - Extremely
important
Figure 41: Importance of a structured placement training

model (Academic)
7.3
3%
1 - Not at all
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
29%
5 - Extremely
important

model (Industry)
Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement
Industry respondents proclaimed the placement to be, above all, a good test bed for potential staff
after graduation, with 90% of responses stating this. 59% saw it as affording opportunities for a two
way flow of knowledge between university and industry and, accordingly perhaps, 44% saw it as a
source of new ideas from current education.
2%
29
Main Report
90.00%
It is a good test bed for

potential staff after graduation
80.00%
70.00%
It is a source of economic and

flexible labour
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
It provides source of new ideas

from current education
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
It allows for a two way flow of

knowledge between
universities and industry
0.00%
Yes
Uncertain
No
Figure 43: Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement (Industry)
7.4 Entry requirements for RICS

R
accredited programmes
Nearly 60% of academics were clearly of the view that RICS should determine entry criteria for RICS
accredited programmes both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. However there were a
notable 30% who opposed this.
70%
70%
60%
60%
64%
49%
50%
50%
40%
40%
29%
24%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
13%
7% 7%
5%
0%
2%
0%
0%
Uncertain
QS Undergraduate study
No
QS Postgraduate study
Figure 44 Should RICS determine and regulate entry

requirements for accredited programmes
Figure 45 Appropriateness RICS set of Entry Levels
Academics were of the view that both undergraduate (49%) and postgraduate
postgra duate (64%) programmes
respectively had appropriate entry criteria at present while 15% (45% -PG)
PG) perceived it as too high.
Further to this 35% (31% - PG) perceived it to be too low. This concludes that there is no dispute on
the entry levels for PG programmes
rammes but there is significant discontent on the entry criteria for
undergraduate programmes. This is an aspect that requires further examination by the RICS.
Yes
30
Main Report
8 RICS Routes of Membership & Training

8.1 Level of understanding of the routes of membership
The highest level of understanding on the part of both industry and academic respondents was of
the graduate route (understood well or perfectly well by 91% of academics and by, 71% of industrial
respondents). Understandably, the only respondents not to understand graduate entry (3%) came
from industry rather than academia, having no experience of graduates themselves, presumably.
Appreciation of the other routes (Assoc. RICS and the Senior Professional route ) was fairly evenly
distributed through the ranks of both sets of respondents Not surprisingly, those involved in
delivering education tended to have a greater understanding of this matter.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
62%
33%
22%
9%
4%
0%
1 - Not at
all
11%
2%
22%
Graduate route
29%
16%
13%
7%
36%
33%
5Perfectly
well
Assoc RICS route (associate)
Senior Professional route
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
43%
33%
27% 29% 25%
20%
18%19% 17%
3%
9% 8%
20%21%
8%
1 - Not at
all
Graduate route
5Perfectly
well
Figure 46: Level of understanding of the routes of

membership (Academic)
Figure 47: Level of understanding of the routes of

membership (Industry)
8.2 Level of appropriateness of the routes of membership

Evaluating the appropriateness of the routes to membership, a marked difference emerges between
the two groups of respondents. Whilst the most favoured by both groups is still Graduate route
entry there is also a marked tendency by industry to also support both the Senior Professional Route
and the Associate RICS route.
57%
50%
50%
43%
37%
40%
29% 27%
30%
21%
20%
20%
10%
60%
7%5%5%
8%8%
2%
7%
0%
25%
39%
36%
31% 33%
29% 29% 30%
40%
30%
20%
10%
4%4%
1%
13%
8% 8%
0%
-10%
Graduate route
Figure 48: Level of Appropriateness of routes of

membership (Academic)
Graduate route
Figure 49: Level of Appropriateness of routes of

membership (Industry)
23%
13%
Part 2: RICS Routes of Membership & Training
60%
31
Main Report
The industry survey revealed that still the most popular route for APC is Graduate route with 70%
indicating that their candidates are supported primarily through this route.
17%
Graduate route
Assoc RICS route
(associate)
13%
Senior Professional
route
70%
Figure 50: Candidates supported through routes of membership (Industry)
Expert forum: indicated a mixed response towards Assoc RICS with most indicating it is too early to
judge. The sentiments expressed suggest there is lack of understanding about the new route as well
as some doubt as for the need for such a route. There was majority discontent with regards to the
Senior professional route with many seeing it as the status of Chartered surveyor being handed on a
platter, based purely on seniority and experience.
8.3 Importance of Professional Qualification

Where considering the importance of attaining Chartered status in one or other of the leading
organisations, both industry and those in academia are in agreement that by far the most important
is the RICS (this being ranked as extremely important by 56% and 62% of respondents respectively).
As regards the groups response to other professional bodies these are less consistent. Surprisingly
perhaps, all other bodies, CIOB included, are afforded much less importance by those in industry
whilst they are held in quite high esteem by academia. One might have supposed that the opposite
would have been the case, contractors being quite familiar with non RICS staff.
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
29%
30%
20%
10%
0%
15%
10%
0%
24%
20%
15%
14%
14%
10%
4%
2%
68%
70%
62%
33%
31%
29%
28%
24%
23%
14%
40%
56%
46%
33%
20%
10%
4%
28%
27%
24%
30%
4%
7%
24%
13% 14%
11%
8%7%
4%
11%
7%6%
0%
1 - Not 2 - Little
34 - Very
5important important Important important Extremely
important
RICS
CIOB
CICES
Other
Figure 51: Importance of attaining Chartered status

(Academic)
-10%
1 - Not 2 - Little
34 - Very
5important important Important important Extremely
important
RICS
CIOB
CICES
Other
Figure 52: Importance of attaining Chartered status

(Industry)
70%
32
Main Report
8.4 Importance and Availability of a Structured Training Programme for

APC
Academia were the more supportive of this idea, 95% of academia considering this to be either very
or extremely important as against a total of just over 70% of respondents from industry.
70%
60%
50%
44%
40%
56%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
Percentage - Ac
Percentage - Ind
Figure 53 Importance of Structured Training Programme for

APC candidates
Yes
No
Figure 54: Availability of Structured Training

Programme for APC (Industry)
The level of provision of Structured Training Programmes (STP) in the industry organisations is
markedly low when compared with its perceived importance. 44% of respondents to the industry
survey indicated that the organisation they represent do not have a STP.
Level of Importance
1 - Not important at all
2 Little important
3 Important
4 Very important
5 - Extremely important
Total
Frequency Academic
0
1
1
15
28
45
Percentage Academic
0.00%
2.20%
2.20%
33.30%
62.20%
100.00%
FrequencyIndustry
Percentage
Industry
24
19
47
79
132
301
8.00%
6.30%
15.60%
26.20%
43.90%
100.00%
Whilst it should be remembered that the sample sizes varied quite considerably there were 8%
(24)of respondents from industry who ranked the structured training programme to be not
important at all as against 0% from academia. There were a further 6% (19) from industry who
thought it was of little importance.
importance. These are significantly worrying figures to grasp when APC
guidance clearly champion the need for such programmes.
programmes
Table 4 Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC candidates
33
Main Report
9 RICS Services
9.1 Perception of the quality of services provided by the RICS
The industry response across all 8 of the specified categories of service was neutral, the latter being
rated neither poorly nor particularly well. Academia, on the other hand, rated all services above
midpoint with the exception of Dissemination of related information and General member
Services.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession
Developing standards and new methods of practice
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education

World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying
profession
Dissemination of related information
Influencing related national policy

Continued Professional Development for the Quantity
Surveying profession
General member services (directory, journal, benefits
scheme etc..)
Mean - Ac
Mean - Ind
Figure 55 Perception of the quality of services provided by the RICS (Mean scores)
Evaluating Academics perception, the top 4 services provided by the RICS, with over 60% rating it
highly or very highly rated service are as follows:
Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A
Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession - G
World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession D
Developing standards and new methods of practice B
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating over 50% for highly or very highly
rated service from academics while the corresponding figure drops to 38% with industry
respondents is seen as having considerably divided opinions with respect to the regulation of
graduate education.
The lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services G and Influencing
related national policy F as lowest and second lowest respectively for both surveys. These are two
Part 2: RICS Services
1.
2.
3.
4.
34
Main Report
aspects where the RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the
profession at national level and be able to influence national policy.
9.2 Overall level of satisfaction for the Services provided by the RICS
The Industry response to this question was mostly neutral or less than satisfied. Only 25% were
satisfied or fully satisfied. In the case of academics, most again were neutral or less than satisfied
35% were satisfied or fully satisfied.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
44% 45%
29%
21%
20%
7%
13%
11%
7%
1 - Not
satisfied
Percentage - Ac
4%
5 - Fully
satisfied
Percentage - Ind
Figure 56 Overall level of satisfaction
There were many who were not satisfied with industry (31%) than with academia (20%).
Expert Forum: The general consensus with respect to communications between RICS and industry
was that it is in need of much improvement, although it is beginning to move in the right direction.
9.3 Industry level of Communications with the RICS
In this case, industry responses were mixed. 40% were neutral but there was an equal spread either
side of this, 32% good or very good 28% poor or very poor. In the case of the academics responses,
25% were neutral but a far greater percentage expressed positive feelings, 56% rating this at good or
very good, with 26% poor or very poor. As an equal level of communication is available to all
individual members there is perhaps a difference between the perceptions of academics and
practitioners born of the greater level of involvement of universities as a whole with the RICS born of
Partnership meetings and the like.
35
Main Report
45%
39%
40%
35%
31%
30%
20% 19%
20%
15%
10%
27%
24%
25%
7%
18%
8%
7%
5%
0%
1 - Very poor
Percentage - Ac
5 - Very good
Percentage - Ind
Figure 57 Level of Communication with members
9.4 Appropriateness of Services provided by the RICS to Industry

36% of industry respondents expressed neutral feelings towards this issue. 24% were satisfied or
very satisfied, 38% expressed dissatisfaction to a lesser or greater degree. In the case of academic
respondents 42% were neutral, 37% were satisfied or very satisfied. Only 20% expressed any
dissatisfaction.
45%
42%
40%
36%
35%
28%
30%
24%
25%
22%
20%
15%
10%
9%
12%
13%
11%
3%
5%
0%
2
Percentage - Ac
Figure 58 Appropriateness of RICS Services
5 - Very
appropriate
Percentage - Ind
1 - Not at all
appropriate
36
Main Report
9.5 Value for money for RICS services

Of industry respondents, only15% perceive RICS services to be good or very good value for money,
whilst 56% rate these as less than average. The response of academics 23% felt services to be good
or very good value, but, noticeably, 51% felt them to be poor value or none at all. This last figure
carries a touch of irony since the academic members themselves generally pay a much reduced
membership fee! Perhaps if this group were involved in industry they might see more value in the
wider activities of the Institution.
33%
35%
29%
30%
25%
29%
24%
22% 23%
20%
16%
15%
11%
9%
10%
4%
5%
0%
1 - Not at all
Percentage - Ac
5 - Very good
value for money
Percentage - Ind
Figure 59 Do RICS provide value for money
Detailed analysis of the Industry returns reveal a distinction between the responses of those in
Private Practice (Consulting) are much verse than those employed by Contracting Organisations.
Although it is comparatively lower than consultant quantity surveyors the actual figures for
contractors were significantly low as well.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2
Consultant
3
Contractor
4
Public Sector
Figure 60 Perception of value for money for RICS services: Industry survey by sectors
0%
37
Main Report
10 Alignment Framework
The research primary focus was to evaluate the views of the two main stakeholders of graduate QS
education the universities and industry. The universities were represented by academics responsible
for programme delivery while the industry was represented by consultant (PQS), contractor or
commercial (CQS) and public sector quantity surveyors. Industry was further represented by a
limited number of subcontractor, supplier and other specialists quantity surveyors as well. The
views of these stakeholders on the relationship with the RICS were also investigated.
There is a considerable degree of differing views and lack of responsibility from all stakeholders
mainly arising out of inaccurate interpretations and lack of definition. For example both industry and
academia view structured training programmes for APC candidates as important but very few
provide these. This is lack of responsibility. On the other hand, there is no defined level of
competency achievement for graduates. This leads to academia interpreting it in one way and the
industry interpreting it in another way resulting in discontent for both parties. This is lack of
definition.
Level of Achievement
Level 1
Knowledge
Level 2
Practice
Level 3
Expertise
Competency
Mandatory
Core
Optional
Graduate QS???
Chartered QS
The Purple line (Figure 61) indicates the levels of achievement of competencies required for
attainment of Chartered status as defined by RICS (2009a). This is well defined. The Green, Red
and Blue broken lines indicate three possible levels of achievement of competencies by
graduates as interpreted by different universities and industry professionals for Mandatory,
Core and Optional competencies. The question here is which is right? If these three lines
represent 3 different universities, these will produce three types of graduates with 3 levels of
competency achievement. These interpretations are all for RICS accredited quantity surveying
honours degree programmes across UK. This lack of a common benchmark for the
interpretation of achievement of competencies by graduates therefore, clearly contributes to
Part 2: Alignment Framework
Figure 61 Need for a Definition of graduate competency level
38
Main Report
the dissatisfaction and false expectations on from the part of the industry and demoralisation of
the graduate.
In order to address this situation and thereby align views of industry, academia and the RICS the
following alignment framework with 7 key elements is proposed.
10.1 Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB)

A clearly defined graduate competency level achievement threshold should be created. This should
clearly identify the expected level of achievement of competencies for Mandatory, Core and
Optional competencies. This should clearly align with APC threshold benchmarks already established
and should be defined with graduate career progression in mind.
10.2 Competency mapping framework

A competency mapping framework that describes the process of the mapping of competencies to QS
programme curricular should be developed. This should form the basis of identifying whether a
programme seeking accreditation will have the necessary mapping levels to produce a graduate that
will achieve the Graduate Competency Threshold Benchmark (GCTB). It should contain a numeric or
qualitative map scoring/assessment system with detailed guidelines for usage by universities to self
evaluate their programmes on the occasion of programme validation and accreditation.
10.3 Detailed competency specification

Each QS competency should be further analysed to develop detailed specifications indicating
coverage of knowledge at sufficient depth so that such content could be easily mapped against
module specifications of accredited programmes. These should expand Level 1 knowledge
components and define Level 2 practice and experience.
10.4 Re-evaluation of status of competencies

A detailed study should be undertaken to re-evaluate RICS QS competencies. The list of
competencies should well reflect current professional service profile of the quantity surveyor whilst
also adequately considering their future role. The rate of development of construction e-business
activities (currently manifested as e-procurement, visualisation, building information modelling,
could computing etc.) will have a profound impact on the role of the quantity surveyor. These
should be considered in re-evaluating QS competencies.
10.5 University-Industry collaboration
10.6 RICS-University-Industry partnership

The current RICS-University partnership should take more of a tri partite relationship with regular
industry representatives forming part of the partnership. The current role of the industry partners
should be increased and formalised through mandatory representations. All QS programmes
accredited by the RICS should conform to the Competency Mapping Framework (CMF) where
compliance will be checked or confirmed at partnership meetings.
Part 2: Alignment Framework
Greater levels of university and industry collaboration in developing and delivering QS programmes
should be made an essential part. Industry should take a more proactive role in collaborating with
actively providing feedback to the universities.
39
Main Report
The industry should be made aware of the processes by which programmes are accredited and the
role of RICS in this. This should alleviate current levels of industry dissatisfaction on such processes.
10.7 Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities

A radical review of how a Chartered surveyor is developed from their early stages to Chartered
status must be undertaken. This should look at all stakeholders in the process (candidates or
students, universities and other academic institutions, all types of employers and the RICS). The role
of each stakeholder needs to be identified and defined to avoid wrong interpretations and
subjugating responsibility.
The dilemma of attracting high calibre people to the academia and retaining them with good
knowledge of industry practice is one which the universities and industry will have to resolve for the
sake of development and enhancement of the profession. Could we learn from established
professions such as law, medicine and accountancy?
11 Conclusions
The research aimed at investigating the changing developmental needs of Quantity Surveyors
within a post recession industrial environment that satisfies the aspirations of industrial,
professional and academic stakeholders. It used several research instruments to achieve this:
1. Review of RIC QS competencies
2. Competency mapping cases studies involving 4 RICS accredited QS honours degree
programmes
3. Expert views from a forums of experts (industry, academic and RICS)
4. Survey of academia to ascertain views of academics on QS education and professional
development
5. Survey of the industry to ascertain views of industry (consultants, contractors, public sector
and other specialist chartered quantity surveyors) on QS education and professional
development
The main research objectives sought to ascertain several key aspects related to QS education and
development. These are summarised in the following sections.
The RICS has formulated clear and detailed documentation (RICS, 2009) identifying, classifying and
explaining QS competencies. These are primarily aimed at providing guidance to APC candidates
seeking full professional membership of the institution. There are 24 QS competencies classified as
Mandatory (10), Core (7) and Optional (7). These competencies can be achieved at any of three
levels as Level 1, 2 or 3. The RICS defines that an APC candidate needs to achieve all Mandatory
competencies at Level 2 or above, all Core competencies at Level 3 (except one not relevant to
specialisation depending on employment in consulting or contracting practice which is at Level 2)
and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above.
Part 2: Conclusions
11.1 Summary of the status of RICS QS Competencies
40
Main Report
These competencies form the basis for describing the knowledge-base of the quantity surveyor and
at APC to ascertain the level of attainment. Therefore, they should form the basis on which QS
degree programme curricular is modelled. At each programme accreditation the RICS seeks to
establish whether the programme in question deals with these competencies. There is no
systematic approach or guidance as to what level of competency need be achieved by a graduate
completing a RICS accredited programme. At present it is an estimation of whether core
competencies are addressed in module specifications.
This process has lead to RICS accredited honours degree programmes across the country producing
graduates at considerably varying degrees of competence. It is then left to the employers and
graduates themselves to up skill to the required benchmark specified for the APC. What was clearly
found in this research is that this process produces a graduate less confident to face the industry and
an employer less satisfied than they might otherwise be.
The absence of a threshold benchmark that clearly defines graduate level of competence has left the
industry to have unrealistic expectations; academia to aspire for unattainable levels of competence
producing a less than satisfied graduate that defies direction.
The research aimed at mapping competencies to RICS accredited programme curricular using a
purpose devised scoring system. This revealed that there is huge variation in interpretation of
competencies and levels of achievement. The documentation available is inadequate for this
purpose probably because it is intended for APC candidate guidance. The competency mapping case
studies revealed that there is high level of variation in the mapping of competencies between
programmes especially at Level 1. Although based on the views of programme directors the mapping
indicated that most core competencies are well mapped but there are deficiencies in mandatory and
optional competencies.
11.2 Summary of Views of Academia

The views of academia were primarily obtained through the academic survey and to some extent
from the expert forum. Views of 45 respondents representing 26 RICS accredited programmes
(included 20 programme directors) were analysed. Almost all respondents had over 10 years
experience in quantity surveying.
11.2.1 QS Competencies
In overall terms there were a considerable amount of responses indicating much higher levels of
expectation for graduate competencies, sometimes equivalent to or higher than the requirement for
APC. This leads to an assertion that either some academics did not clearly understand the
interpretation of competency levels or they had unrealistically high expectations.
The academics are very satisfied with the curricular they use with nearly 90% expressing a good level
of satisfaction. They also have a very high level of confidence in their QS knowledge, QS practice and
programme delivery.
Part 2: Conclusions
The importance rankings of competencies revealed that academics have attached very high rankings
to some mandatory competencies. All core competencies were ranked equally important and at the
highest level.
41
Main Report
11.2.2 QS Education & Development
The number of direct student contact hours was between 12 to 14 hours per week. This is a very
low figure, equating to less than two full days work for a full time student enrolled in a 3 to 4 year QS
honours degree programme. However, this is similar to other programmes related to construction
and surveying professions.
There is consensus on the overall concept of the RICS-University partnership but a considerable
amount of scepticism about the partnership process which warrants further investigation.
The academics expressed a high level of willingness to collaborate on education and research with
the industry which they feel is not matched by equal enthusiasm from the industry itself.
Academia had a good understanding of industry developments such as NRM initiative and very
similar views to the industry on the role of quantity surveyor.
Part time mode of study was seen as the best method of producing a QS graduate, closely followed
by full time study with one year placement, both of which are becoming scarce due to industry
downturn. Academics perceive the placement as a vital component of producing a graduate.
accredited programmes both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. There was not much
dispute on the entry levels for PG programmes but there is significant discontent on the entry
criteria for undergraduate programmes.
Academics believe the role of academia is to Educate and produce a graduate that is industry
relevant rather than Training a graduate for direct employment. This sums up the ethos of graduate
education in which current university curricular is defined.
11.2.3 The role of RICS
The Graduate route of membership was regarded as the best route to produce a quantity surveyor.
A structured training programme was seen as almost an essential criterion in developing an APC
candidate.
The RICS was seen as successful in:
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education received a rating of over 50% for highly or very highly
rated service. This is seen as a reasonably positive outcome with respect to graduate education. The
lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services and Influencing related
national policy, these being lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where
RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the profession at a
national level and be able to influence national policy.
Only one third of academics were expressed satisfaction on RICS services with majority indicating a
neutral stance. But majority of academics perceive poor value for money in RICS services.
Part 2: Conclusions
1. Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession

2. World-wide representatiion of the Quantity Surveying profession
3. Developing standards and new methods of practice
42
Main Report
11.3 Summary of Views of Industry

Views of industry were primarily obtained from the industry survey and to some extent from the
expert forum. A total of 301 complete responses were received from all sectors of the industry.
There were 52% responses from the private sector consultants followed by 17% in contracting, 15%
in the public sector and the balance from subcontractors, suppliers and other specialist quantity
surveyors. These represented all levels of firms from large to micro level. The sample size analysed
is adequate to make assertions about the whole population with a 99% confidence limit (Bartlett
et.al. 2001). More than 90% respondents were chartered surveyors with over 10 years of
experience.
11.3.1 QS Competencies
Three areas related to QS competencies were analysed:
1. The expected level of competency attained by graduates
2. Their assessment of level of attainment of competencies by current graduates
3. The relative level of importance of each of the competencies
There was a generally high level of expectation of competency achievement by graduates. However,
majority views were reasonable in most cases with expectations of Level 1 achievement for most
mandatory competencies and Level 2 for all core competencies and Level 1 for most optional
competencies. That said, there were some worrying trends with over 35% expecting Level 2 for
Mandatory competencies, Level 3 for some Core competencies and Level 2 for some Optional
competencies. These numbers are creating an increasing level of doubt as to the respondents level
of understanding of the nature of competencies themselves. Alternatively, this may be pure
unrealistic expectation. Level 3 for any competency cannot usually be achieved by a graduate as it
involves advising clients and projecting capability of expertise.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Part 2: Conclusions
Considerably low levels of ranking were awarded to the current state of new graduates
achievement of competencies. On a scale of 1 to 5 the overwhelming majority indicated the
midpoint for most competencies and a score of 2 for others. The scoring was higher for Mandatory
competencies such as M010 Team working, M007 Data management and M009 Sustainability. All
Core competencies were ranked much lower, the least satisfaction being shown with Core
competency T074 Quantification and costing of construction works, followed by T067 Project
financial control and reporting, the two most important competencies ranked highest in importance
in another analysis.
All 7 Core competencies were ranked high as being most important, with top 4 competencies form
all 24 competencies being (in order of mean scores):
43
Main Report
4. M003 Client care
These would be mostly as expected with T067 Project financial control and reporting seen to be the
most important of all competencies. It is important to note the rise of competency relative rankings
of the above two optional competencies which signifies the increasing importance attached to these
QS functions.
11.3.2 QS Education & Development
The industry seems to have a very little understanding of the curricular and content taught at
universities. Over half (53%) indicate that they are either not at all or only partially aware of the
content of the curricula taught in universities. As a consequence 60% industry respondents were
dissatisfied or only partially satisfied with the curriculum. Most respondents when further probed on
areas that they feel need more coverage identified technology, measurement and estimating as the
areas need attention.
Although there was a poor level of satisfaction with respect to academic curricular there was
resounding vote of confidence in the academics capability and programme delivery, with well over
80% satisfaction rates. However, the figure dropped to 56% when it related to industry practice.
Curricular used for programme delivery are continuously updated and it may not be surprising that
most senior industry practitioners are not aware of the curricular currently being used in
universities. But considering the professional nature of the programmes this is a worrying statistic
where there should be more intricate industry-academia collaboration in programme development
and delivery. The levels of industry-academia collaboration seem very low with poor levels of
commitment expressed (54% willing to collaborate drops to 29% actually committing time on it).
Industry respondents were of the view that part time undergraduate studies produce the best
quality of QS graduate which was very closely followed up by full time study with 1 year industry
placement. It is important to note that the emphasis and value attached to the role of industry
placement as highly valued by industry respondents. However, their commitment to placement
dropped by nearly 30% when the effects of recession were considered. A structured placement
training model seems a valuable proposition for the industry to consider again mapping it to the QS
competencies.
Industry respondents view the role of academia as the Training of a graduate for direct employment
over Educating to produce a graduate that is industry relevant. This indicates that industry ethos is
Training as opposed to Educating graduates for professional employment. If this is what industry
wants they should clearly act proactively to collaborate with academia to produce a graduate that is
more industry-friendly.
Part 2: Conclusions
Programmes originally approved on the basis of industry placement as a core component of QS

programmes currently seem to function without contributing to producing graduates in one of the
least preferred modes of study.
44
Main Report
11.3.3 The role of RICS
In a similar way to the academics, the industry respondents also preferred the graduate route over
all other routes but with a very much lesser margin. Both the Senior professional route and Assoc
RICS were also seen as satisfactory routes. However, some members of the expert forum were
highly critical of the senior professional route in particular.
Although over 80% considered a structured training programme an important mechanism for APC
candidates only 56% of organisations reported as having a structured training programme with the
lowest figures reported from the Public Sector (43%). This is a significant drawback in provision of
training required for Quantity Surveyors.
The RICS was seen as successful in:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession

Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession
Developing standards and new methods of practice
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating of only 38% for highly or
very highly rated service is seen as a negative reflection of views on RICS involvement in
graduate education.
The lowest levels of satisfaction were received for General Member services and Influencing related
national policy as lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where RICS needs
to make an effort to improve. The RICS is perceived as being unable to influence national policy
both by industry and academics alike.
There is a strikingly poor level of overall satisfaction with the RICS with only 33% expressing
satisfaction and28% expressing dissatisfaction. The figures worsen when the state of value for
money of RICS services is considered with 56% expressing discontent and 15% seeing positive value
for money.
11.4 Summary of Framework for alignment of views
There were diametrically opposing views on the ethos of graduate education, with industry seeing it
more as training graduates for direct employment while academia saw it as educating graduates
with a core knowledge base for professional employment. This issue is further aggravated by the
industry having less trust in the curricular used and the academics knowledge of current practice.
The industry is faced with the dichotomy of greater collaboration but lack of commitment to
proactively influence the process of graduate education.
The RICS on one hand is performing an excellent task in regulating the profession, developing
standards and representing the profession worldwide. However, the satisfaction levels for general
member services and more importantly the ability to represent and influence national policy seem
Part 2: Conclusions
Diverse views were found on key elements of research relating to QS competencies, QS education
and development and the Role of the RICS. The primary reason for dissatisfaction with any process
comes from the difference between expectations and outcome. There were very high expectations
of graduate competencies but the outcome does not seem to satisfy the level expected. There were
several endemic problems related to QS competencies both in academia and industry. These for the
most part originated from the absence of defined or prescribed levels of graduate competency.
45
Main Report
to be very poor. The latter is a crucial aspect of the role of any professional body. The industry
seems to be very much less satisfied with the overall level of services provided by the RICS than are
the academics. But both see very poor level of value for money in RICS services. The role performed
by the RICS is regulating QS education is much appreciated by the academia but very much less
known to the industry resulting in negative views.
The alignment of views framework proposed in this report takes account of the underlying situation
presented above. Therefore a framework with 7 key elements is proposed (Section 10).
1. Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB)
2. Competency mapping framework (CMF)
3. Detailed competency specification
4. Re-evaluation of status of competencies
5. University-Industry collaboration
6. RICS-University-Industry partnership
7. Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities
The outcome of successful implementation of the alignment framework proposed requires the need
for a concerted effort by all these three parties for the development of Quantity Surveyors who are
industrially relevant, professionally qualified and with a sound academic background.
11.5 Limitations
The analysis of competencies was limited to the documents currently available for download from
the RICS web portal. The mapping of competencies was limited to opinions of the programme
directors moderated through cursory examination of module specifications. Therefore it is possible
that there could be a reasonable degree of variation in the outcome of mappings. But the authors
are of the opinion that this would not be to an extent that would the overall conclusions derived for
the project.
The survey respondents were requested to refer to the RICS pathway guide before completing the
questionnaire, especially as it deals with competencies that may be different to what respondents
were familiar with. They were provided with mechanisms to download the documents if needed.
But it is not possible to guarantee that this happened.
The implementation of the key elements of the alignment framework will require further research in
the development of the Graduate Competency Threshold Benchmark and the Competency Mapping
Framework. These will in turn require the further development of competency specifications as an
aid to carrying out competency mapping of RICS accredited programmes or new programmes to
accredit. Further research will also be required to re-model the RICS partnership process as
envisaged in the framework.
Part 2: Conclusions
11.6 Further research and directions
46
Main Report
RICS competencies need to be re-evaluated to find currency and relevance considering current and
future development of the profession. This will require a detailed research activity.
Part 2: Conclusions
The final element of the alignment framework will also involve a considerable degree of research to
fully establish the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders of the profession (industry,
academia and the RICS) and to create a holistic view of the profession and how it develops the
professional.
47

Quantity Surveyors: Expert Forum
Part 3
Analysis of Expert opinion

Mr John Pearson
Newcastle upon Tyne
UK

January 2011
List of Contents
1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................3
QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES...................................................................................................3

2.1
FUTURE ROLE OF THE QUANTITY SURVEYOR...........................................................................................6

3.1
3.2
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS ............................................... 8
VIEWS ON QS PROGRAMME CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 8
THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ...................................................... 8
INDUSTRY ACADEMIA COLLABORATION IN QS PROGRAMME DELIVERY ............................................................... 9
INDUSTRY ACADEMIA LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................... 9
MODES OF STUDY & INDUSTRY PLACEMENT...........................................................................................9

5.1
5.2
PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT .......................................................................... 7

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE QS COMPETENCIES........................................................................................... 7
VIEWS ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION .......................................................................................7

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY, CORE AND OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .................................................. 3
PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY ...................................................................................................... 9

INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ............................................................................. 9
RICS MEMBERSHIP ROUTES AND TRAINING ............................................................................................9

6.1
ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................................................................. 9
6.1.1 Level of awareness............................................................................................................................ 9
6.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership ................................................................................. 9
6.2
AVAILABILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC .......................................... 10
VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF RICS.................................................................................................................10

LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS ................................................................................................ 10
LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT............................................................ 11
7.1
7.2
View of the Expert Forum
1 Introduction
A series of interviews were carried out firstly to identify key issues and subsequently these were
used to verify the findings of the academic and industry surveys. An expert forum consisting of ten
specialists were identified. The interviews comprised of three academics, three Consulting or Project
QS (PQS), three Contracting or Commercial QS (CQS) and one RICS representative. The content
analysis of the interviews conducted is presented in this section.
2 Quantity Surveying Competencies

The RICS QS competencies provide the basis on which a quantity surveyor will be judged capable to
act as an independent professionally qualified chartered surveyor. The respondents were first asked
to consider the competencies in general. The RICS representative noted that there are more
prescribed core competencies for QS than for any other pathway. This was however to be combined
with the understanding that not every competence need be met by the universities and that the
RICS welcomed diversity to reflect the individual strengths of each. Industry CQS respondents noted
that the competencies were relevant and do adequately describe what we want.
2.1 Expected Achievement of Mandatory, Core and Optional Competencies

Most respondents agree that a Level 1 competence relates to attaining knowledge which could be
expected from graduate QS. Some academics foresee students progressing beyond Level 1 to attain
a portion of Level 2 competencies through practical experience gained from project based work
while part time students and placement students will also be able to progress beyond Level 1.
However, one PQS stated that they would expect graduates to have attained Level 2 in both
Mandatory and Core competencies. This indicates that there is differing interpretation of
competencies and the graduates likely level of attainment.
Three respondents (one academic, one PQS and one RICS) commenting on the mandatory skills
agreed that these were general competencies covering transferable or softer skills. One academic
noted that they did not have a specific module to cover these skills but that the student picks these
up as they progress through the course. Three respondents (two academics and one PQS) stated
that core competencies largely define the primary role of the QS with respect to optional
competencies, one academic noted that these should allow for flexibility or to pick up on
diversification and one PQS noted that candidates should understand what the competencies cover
but they should not bend their experience to fit the competency, a practice he purported as widespread.
One PQS expressed the view that contracts are now more important as this forces cost control, it is
a rapidly developing area and students are not up to speed. This indicates a tension between trying
to cover all the competencies to a particular level and placing certain emphases on areas that are
considered more important. This tension is seen later on in other parts of the discussion and shows
that with different expectations from various sections of the industry that universities cannot be all
things to all people. The RICS representative echoes this, stating that when a course is considered
RICS will be looking at how it maps onto the technical competencies they will be looking more at the
core competencies.

A summary of expected level of competency is presented in Table 1. These were extracted from 7
expert forum members.
Table 1 Summary of expected level of graduate competency
Competency Code
Mandatory
Name
M001 Accounting
Level
Level
Level
Comments
pure financial statement
principles and
knowledge as used in accounting
procedures
is dealt with at a level 1 and 2, but

not certainly at level3
Mandatory
M002 Business
planning
several management modules

applicable and this is tending
towards level 3
Mandatory
M003 Client care
this area is certainly covered up to

level 2 and it tending to reach
level 3 due to hypothetical
projects and multi disciplinary
projects
Mandatory
M004 Communication
and negotiation
management modules,
multidisciplinary modules tending
to level 3
Mandatory
M005 Conduct rules,
A "nice to have": This is covered
ethics and
up to level2 within the project
professional
work for professional practice and
practice
it is tending to level3 in the MDP
M006 Conflict
procurement and admin,
avoidance,
professional practice at level 2
management
and there is no evidence of level 3
and dispute
completion for this item
resolution
procedures
Mandatory
M007 Data
management
Data and information

management, discipline projects
within the final year dissertation,
there is evidence of tending to
Part 3: Quantity Surveying Competencies
Mandatory

Competency Code
Name
Level
Level
Level
Comments
level 3.
Mandatory
M008 Health and
safety
not as a core module but the

competencies are delivered as
parts of modules - law and
regulatory frameworks,
construction technology etc.,
Mandatory
M009 Sustainability
environmental services in level1

and other technology modules
tending to levell 2 competency.
This area needs development
upto level 3 and important to
shape up the future role of the QS
Mandatory
M010 Teamworking
aspects of many modules and

specifically MDPs. Therefore
tending to level 3
Core
T010
Commercial
construction economics,
management of
procurement and admin,
construction
estimating and tendering - some

of the assessments are tending to
level 3
Core
T013
Construction
level 1 mainly and level 2
upto level 2 only
For PQS's only; upto level 2 only
upto level 2 only
technology and
services
Core
T017
Contract
practice
Core
T022
Design
economics and
cost planning
Core
T062
Procurement
tendering
Part 3: Quantity Surveying Competencies
environmental

Competency Code
Core
T067
Name
Project financial
Level
Level
Level
Comments
upto level 2 only
control and
reporting
Core
Optional
T074
T008
Quantification
estimating and tendering in
and costing of
level1, measurement under level2
construction
and civil engineering surveing at
works
level3
Capital
A "nice to have"; not sure about
Allowances
this. This is usually a taxation

subject; And other allowances i.e.
land remediation relief.
Optional
T016
Contract
administration
Optional
Optional
T020
T025
Corporate
this is tending towards level3; This

should be a core competency
this area may be touched upon
recovery and
under financial management.
insolvency
Therefore tending towards level2
Due diligence
A "nice to have"; professional

practice
Optional
T045
Insurance
As I mentioned, this is an area

that needs development for the
future of the QS
T063
Programming
and planning
Optional
T077
Risk
For Contractors' QS's only; all 3

levels
management
There is wider coverage of the risk

and value management in level 3
of the course and in terms of
competencies it will be at level2.
3 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor

The interviewees were requested to provide views on the present and future role of the QS. With
respect to the present role of the QS they generally agreed that the role centred on cost advice,
estimating, and measurement. One academic noted that it differed from a contractors surveyor to
Part 3: Future role of the Quantity Surveyor
Optional

consultants surveyors though others did not stress the difference. There was some disagreement as
to the development of the role of the QS. One PQS noted the role had not changed much whereas
one CQS noted it had changed a lot.

There was a strong feeling that the role would become more complex, taking more concepts such as
sustainability and whole life costing into account. 1 PQS stated We are looking at the whole life
cycle (WLC) of the facility and its use in a wider context. The importance of WLC was noted by 2
respondents, 1 CQS and 1 PQS. Two respondents (PQS and CQS) suggested that the name QS should
change to reflect the function more accurately on the lines of Cost Manager or Cost Engineer. The
name change is indicative of observations by other respondents that the difference between PQS
and CQS is narrowing and the two roles are merging. The respondents in general indicated the need
to up skill the QS knowledge base in use of ICT and its impact on the profession. They also agreed
that collaboration and team working should be a more important skill to develop. Sustainability and
project management skills were seen as areas for further development while civil engineering
construction, infrastructure development and mechanical and electrical (energy related) projects
were seen as growth sectors for the future.
One PQS was of the view that there is potential for procurement to revert back to more traditional
methods due to economic pressures. This could be seen as an important possibility that further
enhances the cost control role of the QS.
3.2 Relative Importance of the QS Competencies
When queried about possible additional competencies, three respondents (1PQS, 1RICS and 1CQS)
identified sustainability, business management and planning, accounting, communication (language,
report writing and team working), new building technologies, pre-fabrication, civil and infrastructure
engineering, life cycle costing as possible additional competencies. Some of these are already
covered in some competencies. Since competencies do not give lengthy descriptions of content,
these are open for interpretation.
3 respondents (2 academic, 1 CQS) were happy with the coverage and felt that there should be no
new additions to the competencies/skills. One PQS stated that contract administration is listed as
optional but felt that it should be core. No respondents felt that there was any obsolete content
taught.
4 Views on Quantity Surveying Education

Six respondents shared their views on the present nature of QS education (1 RICS, 2 academics, 2
PQS, 3 CQS). As class sizes get bigger to make courses more economically viable the ability of tutors
to spend more contact time and give more feedback will be compromised by the numbers of
students they have to work with.
Part 3: Views on Quantity Surveying Education
4 respondents (3CQS, 1PQS) noted that there were areas that were not given enough attention or
that the students had poor knowledge of; valuation (1), measurement (1), building contracts (1),
construction technology (2), M and E services (1), environmental services (1), team working (1), and
data management (1).

One PQS expressed the view that there was too much mass teaching, with a mismatch where the
learning outcome does not map to the industry requirement and also felt that some lecturers need
to update their knowledge so that the graduates should be the ones with the knowledge on the
latest techniques. The respondent did however note that it was not possible to make generalisations
and there were differences between universities and individual lecturers. One PQS also felt that RICS
had less than adequate involvement in regulating curricular while another CQS felt that although
there are so many RICS accredited programmes they were not comparable in most respects.
4.1 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QSs
The academic curricular content was commented on by 5 respondents (1 academic, 1PQS, 3 CQS).
The academic noted that they were able to cover a lot of the core competencies in a 4 year degree
and that they could map modules that they teach to the core competencies. 2 respondents (1PQS,
1CQS) stated that the coverage was pretty good in general terms. However, the industry
respondents felt that it was difficult to map modules taught at universities to RICS competencies.
One PQS felt that some courses do not deliver what employers want and one academic stated
students are going out without the necessary skills to undertake their basic job and that is where
employees feel that the universities are letting the system down. This being said the general view
was that it is not easy to generalise and some courses are better than others and also it is down to
other factors such as the student, mode of study, and employer.
4.2 Views on QS programme curriculum development

On the aspects of curricular development 5 interviewees responded. Two identified measurement as
an area that needs greater attention (1 CQS, 1 PQS). Other areas identified include taxation (CQS),
understanding building technology and construction (CQS), bill of quantities (PQS), cost planning,
preconstruction estimating (CQS) while there was an overemphasis on management of projects
(1PQS, 1CQS).The aspect that caused most concern for one PQS was that graduates had a poor
understanding about construction technology and no real understanding of on-site conditions.
Reflecting on these views it is clear that there is greater attention needed on some core areas of
quantity surveying. But if so, the academics will be faced with the dilemma of identifying which
areas to forego in lieu of areas of expansion.
All 10 respondents considered what a university should provide with regards to QS education. They
were requested to respond to:
a. Provide an overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying, or
b. Concentrate on training students for direct QS employment.
6 respondents agreed with statement a (2 PQS, 1 CQS, 1 RICS, 2 academics). 2 respondents agreed
with statement b (1 PQS, 1CQS). 1 CQS felt that it should be a bit of both, a balance of academia with
vocational on a 50/50 basis. One academic was undecided. One CQS stated that over the last 30
years they have seen the quality of technical Quantity Surveying become diluted and warned that if
the trend continues we would lose technical standards forever.

In overall terms most wished to see a sound academic background for the graduate quantity
surveyors but did not want to see any compromise on the level of knowledge. They also seem to
expect improved technical competence in graduates going to the industry.

Two respondents (1PQS, 1CQS) commented that there is a reasonable level of employer
engagement with the universities. However, the level and extent of engagement is one aspect that
requires further exploration.
4.5 Industry Academia Level of Communication

The communication between universities and industry were generally seen to be reasonable
although it was added that universities try the hardest and industry needs to be better at
communication. The state of the economy was seen as a factor that influences level of
communication (1 academic). Greater involvement of the industry as a stakeholder in the
development of programmes, face to face industry consultation and industry taking programme
development and contributions as part of their corporate social responsibility were seen as steps
that can be used to improve the situation.
5 Modes of Study & Industry Placement

The majority of respondents (9) stated that Part time students were far better and rounded than full
time students, though this was usually in respect of their dedication to work and approach to the job.
5.2 Industry Placement in Quantity Surveying Education

All 10 interviewees had contributions to make concerning their views on placement. This was
unanimously seen as a positive, if not crucial thing for a student to have. The experience the student
gains from having practical experience cannot be replicated in any other way. The current economic
situation is having a negative impact on the availability of placements.
6.1 Routes of membership

The RICS recently revised their membership pathways.
6.1.1 Level of awareness
Accordingly, two interviewees (1PQS, 1CQS) stated that they are not familiar with the new routes of
membership other than the graduate route.
6.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership
A total of seven (1 RICS, 2 academic, 2 PQS, 2 CQS) expressed that they are happy with the graduate
route of membership. One CQS did note that it was sometimes hard to push graduates into
becoming chartered, suggesting that this was due to a combination of fees and not seeing any
advantage in becoming chartered. Another problem that exists is that more specialised contractors
did not give the graduate a wide enough experience in some competencies (1 academic, 1 RICS).
Part 3: Modes of Study & Industry Placement
6 RICS Membership Routes and Training

The new associate pathway was stressed as not being a shortcut to becoming chartered surveyor by
the RICS representative. One academic said that it was a nice idea but did not see its relevance and
felt that it was not clear enough where the cut off point was between the two levels while another
expressed some reservations. One PQS felt that it may lead to people aiming for a minimum
standard and that ASSOC RICS is not good enough to be recognised. 1 CQS noted that it was helpful
to people who dont have degrees but to then progress to MRICS or FRICS was a very convoluted
route. Another CQS said their company had looked at this route but gone back to the graduate
route. These sentiments suggest there is lack of understanding about the new route as well as some
doubt as for the need for this new route.
There was a mixed response to the new senior professional route. 3 respondents stated that they
were not happy with this route. 1 academic viewed it as a rubber stamping exercise. One CQS said
my main problem with that route is that it doesnt test technical competence. One PQS did not
think that people should just be given MRICS for their long experience and although it provides an
opportunity to get practitioners into mainstream RICS, they should still fit the APC model and
competencies. One academic warned that the RICS have to be careful not to be seen as an
institution desperate to get new members in. On the positive side, one PQS noted that it was good
and had worked well for them, adding that the CIOB are doing the same thing.
6.2 Availability and Importance of a Structured Training Programme for

APC
The RICS representative noted that unless the company has signed up to the structured training
programme they should not take on a graduate for APC. Three respondents (2 CQS, 1 PQS) stated
that they did have a structured training programme. One PQS noted that there were very low
completion rates for the APC and felt that this was due to very poor levels of basic knowledge and
that there were big gaps between what is learnt at university and what is needed to get chartered.
The possible reasons for this were seen as employers not seeing it as important and that they lack a
structured training programme. It was also noted that it is difficult to provide all the training in three
years. Smaller companies often struggle as they do not have the volume or frequency of work types
to enable them to have a smooth training process. One PQS was highly critical of the APC process
itself, stating that it is a daunting process that makes candidates unduly nervous. The RICS process
compares with the CIOB less favourably as the CIOB process is friendlier and they help you to get
through it.
7.1
Level of Communications with the RICS
The level of communication and the respondents perception was analysed with respect to RICS
Partnerships for programme accreditation, RICS and Universities, RICS and Industry communication,
Industry and universities communication.
With specific reference to the communication between RICS and universities 4 respondents (2
academic, 1 CQS, 1 PQS) made contributions. The 2 academics noted that they had a good rapport
with the RICS. The CQS did not know about this while the PQS thought that some had good
communication with RICS and others did not.
Part 3: Views on the Role of RICS
7 Views on the Role of RICS
10

The general consensus with respect to communications between RICS and industry was that it is in
need of much improvement, although it is beginning to move in the right direction. There is a need
for increase in regional and local level of involvement (2 academic), fees scales need to be more
realistic (1PQS), and RICS needs to be more in touch with leading edge work (1PQS). Three
respondents (1 PQS, 2 CQS) did not really have any contact with RICS through their role in the
company with one commenting that RICS has lost its focus on members and become a business
instead of an institution (CQS).
7.2 Level of Success of the RICS - University partnership agreement
The RICS partnership process was seen as facilitating greater discussion but that most
communications still came down to personal relationships. One academic saw the accreditation
partnership as a way to understand how the course is being assessed so that students come out
with the ability to be Quantity Surveyors. These indicate the primary role of the RICS partnership
agreement as regulating RICS accredited programmes. However, the level and detail of regulation
was criticised. One PQS felt that there was a conflict of interest in the RICS education board if there
were academics on the board and this led to them influencing the decisions. But, this is questionable
as the role of education board is not necessarily to project the view of industry alone. A balanced
representation perhaps might be useful. Lack of consultation with the professional group was also
noted adding that RICS communication with industry was not good. One CQS did not know about the
partnership arrangements. Another felt that there was a real inertia around working out solutions to
problems that were identified. There was recognition of the difficulty involved in getting all three
parties around the table and keeping the lines of communication open.
11

Quantity Surveyors: Views of
Academia
Part 4
Analysis of Perception of the Academia

Mr John Pearson
Newcastle upon Tyne
UK
January 2011
Part 4 Contents
1. List of Contents
2. List of Figures
3. List of Tables
Part 4: Part 4 Contents
4. Report
ii
List of Contents
1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
RESPONDENT PROFILE.............................................................................................................................1
2.1
2.2
RESPONDENT WORK PROFILE ....................................................................................................................... 2

QUANTITY SURVEYING PROGRAMME PROFILES ................................................................................................ 2
EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES ..............................................4

3.1
3.2
3.3
EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ................................................................................ 5

EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES ........................................................................................... 6
EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .................................................................................... 7
4
LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM)
INITIATIVES......................................................................................................................................................9
5
FUTURE ROLE OF THE QUANTITY SURVEYOR.........................................................................................11

5.1
5.2
VIEWS ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION .....................................................................................14

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
DIFFERENCE IN TEACHING TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE TO BECOME A CONSULTANT OR A CONTRACTORS QS ................ 14

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS ............................................. 16
THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE ON PROGRAMME DELIVERY .................................................................................... 17
MODES OF STUDY & INDUSTRY PLACEMENT.........................................................................................20

7.1
7.2
7.3
PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT ........................................................................ 11

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE QS COMPETENCIES......................................................................................... 12

INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ........................................................................... 22
ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RICS ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ........................................................................... 23
RICS MEMBERSHIP ROUTES AND TRAINING ..........................................................................................25

8.1
ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................................................................... 25
8.1.1 Level of awareness.......................................................................................................................... 25
8.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership ............................................................................... 26
8.2
8.3
IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC ................................................................... 28
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
10

ACADEMICS LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS................................................................................ 31
APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO ACADEMIA .............................................................. 31
THE VALUE OF RICS SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 32
LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS - UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT............................................................ 33
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................34
10.1
KEY FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY OF QS ACADEMICS ........................................................................................... 34
iii
RICS accredited QS programme characteristics.......................................................................... 34

Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies................................................ 34
RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives.................................................................... 36
Future role of the Quantity Surveyor .......................................................................................... 36
Views on Quantity Surveying Education..................................................................................... 37
Modes of Study & Industry Placement ....................................................................................... 38
RICS Membership Routes and Training ...................................................................................... 38
Views on the Role of RICS ........................................................................................................... 39
10.1.1
10.1.2
10.1.3
10.1.4
10.1.5
10.1.6
10.1.7
10.1.8
iv
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 RESPONDENT AGE PROFILE .............................................................................................................................. 1

FIGURE 2 ACADEMIC AND/OR INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE IN QUANTITY SURVEYING .................................................................... 1
FIGURE 3 ACADEMIC RESPONDENT WORK........................................................................................................................ 2
FIGURE 4 OVERVIEW: EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY .................................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 5 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: NEW GRADUATE QS........................................... 6
FIGURE 6 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES: NEW GRADUATE QS ..................................................... 7
FIGURE 7 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: NEW GRADUATE QS............................................... 8
FIGURE 8 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES.......................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 9 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES ...................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 10 TRENDS IN FUTURE AREAS OF WORK ............................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 11 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES ....................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 12 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS .............................................. 16
FIGURE 13 CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING .................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 15 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ............................................................ 19
FIGURE 16 WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION ....................................... 19
FIGURE 17 POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES .............................................................. 20
FIGURE 18 MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ....................................................... 22
FIGURE 19 LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT ......................................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 20 IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL ........................................................................... 23
FIGURE 21 SHOULD RICS DETERMINE AND REGULATE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES ............................. 24
FIGURE 22 APPROPRIATENESS OF ENTRY LEVELS.............................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 23 LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP............................................................................... 25
FIGURE 24 LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP .................................................................................. 26
FIGURE 25 IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS ............................................................................................. 27
FIGURE 26 PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED .............................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 27 OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................. 31
FIGURE 28 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS ................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 29 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 32
FIGURE 30 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 32
FIGURE 31 LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS PARTNERSHIP PROCESS ..................................................................................... 33
List of Tables
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN ALL YEARS OF RICS ACCREDITED QUANTITY SURVEYING PROGRAMMES ................................... 2
TABLE 2 PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION HISTORY FOR QUANTITY SURVEYING PROGRAMMES ACCREDITED BY THE RICS .................... 3
TABLE 3 NUMBER OF FULL TIME CORE QUANTITY SURVEYING STAFF ...................................................................................... 3
TABLE 4 NUMBER OF CONTACT HOURS PER STUDENT PER WEEK ............................................................................................ 3
TABLE 5 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ......................................................................... 5
TABLE 6 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES ................................................................................... 6
TABLE 7 EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ............................................................................. 8
TABLE 8 LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES .......................................................................................................... 9
TABLE 9 NRM INITIATIVES AWARENESS LEVELS ................................................................................................................. 9
TABLE 10 LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF NRM INITIATIVES..................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 11 NRM INITIATIVES IMPORTANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................ 10
TABLE 12 FUTURE AREAS OF WORK FOR QUANTITY SURVEYORS .......................................................................................... 11
OTHER AREAS SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS INCLUDE SUSTAINABILITY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY (TABLE 13).................................. 12
TABLE 13 OTHER AREAS OF IMPORTANCE ....................................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 14 PERCEPTION OF ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES .................................................................... 13
TABLE 15 PERCEPTIONS ON DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCING CONSULTING AND CONTRACTOR QS GRADUATES .................................. 15
TABLE 16 EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIFFERENCE IN CONSULTANT AND CONTRACTOR GRADUATE QS IS REFLECTED IN THE CURRICULAR 15
TABLE 17 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE A GRADUATE QS ................................................ 16
TABLE 18 CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN TEACHING ................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE 19 CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN THE FOLLOWING THREE KNOWLEDGE AREAS ........................................................................ 18
TABLE 20 MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ......................................................... 21
TABLE 21 LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT ........................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 22 IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL ............................................................................. 23
TABLE 23 ANALYSIS OF LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................... 25
TABLE 24 ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................... 26
TABLE 25 ANALYSIS OF IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS ............................................................................. 27
TABLE 26 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ........................................................ 28
TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED........................................................... 29
TABLE 28 PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED ............................................................................................... 30
TABLE 29 SUMMARY OF OVERALL SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................. 31
TABLE 30 LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS..................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 31 APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 32
TABLE 32 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY.............................................................................................................. 32
TABLE 33 LEVEL OF SUCCESS OF THE RICS PARTNERSHIP PROCESS ....................................................................................... 33
TABLE 34 EXPECTED LEVELS FOR MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ............................................................................................ 35
TABLE 35 EXPECTED LEVELS FOR CORE COMPETENCIES ...................................................................................................... 35
TABLE 36 EXPECTED LEVELS FOR OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................ 36
vi
Views of Academia
1 Introduction
The academic survey is part of the two surveys carried out as part of the research project. This part
provides a detailed analysis of the finding of the survey.
A comprehensive survey consisting of 41 questions was carried out to ascertain the views of the
quantity surveying academic community across academic institutions in the UK. According to the
RICS there are 26 universities conducting a total of 51 programmes (31 undergraduate and 20
postgraduate) producing RICS accredited quantity surveying graduates. A total of 106 academic staff
from all 26 universities which conduct RICS accredited programmes were contacted and web-based
survey requests sent. The survey received 65 responses from which 20 were eliminated due to
incompleteness of responses leaving 45 sets of fully completed survey responses.
The survey data analysis is presented in the following sections using the 45 fully completed survey
responses received. The survey achieved 61% overall responses and 42% fully completed survey
response rates.
2 Respondent Profile
This section provides details of the survey respondent profile.
18 - 24
Years ,
0.00%
25 - 34
Years ,
4.44%
35 - 45
Years ,
35.56%
Over 45
Years ,
60.00%
6 - 10
Years ,
6.67%
Over 30
Years ,
26.67%
11 - 20
Years ,
31.11%
21 - 30
years ,
35.56%
Figure 2 Academic and/or Industrial Experience in

Quantity Surveying
Figure 1 Respondent Age Profile
Up to 5
Years ,
0.00%
Views of Academia
18 - 24
Years ,
0.00%
25 - 34
Years ,
4.44%
35 - 45
Years ,
35.56%
Over 45
Years ,
60.00%
The
Figure 1 above indicates that there is a mature
respondent profile with over 60% respondents falling in to the category of over 45 years.
Up to 5
Years ,
0.00%
6 - 10
Years ,
6.67%
Over 30
Years ,
26.67%
11 - 20
Years ,
31.11%
21 - 30
years ,
35.56%
Figure 2 indicates that the respondents 93% of

respondents have over 10 years experience in quantity surveying.
Part 4: Respondent Profile
Further it was revealed that 84% (39) of respondents were members of the RICS and 20% (9) were
members of CIOB and further 22% had different professional body memberships while two
respondents were not members of any professional body.
Views of Academia
2.1 Respondent Work Profile

The survey sought to evaluate the respondent work profile in terms of general work allocation in:
Teaching & Learning activities, Research, Academic Enterprise activities and Administration.
Other, 5.71%
Administratio
n, 24.53%
Academic
Enterprise,
5.09%
Teaching and
Learning
Activities,
49.62%
Research,
15.04%
Figure 3 Academic Respondent Work
The work profile of academic respondents (Figure 3) indicates that 50% of workload relates to T&L
activities while 25% is for administration and research constitutes only 15% of the workload. This is
typical for the sector and shows that most quantity surveying academics are less research oriented
than might be expected of them.
It was also revealed that 44% (20) of respondents were programme leaders. This also may indicate
the higher allocation to administration in workload distribution analysed above.
2.2 Quantity Surveying Programme Profiles

A further detailed analysis was carried out using the 20 responses received from programme leaders
to analyse the student numbers, years of accreditation, type of core staff and their level of
qualification, and typical student contact hours per programme. The analysis of these aspects is
provided below.
Table 1 Number of students in all years of RICS accredited Quantity Surveying programmes
Number of students in all years of Quantity Surveying

programmes
Full time undergraduate
Part time undergraduate
Full time postgraduate
Part time postgraduate
Mean
Median
152.85
140.43
12.43
26.57
120.00
137.50
7.00
7.50
Table 1 indicates the total number of students in all years of RICS accredited Quantity Surveying
programmes within the university concerned. The mean and median values for full time
programmes exceed 100 students indicating healthy numbers. There are similar numbers for part
time study as well. The values for postgraduate studies cannot be considered as there are several
universities that do not conduct postgraduate programmes.
Views of Academia
Table 2 indicates the number of years QS programmes have been accredited. Most programmes
have been accredited for 15 to 18 years while there were 3 programmes recently accredited and 6
programmes over 30 years of accreditation history. This reflects a good spread of programmes in
the survey.
Table 2 Programme accreditation history for Quantity Surveying programmes accredited by the RICS
Programme accreditation history (Years)
Frequency
0
1
3
4
10
15
20
30
38
40
50
Total
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
18
Mean = 18.39
Median = 15.00
Mode = 0, 15 (Bimodal)
Table 3 indicates that there are about 6 members of core QS academic staff servicing RICS accredited
QS programmes where 3 are members of the RICS. This is an aspect that can be improved in order
to improve professional outlook of programmes.
Number of full time core Quantity Surveying staff
Mean
Median
Mode
Member of RICS
3.84
3.00
Others
3.88
3.00
Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. illustrates that there is around 12 hours of contact per
week for most programmes. This is markedly low for a professional programme which equates to
less than two full days of work. This is effect part time study in a full time mode. This raises the
question as to whether this type of contact is adequate for producing a graduate for a profession
governed by a Royal Charter.
Table 4 Number of contact hours per student per week
Number of contact hours per student per week
Mean
Median
Mode
QS Undergraduate
15.53
14.00
12
Table 3 Number of full time core Quantity Surveying staff
Views of Academia
QS Postgraduate
8.44
7.50
3 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies

The RICS Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction (2008) indicates that there are 10
Mandatory competencies, 7 Core competencies and 7 Optional competencies that a Chartered
Quantity Surveyor should satisfy. This was used as the basis for evaluation
eva luation of the expected level of
competency a graduate QS should achieve at the completion of a RICS accredited QS degree
programme.
These competencies are to be satisfied in three cumulative stages as indicated below
below:
Level 1: knowledge (theoretical Knowledge)
Knowl
Level 2: knowledge and practical experience (putting it into practice)
Level 3: knowledge, practical experience, and capacity to advise (explaining and
advising)
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
46%
49%
37%
36%
52%
37%
Level 1
30.00%
16%
20.00%
Level 2
15%
11%
Level 3
10.00%
0.00%
Mandatory
Competencies
Core
Competencies
Optional
Competencies
Figure 4 Overview: Expected Graduate Competency
The overall analysis of the expected competency levels for new QS graduates is given in Figure 4. It
indicates a certain level of disagreement in the level of achievement
achievement of Mandatory competencies
Part 4: Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies
The RICS APC documentation clearly prescribes the expected level of achievement of competencies
for candidates facing APC. However, there is no such defined guideline for expected level of
achievement of competencies by a graduate completing RICS accredited QS degree programme. As
such it is open for interpretation.
interpretation The survey expects to analyse the levels of expectations of
academics conducting RICS accredited QS degree programmes on the level of achievement of
competencies by newly graduating QS graduates. Since this is the perception of academics that are
in direct control of curricular
lar and is responsible in the delivery of the undergraduate programmes
one can expect that these represents a true reflection of the expected levels of achievement of
competencies.
Views of Academia
with 37% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 1 while 46% expecting that the competencies will be
satisfied at Level 2. A similar situation exists with respect to Core competencies with 49% expecting
it to be satisfied at Level 2 while 36% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 3. This raises the question
as to whether there is a good understanding of the interpretation of levels of competencies as Level
3 corresponds to practical experience with capacity to advise clients. The difference in expectation
further expands to Optional competencies as well with 52% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 1
while 37% expecting it to be satisfied at Level 2. These anomalies are further investigated in the
following subsections where each category of competency is analysed separately.
3.1 Expected Achievement of Mandatory Competencies

The Mandatory competencies represent a set of competencies that needs to be satisfied by most
types of chartered surveyors. These are represented by 10 different competencies as indicated in
Table 5 below.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
62.22%
33.33%
4.44%
68.89%
22.22%
8.89%
M003 Client care
51.11%
35.56%
13.33%
11.11%
73.33%
15.56%
28.89%
48.89%
22.22%
42.22%
46.67%
11.11%
31.11%
51.11%
17.78%
33.33%
51.11%
15.56%
M009 Sustainability
31.11%
53.33%
15.56%
M010 Team working
13.33%
48.89%
37.78%
Percentage rank
37.33%
46.44%
16.22%
These competencies are expected to be engaged with by all graduate QSs. The Figure 5 below
represents how these competencies are expected to be achieved by newly qualified graduate QS.
The expectation of achievement of competencies at Level 3 is consistently low across all
competencies expect with respect to M010 - Team Working. This may be understandable, as there
are many team working activities designed in most QS undergraduate and postgraduate
programmes. M004 Communication and Negotiation has received the highest expectation at Level 2
while competencies M005 to M010 all have received high levels of expectation at Level 2. The
analysis of individual programme curricular content in the case study analysis also supports these
expectations with high emphasis on these activities at Level 2.
Table 5 Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory Competencies
Views of Academia
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
M001 Accounting
principles and
procedures
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
M002 Business
planning
M003 Client care
M008 Health and

safety
M004 Communication
and negotiation
M007 Data
management
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
management
Level 1
Level and
2
M005 Conduct rules,

ethics and professional
practice
Level 3
The expectation of 22% of respondents on satisfaction of M005 - Conduct rules, ethics and
professional practice competency at Level 3 seems quite illogical. Although programmes may
provide many activities that relate to this competency it is difficult to expect a newly qualified
graduate to achieve the capacity to advise clients on these aspects. In a similar analysis, the overall
levels of expectation at Level 3 at 16% seem to indicate a misinterpretation of Level 3 achievement
of competencies.
3.2 Expected Achievement of Core Competencies

The Core competencies represent the discipline specific competencies that are essential for the
function of quantity surveying. There are 7 different core competencies as indicated in Table 6
below.
Table 6 Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies
Core Competencies
Level 1
Level 2
17.78%
48.89% 33.33%
T013 Construction technology and environmental services 22.22%
51.11% 26.67%
17.78%
53.33% 28.89%
13.33%
44.44% 42.22%
11.11%
46.67% 42.22%
11.11%
53.33% 35.56%
11.11%
46.67% 42.22%
Percentage rank
14.92% 49.21% 35.87%
Level 3
Figure 5 Expected Level of achievement of Mandatory Competencies: New graduate QS
Views of Academia
Both Table 6 and Figure 6 indicate that there is high expectation of achieving all Core competencies
at Level 2. This is very desirable. However, there is considerable level of high expectation for core
competencies T022, T067 and T074 to be achieved at Level 3. This raises the concern that can a
graduate achieve competency to a level enabling advice to clients? Either, this could be attributed
to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of competency level definitions or unrealistically high
expectations.
T010 Commercial
management of
construction
0.6
T013 Construction
technology and
environmental
services
0.5
T074 Quantification
and costing of
construction works
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
T067 Project financial

control and reporting
T017 Contract
practice
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 6 Expected Level of achievement of Core Competencies: New graduate QS
It is clear that most do not expect their graduates just to achieve up to Level 1 in core competencies
but much higher levels. The mean level of 15% expecting core competencies at Level 1 could
possibly be attributed to misinterpretation of competency levels. If not this again raises a serious
concern as to deviation in level of expectations of individual academics.
3.3 Expected Achievement of Optional Competencies

The Optional competencies are an indication of subspecialisation of QS services or a reflection of
experience gained in relevant areas of specialisation. This also represents an element of choice for
the APC candidate. It is expected that at least 2 optional competencies at Level 2 must be satisfied
by candidates facing APC. There are 7 optional competencies that are available for APC candidates in
quantity surveying.
T022 Design
economics and cost
planning
T062 Procurement
and tendering
Views of Academia
Table 7 Expected Level of achievement of Optional Competencies
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
66.67%
26.67%
6.67%
22.22%
55.56%
22.22%
80.00%
13.33%
6.67%
T025 Due diligence
68.89%
26.67%
4.44%
T045 Insurance
60.00%
33.33%
6.67%
40.00%
48.89%
11.11%
28.89%
51.11%
20.00%
Percentage rank
52.38%
36.51%
11.11%

0.8
0.6
T016 Contract
administration
0.4
0.2
0
T063 Programming and

planning
T020 Corporate recovery

and insolvency
T045 Insurance
Level 1
T025 Due diligence
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 7 Expected Level of achievement of Optional Competencies: New graduate QS
The overall percentage expectations are very much in line with the trends identified before. It
should be noted that the high expectation that is assigned for T016 - Contract administration, T063 Programming and planning and T077 - Risk management possibly indicates whether there should be
a shift in considering these as core competencies.
Both Table 7 and Figure 7 indicate that there is considerable variation in levels of expectation of
Optional competencies. There is over 50% expectation that optional competencies T016, T063 and
T077 be achieved at Level 2 and over 20% expects that these be achieved at Level 3. Although
proposition of achieving competencies at Level 3 is unrealistic these indicate that undergraduate
programmes expect their graduates to be highly competent in these areas. All other Optional
competencies are mostly expected to be achieved at Level 1. This is much more realistic and
practical given the high practical nature of these competencies.
Views of Academia
4 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of

This section evaluates the level of awareness of the RICS NRM initiative and the publications of new
guidelines for estimating, measurements and whole life costing.
Note Scoring range: 1 Least aware to 5 Most aware
NRM Initiatives
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Deviation
Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning
3.84
4.00
1.07
Procurement an alternative to SMM7
3.02
3.00
1.27
Whole Life Costing
3.18
3.00
1.30
Table 9 NRM Initiatives awareness levels
NRM Initiative
Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning 4%
4%
24% 36% 31%
13% 22% 29% 20% 16%
Whole Life Costing
13% 13% 38% 13% 22%
40%
38%
36%
35%
31%
29%
30%
24%
25%
22%
20%
13%
15%
22%
20%
16%
2
13% 13%
13%
3
4
10%
5%
4% 4%
0%
Order of cost estimating and
elemental cost planning
Procurement an
alternative to SMM7
Whole Life Costing
Figure 8 Level of Awareness of the RICS NRM Initiatives
The three NRM initiatives are indicated in Table 8, Table 9 and Figure 8Error! Reference source not
found. above. The Order of Estimating and Elemental Cost Planning received a highest level of
awareness with 57% having above average awareness. This could be because it is already published
while the other two received a lower level of awareness (36% and 35% respectively for the same
levels).
Part 4: Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Table 8 Level of awareness of NRM Initiatives
10
Views of Academia
Similar levels of scoring are evident in the level of importance scales. 67% attach a very high level of
importance for Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning while the other two gained
44% and 54% respectively. It is interesting to note that the academics perceive Procurement an
alternative to SMM7 the least important of the three initiatives.
Note Scoring range: 1 Least important to 5 Most important
NRM Initiatives
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Deviation
3.84
4.00
1.00
3.36
3.00
1.17
Whole Life Costing
3.73
4.00
1.16
Table 11 NRM Initiatives importance levels
NRM Initiative
Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning 2% 7%
24% 38% 29%
7% 16% 33% 24% 20%
Whole Life Costing
4% 7%
36% 18% 36%
38%
40%
36%
33%
35%
36%
29%
30%
24%
25%
24%
20%
20%
18%
16%
15%
10%
5%
7%
7%
2%
4%
7%
4
5
0%
Order of cost estimating and Procurement an alternative
to SMM7
Whole Life Costing
Figure 9 Level of Importance of the RICS NRM Initiatives
These indicate that the academics are well aware of these initiatives and do consider these as very
important developments for the future of quantity surveying profession. It is encouraging to see
that there is very good levels of awareness which possibly would lead to adoption of these initiatives
in the curricular of programmes.
Part 4: Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
Table 10 Level of importance of NRM Initiatives
11
Views of Academia

This section aims to ascertain the views of academics on the future role of the quantity surveyor and
the directions of the industry. It also re-visits
re visits QS competencies with the view of ranking
competencies based on perceived importance considering future industry workload
work load trends.

The perception of academics of future areas of work in the industry was analysed in this question.
The highest level of activity (based on mean scores) is indicated on Refurbishment activit
activities. When
median scores are considered all areas except Offshore Oil & Gas and Facilities Management
received an equal rating of 4. Low standard deviation indicates that there is more or less unified
opinion in this aspect.
Table 12 Future areas of work for Quantity Surveyors
Areas of Work
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Deviation
Building Construction
3.96
4.00
0.88
Civil Engineering/Infrastructure
3.69
4.00
0.85
Building Services
3.87
4.00
0.76
Offshore Oil & Gas
2.78
3.00
1.17
Facilities Management
3.49
3.00
0.89
Refurbishment
4.07
4.00
0.84
Refurbishment
Offshore Oil & Gas
Mean
Building Services
0
Figure 10 Trends in future areas of work
Trends in future areas of work
12
Views of Academia
Other areas suggested by respondents include Sustainability and Nuclear Energy (Table 13).
Table 14 Other areas of importance
Other area
Frequency
Sustainability - 5
Energy Production - Nuclear - 5
Holistic cost management
Procurement of public services - 5
Flood risk assessment - 5
Loss adjustment - 5
Efficiency/lean thinking - 5
Ethical business practice - 5
Whole Life costing - 5
Management Consultancy - 5
Life cycle assessment - 5
Building Information Modelling BIM - 4
Repairs and Maintenance
Contract Administration - 3
Value & Risk Management - 4
Construction Claims - 4
This section analyses the views of academic on the perceived level of relative importance of competencies. The
respondents were required to score each competency on a scale of 1 to 5 (1- least important and 5 - most important).
The result of the analysis is presented in
13
Views of Academia
Table 15 below.
RICS Competencies
Mean
Median
Mode

M003 Client care
2.84
2.64
4.00
4.44
4.25
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.50
4.00
3
3
5
5
5
4
Std.
Deviation
1.24
1.06
1.08
0.78
0.90
0.88

M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
services
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
3.51
3.78
4.08
4.35
4.45
4.34
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4
4
4
5
5
5
1.12
1.07
0.83
0.80
0.71
0.79
4.48
4.55
4.69
4.70
4.59
2.93
4.34
2.68
2.85
3.05
3.35
4.13
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
0.68
0.78
0.52
0.65
0.63
1.16
0.73
1.02
1.12
0.90
1.08
0.88
The results show a very low standard deviation in all rankings indicating that the views expressed are
more unified and similar to the mean (i.e. results are closely related). As such Figure 11 shows the
median distribution of the results. From this analysis it is clear that all Core competencies have been
ranked with the highest level of importance while three Mandatory competencies (M010 Team
Table 15 Perception of order of importance of RICS QS Competencies
14
Views of Academia
working, M004 Communication and negotiation, and M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional
practice) have also received higher rankings. This is very consistent with the programme curricular
as these aspects are heavily dealt with in typical programme curricular. All Mandatory competencies
except two (M001 Accounting principles and procedures and M002 Business planning) and two
Optional competencies (T016 Contract administration and T077 Risk management) have received
very second level rankings. This is very much expected as well as in line with most programme
curricular.
Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies

M010 Team working
M003 Client care
T045 Insurance
M009 Sustainability

0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Median
Figure 11 Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies

This section attempts to capture the respondents views on Quantity Surveying education system.
The questions primarily refer to courses accredited by the RICS. This section analyses differences in
T025 Due diligence

15
Views of Academia
Consultant QS and Contractor QS education, suitability of curricular, delivery of programmes, and
university and industry collaboration in QS education.
6.1 Difference in teaching to produce a graduate to become a consultant or

a contractors QS
With the QS profession there is difference of opinion on whether there is significant difference in
teaching (curricular) to produce a consultant or contractor QS. The analysis of the survey reveals that
most perceive there s no significant difference (see Table 16 below).
Table 16 Perceptions on differences in producing consulting and contractor QS graduates
(Note: 1 - No Difference 5 - Completely Different)
Frequency
Percentage
11
24.40%
20.00%
11
24.40%
10
22.20%
8.90%
Total
45
100.00%
Mean = 2.71
Median = 3.00
Std. Deviation = 1.31
It is clear that 44% of respondents perceived that there is no difference while 31% perceived there is
a difference. 24% respondents did not have a clear view. Relatively higher standard deviation also
reflects that there is no unified opinion on this aspect compared to previous responses.
(Note: 1 - Not Reflected 5 - Fully Reflected)
Frequency
Percentage
19.00%
10
23.80%
10
23.80%
21.40%
11.90%
Total
42
100.00%
Mean = 2.83
Median = 3.00
The extent to which the difference between Consultant and Contractor graduate QS is reflected in
the curricular was examined. The results are strikingly similar to before. 43% indicated that there is
Table 17 Extent to which the difference in Consultant and Contractor graduate QS is reflected in the Curricular
16
Views of Academia
no difference in curricular whereas 35% felt that there was greater reflection of difference in
curricular.
This is an inherently difficult aspect to resolve as opinions are more polarised. What is interesting to
note is that similar numbers who indicated that there is a difference in teaching required for
producing a Consultant graduate QS to Contractor graduate QS expressed views that their curricular
is different as well. This indicates that where a difference is perceived curricular has been changed
to reflect the perceived difference. This is a positive aspect and as such action has been initiated to
achieve the desired goal.
6.2 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QSs
Table 18 indicates that there is considerable level of satisfaction that the curricular used by the
universities is fit for purpose. 89% are reasonably satisfied with the curricular and only 10% are
partially satisfied or dissatisfied.
Table 18 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce a graduate QS
Level of Satisfaction
Frequency
Percentage
1 - Not satisfied
4.40%
2 - Partially satisfied
6.70%
3 - Reasonably satisfied
20
44.40%
4 - Satisfied
14
31.10%
5 - Perfectly satisfied
13.30%
Total
45
100.00%
Mean = 3.42
Median = 3.00
It is important to note that there is good degree of self confidence as to the fit for purpose nature of
the curricular used for producing QS graduates.
17
Views of Academia
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 - Not satisfied
2 - Partially
satisfied
3 - Reasonably
satisfied
4 - Satisfied
5 - Perfectly
satisfied
Figure 12 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce a graduate QS
Negotiation skills, interpersonal skills, report writing

EU procurement and competition law
Building services
Due diligence Management of a business as a senior executive
Advanced construction measurement on non-residential work. Plus cut and fill
measurement. Demolition and alterations spot item measurement
Communication skills often glossed over by curricula, employers are going to focus on how
graduates communicate rather than their course marks etc in future
Generally commercial management of construction is covered poorly; this includes supply
chain/subcontract and supplier management, accounting policies, cash flow management
and contract administration.
Sustainability Energy management climate change
Sub contracting Supply Chain Management
Stakeholder management
Depends on the university and course areas/title
Aspects that prepare graduates for a career in research e.g statistical procedures
Measurement and Costing of M&E services Measurement and Costing of civil Engineering
works
Measurement Valuation of change Contract administration (not purely contractual
administration, more practical) Construction technology (linked to measurement)
Site management, Management, Technology General commercial awareness
An ability to undertake self directed learning and personal development
Civil Engineering contract procedures, Estimating procedures, technology and CESMM3
Adequate exposure / practice of measurement, students need to be practicing
measurement throughout the degree to a much greater extent.
The following areas/comments were identified by the respondents that they perceive more
improvement is needed:
18
Views of Academia
Civil Engineering Refurbishment
These areas identified can only be considered as directly attributable to the programmes the
respondents were involved with. Therefore, it cannot be generalised.
6.3 The level of confidence on programme delivery

The survey attempts to investigate the level of confidence of academics in three aspects: their own
subject academic knowledge, QS practice and Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials)
for the delivery of programmes. The following indicators were used as responses (Table 19, Table 20
and Figure 13):
1 - Not at all confident
2 - Partially confident
3 - Reasonably confident
4 - Confident
5 - Fully confident
Table 19 Confidence levels in teaching
Criterion
Academic Knowledge
0%
0%
11%
43%
46%
Quantity Surveying Practice
0%
0%
16%
49%
36%
Use of teaching material (notes,
0%
0%
7%
38%
56%
handouts, tutorials etc.)
60%
56%
50%
43%
49%
46%
40%
38%
36%
30%
11%
16%
7%
10%
0%
Academic Knowledge
Use of teaching material

(notes, handouts, tutorials
etc.)
Figure 13 Confidence levels in teaching
Table 20 Confidence level in the following three knowledge areas
Mean
Median
Std.
20%
19
Views of Academia
Deviation
Academic Knowledge
4.34
4.00
0.68
4.20
4.00
0.69
Use of teaching material (notes, handouts,
4.49
5.00
0.63
tutorials)
The results clearly indicate that there is very high degree of self confidence on all these three
aspects. With mean and median values exceeding 4 with well over 85% indicating very high levels of
confidence this is absolutely clear.
clear It is further strengthened by the fact that there is very low
standard deviation for the responses indicating very much unified opinion.
6.4 The role

ole of Universities in producing
producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
It was paramount importance to identify the ethos of graduate education as perceived by the
academics who deliver QS programmes. As such the following options were posed:
a. Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in
Quantity Surveying
b. Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment
upon graduation
73%
Training Quantity Surveyors

for immediate Quantity
Surveying employment upon
graduation
Figure 14 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
The results are clear and decisive. The overwhelming

verwhelming majority of academics perceive that the
purpose of graduate education in quantity surveying is to produce a graduate with fundamental
levels of knowledge and capacity to develop rather than producing graduates
gr aduates that are fully trained
as quantity surveyors. This has wider implications in that it apportions responsibility of producing
the chartered surveyor truly with the employers. It therefore makes the APC period of training
crucial and pivotally important
ant to the success of the chartered surveyor.
Graduate with overall

good foundation in Quantity
Surveying
27%
20
Views of Academia

The level of industry and academia collaboration in the delivery of QS programmes is vital for the
success of graduates. As such academics perception of industrys willingness to collaborate and the
academics willingness to collaborate were evaluated.
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 - Not at all
willing
2 - Partially
willing
3 - Unsure
4 - Willing
5 - Very willing
Figure 15 Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with Universities on QS Education
Mean = 3.38
Median = 4.00
Figure 15 indicates that 53% perceive that the industry is willing to collaborate while the rest remain
sceptical or unconvinced.
21
Views of Academia
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 - Not at all
likely
2 - Partially likely
3 - Unsure
4 - Likely
5 - Very Likely
Figure 16 Possibility to commit time for industry collaborative activities
Mean = 3.87
Median = 4.00
Figure 16 clearly indicates significant willingness to commit time for industry collaboration. Over
77% have aspirations of collaboration. This is significant and highly positive.

This section attempts to capture the views of academics on the different modes of study and
industry placement offered for undergraduates undertaking Quantity Surveying programmes. Seven
alternative modes of study were presented for evaluation as indicated in Table 21. Respondents
were requested to indicate preferences on 1 to 7 most to least preferred.
Table 21 Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
Modes of Study
university study no prior
experience no
placement
Total
2.22
4.44
44.44
11.11
37.78
100.00
22
Views of Academia
13.33
4.44
100.00
2.22
100.00
8.89
8.89
28.89
35.56
35.56
46.67
11.11
4.44
2.22
8.89
28.89
33.33
8.89
15.56
46.67
20.00
20.00
6.67
4.44
2.22
8.89
11.11
28.89
44.44
100.00
100.00
university study with

prior experience no
placement
university study 1 year
placement
2.22
100.00
university study
summer placements
100.00
university study
6.67
study - non-cognate route

6.67
8.89
8.89
6.67
17.78
35.56
15.56
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00

Total
As illustrated in Figure 17 Part time undergraduate university study is the mode of study perceived
as most successful followed by Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement and
then jointly by Full time undergraduate university study no with prior experience and Full time
undergraduate university study summer placements. This indicates that the exposure of the
student to the industry is perceived as improving graduate quality. It also reinforces the view that a
professional programme needs professional exposure and experience.
23
Views of Academia
50
47
Full time undergraduate university

study no prior experience no
placement
45

study with prior experience no
placement
40
36
35

study 1 year placement
30

study summer placements
25
20
20
20

university study
15
10
Full time postgraduate study non-cognate route
7
4
Part time postgraduate study non-cognate route
0
1
Figure 17 Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
7.2 Industry Placement in Quantity Surveying Education

Industry placement is often considered as a vital component of the graduate education system.
Most programmes in QS provide opportunity for students to take up industry placement within their
programmes. The following analysis examines the level of commitment to placement.
Level of Commitment
During a recession
Mean
4.40
3.84
Median
5.00
4.00
Mode
5
5
Std. Deviation
1.07
1.30
Table 22 and Figure 18 examine the level of commitment to placement. More than 67% expressed
full commitment to placement which reduces to 44% during recession. The economic recession has
a tremendous impact on the availability of placements in the industry. As a result most universities
allow students to directly progress from second year to final year skipping the placement year.
There is no doubt that this will have an impact on the quality of graduates produced. This is
reinforced by the fact that many regard industry experience as vital for producing successful
graduates (as indicated by Figure 17).
Table 22 Level of commitment to placement
24
Views of Academia
67%
70.00%
60.00%
44%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
4% 7%
4%
11%
18%
20%20%
4%
0.00%
1 - Not at all 2 - Partially
34 - Very
5 - Fully
committed committed Committed Committed committed
During a recession
Figure 18 Level of commitment to placement
Table 23 and Figure 19 examine the importance

importance of placement organisation to have a structured
placement training model.. It is clear that over 95% see it as a very important element of the
placement process.
Level of Importance
1 - Not at all
important
2 - Partially
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
5 - Extremely
important
Total
Mean = 4.18
Median = 4.00
Std. Deviation =
0.94
Mode = 5
Frequenc
y
1
Percentag
e
2.20%
2.20%
7
16
20
15.60%
35.60%
44.40%
45
100.00%
1 - Not at
all
importan
t, 2.20%
5Extremel
y
importan
t, 44.40%
3Importan
t, 15.60%
2Partially
importan
t, 2.20%
4 - Very
importan
t, 35.60%
Figure 19 Importance of a structured placement training

model
7.3 Entry requirements for RICS accredited programmes

This section examines the aspects related to student entry criteria for RICS accredited programmes.
It examines the perception of academia on the regulation of entry criteria by the RICS and the level
of entry criteria
iteria for QS programmes.
Table 23 Importance of a structured placement training

model
25
Views of Academia
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Yes
Uncertain
No
Figure 20 Should RICS determine and regulate entry requirements for accredited programmes
Figure 20 indicates the level of acceptance of the regulation of entry standards by the RICS. More
than 60% of respondents clearly favour the regulation of standards by the RICS as the professional
body setting standards for the profession.
64.40%
70.00%
60.00%
48.90%
50.00%
40.00%
28.90%
24.40%
30.00%
13.30%
10.00%
6.70%
6.70%
4.50%
2.20%
0.00%
0.00%
1 - Very low
2 - Low
3 - Appropriate
4 - High
5 - Very high
Figure 21 Appropriateness of Entry Levels
Figure 21 illustrates the views of the academia on the appropriateness of entry criteria set for both
undergraduate and postgraduate
ostgraduate programmes. It is clear that an overwhelming majority agrees that
the entry levels are appropriate with 49% and 64% for undergraduate and postgraduate
programmes respectively. However, 35% and 31% respectively have indicated that entry levels aare
too low while only 15% and 4% view it as too high. Although this is encouraging it might be an
20.00%
26
Views of Academia
opportunity for the RICS to re-evaluate the reasons for discontent accounting for 1/3 of
respondents.

This section evaluates the level of understanding on the routes of membership and their
appropriateness in producing chartered surveyors. It also investigates the influences of other
professional bodies and training of APC candidates.

The RICS has three main routes of membership available for prospective members joining. The level
of awareness of these routes of membership among academics and their perception on the
appropriateness of these routes in producing a competent chartered surveyor was evaluated in the
following sections.
This section investigates the level of understanding of the three main routes of membership
available for members to become a chartered surveyor.
0.7
62%
0.6
0.5
0.4
33%
22%
0.2
0.1
0
0%
4%
11%
9%
2%
1 - Not at all
Graduate route
29%
22%
16%13%
7%
5 - Perfectly well
Figure 22 Level of understanding of the routes of membership
Table 24 Analysis of level of understanding of the routes of membership
RICS membership routes
Mean
Median
Mode
Std.
Deviation
Graduate route
4.51
5.00
0.73
3.56
4.00
1.31
3.51
3.00
3, 5
1.31
(Bimodal)
Part 4: RICS Membership Routes and Training
0.3
36%33%
27
Views of Academia
It is clear that the Graduate route of membership is the most well understood route while others
follow in order of Assoc RICS and Senior Professional routes. This is somewhat expected given that
these two were recently introduced whereas the graduate route has been well established over the
years. There are 26% who do not clearly understand the Assoc RICS route while 20% do not clearly
understand the Senior professional route. These are significant numbers and can have a detrimental
impact on the RICS membership recruitment as academics are the first call to the profession in most
instances.
8.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership
The level of appropriateness of these routes in producing competent QS was evaluated as indicated
in Figure 23.
57%
60.00%
50.00%
43%
37%
40.00%
29%
30.00%
27%
20%21%
20.00%
10.00%
7% 5% 5%
2%
8% 8%
25%
7%
0.00%
1 - Not at all
appropriate
Graduate route
5 - Very
appropriate
Figure 23 Level of Appropriateness of routes of membership
The results indicate that academics perceive the graduate route as the best method to produce a
chartered surveyor with Senior professional route preferred second and Assoc RICS the last.
Mean
Median
Mode
Std.
Deviation
Graduate route
4.25
5.00
1.14
3.53
3.00
1.11
3.76
4.00
1.20
The standard deviation being at reasonable level the results can be considered representative of the
mean. Combined with the analysis of the level of awareness (Table 24) the lower results indicated in
Assoc RICS route is interesting to note.
Table 25 Analysis of Appropriateness of routes of membership
28
Views of Academia

Newly qualified graduates need to progress in their career by becoming suitably professionally
qualified. Graduates become fully fledged professionals by becoming a member of a relevant
professional body. The following analyses the relative importance of becoming professionally
qualified by becoming a corporate member of one of the following institutions (Figure 24 indicated
the perceived level of importance of attaining chartered status by graduates. The academics have
highly ranked RICS as the most important organisation (62%) while CIOB ranked second. Although
there is very low standard deviation indicating a unified result for importance of RICS membership
there is higher standard deviation for other results indicating a greater degree of difference in
opinion regarding the importance of other institutions.
Table 26).
70%
62%
60%
50%
40%
29%
30%
15%
10%
20%
10%
0%
0%
15%14%
10%
2%
1 - Not important 2 - Little important
RICS
24%
20%
14%
31%
28%29%
24%
33%
23%
14%
4%
3 - Important
CIOB
CICES
4 - Very important
5 - Extremely
important
Other
Figure 24 indicated the perceived level of importance of attaining chartered status by graduates.
The academics have highly ranked RICS as the most important organisation (62%) while CIOB ranked
second. Although there is very low standard deviation indicating a unified result for importance of
RICS membership there is higher standard deviation for other results indicating a greater degree of
difference in opinion regarding the importance of other institutions.
Table 26 Analysis of Importance of attaining Chartered status
Professional Institutions
Mean
Median
Mode
Std.
Deviation
4.53
5.00
0.69
3.62
4.00
1.31
RICS
Chartered Institute of Builders CIOB
Figure 24 Importance of attaining Chartered status
29
Views of Academia
Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering
3.28
3.50
1.38
2.86
3.00
1, 4
1.51
Surveyors CICES
Other
(Bimodal)
The academics overwhelmingly value membership of the RICS as appropriate for becoming qualified
quantity surveyor compared to membership of any other institution.
8.3 Importance of a Structured Training Programme for APC

RICS prescribe QS employees presenting candidates for APC to operate a structured training
programme within their organisations. However, in practice not all employers implement such a
programme. This section examines the views of academics on the usefulness of a structured training
programme for APC candidates.
Table 27 Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC candidates
Level of Importance
Frequency
Percentage
0.00%
2 Little important
2.20%
3 Important
2.20%
4 Very important
15
33.30%
28
62.20%
Total
45
100.00%
Table 27 clearly indicates that 96% of respondents see it has very important for APC candidates
reinforcing the RICS recommendations for APC training. The very low standard deviation with
median and mode at 5 indicates that there is close unified view on this aspect.

This section attempts to capture the views of academics on RICS as a professional body regulating
the Quantity Surveying profession.
Mean = 4.56
Median = 5.00
Mode = 5
30
Views of Academia

The respondents were requested to rate the services identified in Table 28 below on a scale of 1 to 5
where 1 very poor service and 5 highly rated service.
Table 28 Summary of Analysis of perception on quality of services provided
RICS Services
Regulating the Quantity Surveying
profession A
Developing standards and new methods
of practice B
Regulation of Quantity Surveying
education C
World-wide representative of the
Quantity Surveying profession D
E
Influencing related national policy F
Mean
3.80
Median
4.00
Mode
4
Std. Deviation
0.98
3.52
4.00
1.19
3.32
4.00
1.16
3.63
4.00
1.07
3.27
3.00
1.13
3.12
3.00
1.05
Continued Professional Development

for the Quantity Surveying profession
G
General member services (directory,
journal, benefits scheme etc..) H
3.34
3.00
3, 4
(Bimodal)
3, 4
(Bimodal)
2.84
3.00
1.10
0.99
The results indicate that academics are generally satisfied with the performance of RICS based upon
the list of services indentified in Table 28. The standard deviation for all responses is close to or less
than 1 indicating a unified tighter distribution of responses. The results are not highly positive but
focused on the centre of the scale more often. This indicates that there is greater expectation on
the performance of RICS that still require to be fulfilled.
31
Views of Academia
60.00%
48%
50.00%
41%
41%
40%
40.00%
30.00%
25%
11%
7%
2%
25%
21%
18%
20.00%
10.00%
34%
33%
21%
16%
11%
7%
7%
5%
7%
11% 11%
7%
2%
0.00%
A
1 - Very poor service
E
4
5 - Very highly rated service
Figure 25 Perception on quality of services provided
Error! Reference source not found. provides the details of the spread of results for the level of
quality of services provided. Over 66% are satisfied that RICS perform a good service in regulating
the QS profession. The situation is very similar for Developing standards and new methods of
practice, Regulation of Quantity Surveying education and World-wide representative of the
Quantity Surveying profession. It is important to note that the academics are satisfied as to the
role played by RICS in Regulation of Quantity Surveying education (52%).
Service
Regulating the Quantity
Developing standards and
new methods of practice
Regulation of Quantity
Surveying education
World-wide representative
of the Quantity Surveying
profession
Dissemination of related
information
Influencing related national
policy
Continued Professional
Development for the
Quantity Surveying
profession
General member services
(directory, journal, benefits
scheme etc..)
Code
A
1
2.30%
2
6.80%
6.80%
3
25.00%
4
40.90%
5
25.00%
18.20% 9.10%
47.70%
18.20%
11.40%
9.10%
27.30%
40.90%
11.40%
4.70%
9.30%
25.60%
39.50%
20.90%
6.80%
15.90% 36.40%
25.00%
15.90%
7.00%
20.90% 32.60%
32.60%
7.00%
2.30%
18.20% 34.10%
34.10%
11.40%
11.40%
27.30% 34.10%
20.50%
6.80%
Table 29 Perception on quality of services provided
32
Views of Academia
However, the level of satisfaction drops for other 4 types of services analysed. General member
services are considered poor for the most part with over 28% being dissatisfied and just 27%
satisfied. There is a notable poor level of service indication for both Dissemination
information and Influencing
Influencing related national
na
policy.
. The later is a serious aspect that the RICS
needs to consider as it has a direct impact on the profession.
In addition to the services presented above academics also indicated that the following services as
noteworthy:
Lion heart
Marketing of the profession
APC Doctors
Research Foundation
Support on Research activitiesactivities QS related
Approximately 35% of respondents were clearly satisfied with the overall level of services provided
by the RICS with 44% sticking to mid range while 20% towards less or not satisfied. This is a
satisfactory level of achievement (but with a great scope for improvement) for a professional body
which encompass several allied professions in property and construction. The lower standard
deviation also indicates that there is more unified view.
Table 30 Summary of Overall Satisfaction
Frequency
Percentage
1 - Not satisfied
6.70%
13.30%
20
44.40%
13
28.90%
5 - Fully satisfied
6.70%
Total
45
100.00%
6.70% 6.70%
13.30%
28.90%
44.40%
1 - Not satisfied
5 - Fully satisfied
Median = 3.00
Figure 26 Overall level of satisfaction

Mode = 3
9.3 Academics level of Communications with the RICS

Appropriate level of communication with the membership is vital for success of any professional
body. The results below indicates that 49% rate it as good, 24% as average and 27% as poor.
Mean = 3.16
33
Views of Academia
Table 31 Level of Communication with members
Level of
Communication
1 - Very poor
2
3
4
5 - Very good
Total
Frequency
Percentage
3
9
11
14
8
45
6.70%
20.00%
24.40%
31.10%
17.80%
100.00%
6.70%
17.80%
31.10%
24.40%
1 - Very poor
Mean = 3.33
Median = 3.00
Mode = 4
20.00%
5 - Very good
Figure 27 Level of Communication with members
The results are encouraging for the RICS and indicate generally there is a good level of
communication though there is a significant number not satisfied with the levels of communication.
9.4 Appropriateness of Services provided by the RICS to Academi

Academia
This section investigates the appropriateness of the services provided by the RICS to academia in
general.
Table 32 Appropriateness of RICS Services
Frequency
Percentage
8.90%
8.90%
13.30%
11.10%
24.40%
5
19
11
6
11.10%
42.20%
24.40%
13.30%
45
100.00%
Mean = 3.22
Median = 3.00
Std. Deviation =
1.11
Mode = 3
42.20%
1 - Not at all appropriate
5 - Very appropriate
Figure 28 Appropriateness of RICS Services
Academics perception reveals that 38% considers the RICS services are appropriate for the
academics with 42% taking a middle ground while 20% considering the services are inappropriate.
This is expected to some extent as the services of RICS as a professional
professio nal body would naturally be less
tailored towards academics. However, this also indicates greater expectation from the academics
for the RICS to provide a greater role in the development of the QS academia.
9.5 The value of RICS services

This section examines the views of academics on their perceived level of value
value for money of RICS
services. They were queried Do
Do RICS Membership provide Value for Money?
Money?
Level of
Appropriateness
1 - Not at all
appropriate
2
3
4
5 - Very
appropriate
Total
34
Views of Academia
Table 33 Do RICS provide value for money
Value for Money

1 - Not at all
2
3
4
5 - Very good
value for money
Total
Frequency
10
13
11
7
4
Percentage
22.20%
28.90%
24.40%
15.60%
8.90%
45
100.00%
Mean = 2.60
Median = 2.00
Std. Deviation =
1.25
Mode = 2
8.90%
22.20%
15.60%
24.40%
1 - Not at all
28.90%
5 - Very good value for money
Figure 29 Do RICS provide value for money
In contrast to previous analysis there is clear dissatisfaction expressed here. 51% stated that they do
not see value for money in RICS services, 24% undecided while only 24% perceive any value for
money. It is important to further investigate the low level of value for money perception on RICS
services though there were good level of services indicated in the previous analysis. This can
possibly be attributable to the membership fees where academic members feel that they do not
receive adequate
te benefit for the fees paid.
9.6 Level of Success of the RICS - University partnership agreement

The level of Success of the RICS - University partnership agreement related process in producing
good quality graduate was investigated (Table
(
34 and Figure 30).
Table 34 Level of success of the RICS partnership process
Frequency
Percentage
1 - Not at all successful
6.70%
2 - Partially successful
15.60%
3 - Undecided
14
31.10%
4 - Successful
16
35.60%
5 - Very successful
11.10%
Total
45
100.00%
Success Level
35
Mean = 3.29
Median = 3.00
Mode = 4
Views of Academia
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 - Not at all
successful
2 - Partially
successful
3 - Undecided 4 - Successful
5 - Very
successful
Figure 30 Level of success of the RICS partnership process
The analysis indicates that 47% perceived it as successful while 22% as partially or unsuccessful while
31% were undecided. The response is therefore fairly distributed and inconclusive. The outcome is
consistent as there is lower standard deviation. This is an important aspect that requires further
investigation. There is 11% who express very high satisfaction with the process. The process can be
considered somewhat successful but there is no universal agreement on this. Although the overall
concept is acceptable this may indicate that there is greater scope for further improvement in this
process.
10 Conclusions
The survey elicited a very good response from the academics representing 26 universities that
conduct RICS accredited QS programmes. The survey detailed analysis considered fully completed 45
responses representing approximately two responses per institution. The respondents were
primarily well experienced academics over 10 years experience and chartered surveyors. This
included 20 programme leaders conducting RICS accredited QS programmes within UK.
10.1 Key findings of the survey of QS academics

10.1.1 RICS accredited QS programme characteristics
The mean student populations of the programmes analysed exceeded 150 full time and 140 part
time students per programme. These are significant numbers and indicate a healthy level of
probable graduate output even within currently prevalent recessive economic environment.
The number of direct student contact hours was between 12 to 14 hours per week. This is a very
low figure equating to less than two full days work for a full time student enrolled in a 3 to 4 year QS
Part 4: Conclusions
The following sections provide the highlights of the 6 main areas evaluated under the survey.
36
Views of Academia
honours degree programme. However, this is similar to other programmes related to construction
and surveying professions.
10.1.2 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies
All 24 competencies prescribed for the QS pathway were analysed to find the level of expectation of
fulfilment of the competencies by newly qualified graduate quantity surveyors. It is important to
note that there is no guideline to explain the level of achievement of competencies by graduates
either prescribed by neither the RICS nor academia in general. Therefore the level of achievement
of competencies by graduates is open for interpretation. Hence, the survey attempts capture views
of academics.
In overall terms there were a considerable amount of responses indicating much higher levels of
expectation for graduate competencies sometimes equivalent or higher for APC. This leads to an
assertion that either some academics did not clearly understand the interpretation of competency
levels or they had unrealistically high expectations.
10.1.2.1 Mandatory competencies

The Table 35 below indicates the majority view with respect to achieving mandatory competencies.
Table 35 Expected levels for mandatory competencies
Level
Expected
M003 Client care
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
2 or 3
These expectations are much greater than even what is prescribed by the RICS for APC candidates.
Most of these competencies must be achieved at Level 1 and some at Level 2 for candidates facing
APC. As such it can be concluded that there is greater level of expectation than required from a
graduate.
Part 4: Conclusions
37
Views of Academia
10.1.2.2 Core competencies
Academics expect new graduates to achieve Core competencies at level 2 or above (Table 36). This is
to some extent can be considered as reasonable as APC candidates are required to satisfy core
competencies at level 3. However, expecting graduates to complete competencies at level 3 seems
highly controversial as graduates would hardly get opportunity to advise clients in any capacity.
Table 36 Expected levels for core competencies
Core Competencies
Level
expected
services
2 or 3
2 or 3
2 or 3
10.1.2.3 Optional competencies

Academics expect newly graduating quantity surveyors to attain optional competencies at level 1 or
2 as indicates in Table 37. The APC requirement for optional competencies stands at primarily Level
2 and level 1 in some cases. This represents a reasonable degree of expectation for most
competencies.
Table 37 Expected levels for optional competencies
Level
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
Part 4: Conclusions
expected
38
Views of Academia
10.1.3 RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
The Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning and the Whole life costing are seen as
the two most important of the 3 NRM initiatives. The academics seem to appreciate the
development related to the Order of cost estimating and elemental cost planning the most
possibly because these documents are already in place.
10.1.4 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor
Building construction, refurbishment and services are seen as the three most important sectors for
quantity surveyors which were followed by civil & infrastructure engineering and facilities
management.
10.1.4.1 Order of importance of QS competencies
All 7 Core competencies were ranked high as being most important with top 4 competencies form all
24 competencies being (in order of mean scores):
1.
2.
3.
4.

2. M010 Team working
These would be as mostly expected with T067 Project financial control and reporting seen to be the
most important of all competencies.
10.1.5 Views on Quantity Surveying Education
10.1.5.1 Education to produce Consultant QS and Contractor QS
The majority of academics do not seem to recognise any difference in educational methods to
produce graduates specialising in working for consultants or contractors. However, opinions are not
clearly defined with 44% expressing no difference and 31% expressing there is a difference. The
situation is very similar with respect to the curricular used to produce these types of graduates.
Many respondents identified possible areas of further improvement reflecting areas such as civil and
building services engineering measurement, estimating and valuation, sustainability, communication
skills, etc.
Part 4: Conclusions
10.1.5.2 Level of satisfaction with the curriculum

An overwhelm majority is satisfied with the curricular used by their institutions with 89% expressing
good level of satisfaction out of which 13% express perfect satisfaction and only 4 -10% expressed
some level of dissatisfaction.
39
Views of Academia
10.1.5.3 The level of confidence on programme delivery
A very high level of confidence has been expressed by the respondents on their own subject
academic knowledge, QS practice and Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials) for the
delivery of programmes. The mean scores are well above 4 (confident) and in some cases
approaching 5 (fully confident). This is important for it shows that academics are very confident of
what they deliver.
10.1.5.4 The role of universities producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
In this vital question which determines the ethos of graduate education, 73% of academics
expressed views that the universities should aim to produce a Graduate with overall academic
knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying whereas only 27% expressed that
universities should Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment
upon graduation.
This is highly significant as it determines the educational philosophy in producing graduate quantity
surveyors and therefore all underpinning activities.
10.1.5.5 Industry Academia Collaboration
The academics perceive that the industry is willing (53%) to some extent to collaborate with
universities in QS programme delivery related activities and also that the academics were very
willing (77%) to collaborate with the industry.
10.1.6 Modes of Study & Industry Placement
10.1.6.1 Perceived Success of different Modes of Study
Academics were of the view that part time undergraduate studies produce the best quality of QS
graduate which was very closely followed up by full time study with a one year industry placement.
It is important to note that the emphasis and value attached to the role of industry placement is
highly valued by academics.
10.1.6.2 Industry Placement
A high degree of commitment to placement was expressed by academics with 87% very committed
to placement dropping to 64% during recession.
A placement training model was considered very to extremely important for the success of industrial
placements by 80% of respondents. This implies there is a strong need to provide such structured
training during industrial placements.
Academics were of the view that both undergraduate (49%) and postgraduate (64%) programmes
respectively had appropriate entry criteria at present while 15% (45% -PG) perceived it as too high.
Further to this 35% (31% - PG) perceived it to be too low. This concludes that there is no dispute on
the entry levels for PG programmes but there is significant discontent on the entry criteria for
undergraduate programmes. This is an aspect that requires further examination by the RICS.
Part 4: Conclusions
10.1.6.3 Entry requirements for RICS accredited programmes

accredited programmes both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. However there were a
notable 30% who opposed this.
40
Views of Academia
10.1.7 RICS Membership Routes and Training
10.1.7.1 Routes of membership
The Graduate route of entry was clearly the most understood route of membership, followed by the
senior professional route and Assoc RICS route. The same preference was shown with respect to the
appropriateness of producing a high quality QS graduate. 84% perceived the graduate route to be
the best form of producing QS professionals with a ranking of 4 or 5 whilst the senior professional
route obtained 58% followed by 45% for the Assoc RICS.
10.1.7.2 Importance of RICS professional qualification
The RICS membership was regarded as by far the most important qualification for a QS graduate
followed by CICES. 93% ranked membership of RICS as very or extremely important with
comparative figures for CICES and CIOB dropping to 61% and 57% respectively. The rise of CICES with
it recently acquired chartered status to a close second with CIOB is interesting to note.
10.1.7.3 Structured Training Programme for APC
A structured training programme for APC candidates is seen as an almost absolute must by the
academics, with 96% considering it very important.
10.1.8 Views on the Role of RICS
10.1.8.1 Quality of services provided by the RICS
The top 3 services provided by the RICS, with over 60% rating it highly or very highly rated service
are as follows:
1. Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A
2. World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession D
3. Developing standards and new methods of practice B
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating over 50% for highly or very highly
rated service is seen reasonably positive outcome with respect to graduate education.
related national policy F as lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where
RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the profession at
10.1.8.2 Overall level of satisfaction
Only 35% indicated overall higher level of satisfaction with the majority (44%) stickling to a mid level
of satisfaction. This indicates that academics expect a higher level of service from the RICS than
what is currently provided.
10.1.8.4 Appropriateness of Services

Only 38% of academics feel that RICS provide an appropriate type and level of service to the
academic members with further 42% indicating a mid level and 20% expressing dissatisfaction. This
Part 4: Conclusions
10.1.8.3 Level of Communications with Academics

The majority of academics expressed good level of satisfaction on the RICSs level of communication
with academic with 49% expressing high satisfaction and only 27% ranking it toward poor.
41
Views of Academia
is an area RICS could consider how they can improve and greater dialogue and liaison with academia
would be recourse for improvement.
10.1.8.5 The value of RICS services
In contrast to the generally positive responses above 51% of academics expressed dissatisfaction
with the level of value for money for the services rendered by the RICS. Only 24% expressed a good
level of satisfaction. Value is a direct function of cost and the level of service received in return. This
indicates that there is a generally higher fee in proportion to the level of service received. This can
also be a result of high cost of CPD activities.
Part 4: Conclusions
10.1.8.6 RICS - University partnership agreement

47% of academics perceived the RICS University Partnership Agreement process as successful
while 22% saw this as partially or unsuccessful while 31% were undecided. This indicates that there
is consensus on the overall concept of the partnership but a considerable amount of scepticism
about the partnership process which warrants further investigation.
42

Quantity Surveyors: Views of Industry
Part 5
Analysis of Perception of the Industry

Mr John Pearson
Newcastle upon Tyne
UK

January 2011
Part 5 Contents
1. List of Contents
2. List of Figures
3. List of Tables
4. Report
ii
List of Contents
1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
RESPONDENT PROFILE.............................................................................................................................1
2.1
2.2
RESPONDENTS ORGANISATION PROFILE ......................................................................................................... 2

ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 2
EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES ..............................................3

3.1
EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ................................................................................ 4
3.1.1 Expected graduate Mandatory competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting &
Public Sector perception................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2
EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES ........................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Expected graduate Core competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public
Sector perception ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3
EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .................................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Expected graduate Optional competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting &
Public Sector perception............................................................................................................................... 12
4
LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE RICS NEW RULES OF MEASUREMENT (NRM)
INITIATIVES....................................................................................................................................................13
5
FUTURE ROLE OF THE QUANTITY SURVEYOR.........................................................................................15

5.1
PERCEPTION OF AREAS OF WORK BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT ........................................................................ 15
5.2
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE QS COMPETENCIES......................................................................................... 16
5.2.1 Relative Importance of the QS Competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting &
Public Sector perception............................................................................................................................... 19
VIEWS ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION .....................................................................................20

6.1
EMPLOYERS LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON GRADUATE QS COMPETENCY ACHIEVEMENT ............................................ 20
6.1.1 Level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement: Comparative analysis of
Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception .................................................................................... 24
6.2
LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QSS.................. 24
6.3
AREAS NOT ADEQUATELY COVERED BY THE CURRICULUM .................................................................................. 26
6.4
THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LECTURERS PROGRAMME DELIVERY CAPABILITY ..................................................... 26
6.5
6.5.1 The Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Comparative analysis of
6.6
MODES OF STUDY & INDUSTRY PLACEMENT.........................................................................................31
7.1
7.2
7.3

INDUSTRY PLACEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION ............................................................................... 32
PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ..................................................................... 33
RICS MEMBERSHIP ROUTES AND TRAINING ..........................................................................................34

8.1
ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................................................................... 34
8.1.1 Level of awareness.......................................................................................................................... 34
8.1.2 The appropriateness of routes of membership ............................................................................... 35
iii
8.1.3 Support given to candidates to attain professional qualification ................................................... 36

8.2
8.3
AVAILABILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC .......................................... 37
8.3.1 Availability of a Structured Training Programme ........................................................................... 37
8.3.2 Importance of Structured Training Programme.............................................................................. 38
9

9.1
9.1.1 Quality of services provided by the RICS: Comparative analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public
Sector perception ......................................................................................................................................... 40
9.2
9.3
INDUSTRY LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RICS .................................................................................. 42
9.4
APPROPRIATENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS TO INDUSTRY ................................................................ 42
9.5
THE VALUE OF RICS SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 42
9.5.1 Overall level of satisfaction with and the value of RICS services: Comparative analysis of
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................44
10.1
KEY FINDINGS OF THE INDUSTRY SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 44
10.1.1
Organisations current workload................................................................................................. 44
10.1.2
Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies................................................ 44
10.1.2.1
10.1.2.2
10.1.2.3
10.1.3
10.1.4
10.1.4.1
10.1.5
10.1.5.1
10.1.5.2
10.1.5.3
10.1.5.4
10.1.5.5
10.1.6
10.1.6.1
10.1.6.2
10.1.7
10.1.7.1
10.1.7.2
10.1.7.3
10.1.8
10.1.8.1
10.1.8.2
10.1.8.3
10.1.8.4
10.1.8.5
Mandatory competencies ......................................................................................................................44

Core competencies ................................................................................................................................45
Optional competencies ..........................................................................................................................45
RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives.................................................................... 46

Future role of the Quantity Surveyor .......................................................................................... 46
Order of importance of QS competencies .............................................................................................46
Views on Quantity Surveying Education..................................................................................... 47

Employers level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement .........................................47
Level of awareness and satisfaction with the curriculum ......................................................................47
The level of confidence on programme delivery ...................................................................................47
The role of universities producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor.........................................................47
Industry Academia Collaboration........................................................................................................48
Modes of Study & Industry Placement ....................................................................................... 48

Perceived Success of different Modes of Study .....................................................................................48
Industry Placement ................................................................................................................................48
RICS Membership Routes and Training ...................................................................................... 48

Routes of membership...........................................................................................................................48
Importance of RICS professional qualification .......................................................................................48
Structured Training Programme for APC................................................................................................48
Views on the Role of RICS ........................................................................................................... 49

Quality of services provided by the RICS................................................................................................49
Overall level of satisfaction....................................................................................................................49
Level of Communications with Industry.................................................................................................49
Appropriateness of Services...................................................................................................................49
The value of RICS services ......................................................................................................................49
10
iv
FIGURE 1: RESPONDENT AGE PROFILE

FIGURE 2: EXPERIENCE IN QUANTITY SURVEYING .................................... 1
FIGURE 3: TYPE OF COMPANY ........................................................................................................................................ 2
FIGURE 4: ORGANISATION SIZE ...................................................................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 5: ACTIVITIES WHICH MAKE UP INDUSTRY CURRENT WORKLOAD ................................................................................ 3
FIGURE 6: OVERVIEW - EXPECTED GRADUATE COMPETENCY ................................................................................................ 4
FIGURE 7: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES - NEW GRADUATE QS........................................ 5
FIGURE 8 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ........................................... 6
FIGURE 9 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION .......................................... 6
FIGURE 10 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE MANDATORY COMPETENCIES: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ...................................... 7
FIGURE 11: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES - NEW GRADUATE QS ................................................ 8
FIGURE 12 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE CORE COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ................................................... 9
FIGURE 13 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE CORE COMPETENCIES: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION ................................................... 9
FIGURE 14 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE CORE COMPETENCIES: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION............................................... 10
FIGURE 15: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES - NEW GRADUATE QS........................................ 11
FIGURE 16 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ........................................... 12
FIGURE 17 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION .......................................... 12
FIGURE 18 EXPECTED LEVELS OF GRADUATE OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ........................................ 13
FIGURE 19: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES ..................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 20: LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES .................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 21: TRENDS IN FUTURE AREAS OF WORK .............................................................................................................. 16
FIGURE 22: ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES ...................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 23 RANK SCORE LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES SCORING 1 TO 5; 1 LEAST TO 5 MOST .............................. 19
FIGURE 24: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION OF QS GRADUATES ON RICS QS COMPETENCIES ......................................................... 22
FIGURE 25 EMPLOYERS LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON GRADUATE PERFORMANCE ...................................................................... 23
FIGURE 26: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY............................................. 25
FIGURE 27: LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QS................................................ 26
FIGURE 28: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY .................................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 29: INDUSTRY PERCEPTION OF THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ................. 28
FIGURE 30 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: CONSULTANT PERCEPTION ....................... 28
FIGURE 31 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: CONTRACTOR PERCEPTION ...................... 29
FIGURE 32 ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN PRODUCING A GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR: PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION .................... 29
FIGURE 33: WILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIVERSITIES ON QS EDUCATION ...................................... 30
FIGURE 34: POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT TIME FOR INDUSTRY COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 30
FIGURE 35: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ...................................................... 32
FIGURE 36: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT ........................................................................................................ 32
FIGURE 37: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL .......................................................................... 33
FIGURE 38: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ...................................................................... 34
FIGURE 39: LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP.............................................................................. 35
FIGURE 40: LEVEL OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ................................................................................. 35
FIGURE 41: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................ 36
FIGURE 42 IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL STATUS ......................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 43 SHOWS THAT 56 % OF RESPONDENTS REPORTED THAT THEIR FIRM OR COMPANY HAVE A STRUCTURED TRAINING SCHEME
IN OPERATION, 44% REPORT THAT THEY DO NOT. THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS WHAT IS PERFORMING WORST WITH 57% NOT HAVING
A STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME IN THE ORGANISATION.................................................................................. 37
FIGURE 44: AVAILABILITY OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC ....................................................................... 37
FIGURE 45 IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC........................................................................ 38
List of Figures
THE ANALYSIS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME BY SECTORS (FIGURE 46) ALSO INDICATES THAT
CONSULTANTS ATTACH GREATER IMPORTANCE TO IT THAN BOTH THE CONTRACTORS AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR.................... 38
FIGURE 47: PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED ............................................................................................. 39
FIGURE 48: OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ................................................................................................................. 41
FIGURE 49: LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS .................................................................................................. 42
FIGURE 50: APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 51: DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ........................................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 52 DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY: BY SECTOR ............................................................................................ 43
vi
TABLE 1: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ........................................................................ 4

TABLE 2: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF CORE COMPETENCIES .................................................................................. 7
TABLE 3: EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES .......................................................................... 11
TABLE 4: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF NRM INITIATIVES ....................................................................................................... 14
TABLE 5: NRM INITIATIVES AWARENESS LEVELS .............................................................................................................. 14
TABLE 6: LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF THE RICS NRM INITIATIVES ........................................................................................ 14
TABLE 7: NRM INITIATIVES IMPORTANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 15
TABLE 8: FUTURE AREAS OF WORK FOR QUANTITY SURVEYORS ........................................................................................... 15
TABLE 9: PERCEPTION OF ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES ..................................................................... 16
TABLE 10 PERCEPTION OF ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF RICS QS COMPETENCIES: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR AND PUBLIC SECTOR
PERCEPTION..................................................................................................................................................... 20
TABLE 11: EMPLOYERS' PERCEPTION OF QS GRADUATES LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON RICS QS COMPETENCIES IN MEAN RANK ORDER
..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
TABLE 12 QS GRADUATES LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ON RICS QS COMPETENCIES IN MEAN RANK ORDER: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR
AND PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ........................................................................................................................ 24
TABLE 13: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITY .............................................. 25
TABLE 14: LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRICULUM USED TO PRODUCE GRADUATE QS ................................................. 25
TABLE 15: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY ...................................................................................................... 27
TABLE 16: CONFIDENCE LEVELS IN LECTURERS' ABILITY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE KNOWLEDGE AREAS ........................................ 27
TABLE 17: MODE OF STUDY THAT PRODUCES THE BEST GRADUATE QUANTITY SURVEYOR ........................................................ 31
TABLE 18: LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO PLACEMENT .......................................................................................................... 32
TABLE 19: IMPORTANCE OF A STRUCTURED PLACEMENT TRAINING MODEL ............................................................................ 33
TABLE 20: PERCEIVED OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF OFFERING A PLACEMENT ....................................................................... 34
TABLE 21: ANALYSIS OF LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP.............................................................. 35
TABLE 22: ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP .............................................................................. 36
IN TABLE 23 IT IS CLEAR THAT ALMOST 70% OF CANDIDATES GO THROUGH THE GRADUATE ROUTE FROM ORGANISATIONS WHILE
FOLLOWED BY SENIOR PROFESSIONAL ROUTE AND ASSOC RICS ROUTE AT 17% AND 13% RESPECTIVELY. .......................... 36
TABLE 24: CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THROUGH ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................. 36
TABLE 25: ANALYSIS OF IMPORTANCE OF ATTAINING CHARTERED STATUS ............................................................................. 37
TABLE 26: IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR APC CANDIDATES ....................................................... 38
TABLE 27: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED ......................................................... 39
TABLE 28: PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED .............................................................................................. 40
TABLE 28 PERCEPTION ON QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR AND PUBLIC SECTOR
PERCEPTION..................................................................................................................................................... 41
TABLE 29: SUMMARY OF OVERALL SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................ 41
TABLE 30: LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS.................................................................................................... 42
TABLE 31: APPROPRIATENESS OF RICS SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 42
TABLE 32: DO RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY ............................................................................................................ 43
TABLE 33 SUMMARY OF OVERALL SATISFACTION AND WHETHER RICS PROVIDE VALUE FOR MONEY: CONSULTANT, CONTRACTOR AND
PUBLIC SECTOR PERCEPTION ............................................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 33 INDICATES THE SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS OF MANDATORY COMPETENCIES. THESE REPRESENT A VERY ACCEPTABLE
LEVEL OF EXPECTATION FOR THE MOST PART EXCEPT FOR M008 HEALTH & SAFETY. MANDATORY COMPETENCIES CANNOT BE
EXPECTED BEYOND LEVEL 1 FOR THE MOST PART. .................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 34 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ......................................................................... 45
TABLE 35 INDICATES THAT THE ALL CORE COMPETENCIES ARE EXPECTED BY THE MAJORITY AT LEVEL 2. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A
CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS (27%) EXPECTING CORE COMPETENCIES TO BE SATISFIED AT LEVEL 3. THIS
List of Tables
vi
i
INCREASES SIGNIFICANTLY TO 37% FOR T074 QUANTIFICATION AND COSTING OF CONSTRUCTION WORKS AND 32% FOR T067
PROJECT FINANCIAL CONTROL AND REPORTING. THIS IS A DISTURBING FINDING AS LEVEL 3 CAN PRACTICABLY BE ACHIEVED BY
WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY................................................................................................................................. 45
TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR CORE COMPETENCIES ................................................................................... 45
TABLE 37 INDICATES THAT ALL OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES EXCEPT T016 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION IS EXPECTED TO BE ACHIEVED AT
LEVEL 1. THIS IS WHAT THAT CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED. HOWEVER ON OVERALL TERMS THERE ARE GREATER LEVELS OF
EXPECTATION (AT LEVEL 2) FROM 34% OF RESPONDENTS FOR T063 PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING AND T077 RISK
MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES. ........................................................................................................................... 45
TABLE 38 SUMMARY OF EXPECTED LEVELS FOR OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ............................................................................. 46
vi
ii
Views of Industry
1 Introduction
The industry survey is part of the two surveys carried out as part of the research project. This part
provides a detailed analysis of the finding of the survey.
A comprehensive survey consisting 39 questions were carried out to ascertain the views of the
quantity surveying industrial and professional community across firms in the UK. This included client,
consulting and contracting firms representing both private and public sector institutions. According
to the RICS there are approximately 7000 Chartered Quantity Surveyors registered in the UK. The
survey was posted to a sample of 2946 chartered surveyors with high levels of experience. A total
of 615 responded from which 314 were eliminated due to incompleteness of responses leaving 301
sets of fully completed survey responses.
The survey data analysis is presented in the following sections using the 301 fully completed survey
responses received. The survey achieved a response rate of 21% overall responses and 10% fully
completed survey response rates. This was expected as the survey method did not use prior
permission for the survey request which was mainly on a voluntary basis. However, the data sample
is very much adequate to carry out an analysis with over 99% confidence level as the population size
is large (Bartlett et.al. 2001).
2 Respondent Profile
This section provides details of the survey respondent profile.
Over 45
Years,
58.50%
Figure 1: Respondent Age Profile
25 - 34
Years,
11.00%
35 - 45
Years,
30.20%
Up to 5
Years,
0.70%
6 - 10
Years,
7.00%
Over 30
Years,
43.20%
11 - 20
Years,
19.90%
21 - 30
years,
29.20%
Figure 2: Experience in Quantity Surveying
The majority of respondents were within the upper age groups, with 30% at between 35 and 45
years of age and 59% being over 45. As might be expected from the previous response, the majority
of respondents (72%) have over 20 years experience quantity surveying.
The respondents were members of the RICS as and 8% were members of the CIOB while further 2%
were members of the CICES. This is relevant both to the respondents awareness of and their
Part 5 Introduction
18 - 24
Years,
0.30%
Views of Industry
opinions on the RICS Competencies and services provided by the Institution. Both these last suggest
a sound, informed basis for responding to subsequent sections of the questionnaire.
2.1 Respondents Organisation Profile

Whilst the majority of respondents were employed in private [practice, (52%) other sectors were
reasonably represented, 17% being engaged in contracting and 15% within the Public sector (Figure
3).
Specialist
subcontract
or, 1.70%
Specialist
supplier,
0.00%
Public
Sector,
14.60%
Other,
15.00%
Contracti
ng
organisat
ion,
16.90%
Private
practice
Quantity
Surveyor
(consulta
nt),
51.80%
Figure 3: Type of Company
Large (>
500),
37.90%
Medium
(100 499),
16.90%
Micro (1
- 10),
26.90%
Small
(11 99),
18.30%
Figure 4: Organisation Size
There was a fairly even spread across sizes of organisation, from micro (at 27% of respondents)
through to large (38%) as indicated in Figure 4.
2.2 Organisations Current Workload

Responses indicate that the principal elements of workload are in the perhaps foreseeable areas of
pre contract cost control (13%) and tender documentation (12%) post contract cost control (17%). In
addition, project management also features within the top 4 (13%), a reflection, presumably, of new
roles not dependent necessarily on traditional tendering procedures. The remaining 44% are spread
in a steadily descending order over the remaining suggested duties.
Part 5 Respondent Profile
In the light of the Industry representatives suggestion, later in the survey, that sustainability
(including whole life costing ) will play a major part in their predicted workload it is noticeable that
here, within current workload, whole life costing appears at the foot of the list, with only 2%
engagement (Figure 5).
Views of Industry
Percentage
Post-contract cost control (Interim valuations to
final accounts)
17.36%
13.39%
Project management
Pre-contract cost control (preliminary estimating,
cost planning)
12.97%
12.19%
6.46%
Other
5.70%
5.18%
4.58%
4.27%
Risk management
3.94%
Value management
3.85%
Managing claims
3.14%
2.71%
2.23%
Whole life costing
2.03%
Figure 5: Activities which make up Industry Current Workload
3 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies

The RICS Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction (2008) indicates that there are 10
Mandatory competencies, 7 Core competencies and 7 Optional competencies that a Chartered
Quantity Surveyor should satisfy. This was used as the basis for evaluation of the expected level of
competency a graduate QS should achieve at the completion of a RICS accredited QS degree
programme.
These competencies are to be satisfied in three cumulative stages as indicated below:
Level 1: knowledge (theoretical Knowledge)
Level 2: knowledge and practical experience (putting it into practice)
Level 3: knowledge, practical experience, and capacity to advise (explaining and advising)
Part 5 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies
Dispute resolution
Views of Industry
69.81%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
51.76%
49.56%
38.08%
40.00%
23.64%
30.00%
20.00%
26.83%
24.67%
10.16%
5.51%
10.00%
0.00%
Mandatory
Competencies
Core Competencies
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
The overall analysis of the expected competency levels for new QS graduates is given in Figure 6. In
the case of Mandatory Competencies
ompetencies respondents show appropriate appreciation
appreciation of the likely
achievement of graduates, strongest at Level 1 whilst weakest at Level 3. But 38% expecting to
achieve mandatory competencies at Level 2 seems very high as in most cases the RICS only expects
these competencies to be satisfied at Level 1. In the case of Core Competencies, those aligned most
closely with traditional skills, expectations are higher more employers expecting attainment of
Level 2. Again, 27% expected core competencies to be satisfied at Level 3 raise the issue whethe
whether
this is pragmatic. Expectations fall again in respect of Optional Competences, understandably as
these are, by definition, less likely to be mainstream QS activities.
3.1 Expected Achievement of Mandatory Competencies

The Mandatory competencies represent a set of competencies that needs to be satisfied by most
types of chartered surveyors. These are represented by 10 different competencies as indicated in
Error! Reference source not found. below.
Table 1:: Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory Competencies
M003 Client care
practice
Level 1
79.40%
85.00%
51.80%
26.90%
41.90%
Level 2
18.60%
13.00%
39.90%
56.80%
37.20%
Level 3
2.00%
2.00%
8.30%
16.30%
20.90%
60.80%
32.20%
7.00%

M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
Percentage rank
36.20%
49.50%
64.50%
21.60%
51.76%
51.20%
41.20%
30.20%
60.50%
38.08%
12.60%
9.30%
5.30%
17.90%
10.16%
Views of Industry
Generally, respondents had an expectation of skills at Level 1, less so at Level 3, which is to be
expected. The highest rated skills at Level 2 by a noticeable margin are in Team Working, Data
Management and Communication and Negotiation. It is to be expected perhaps that these,
transferable soft skills will be expected of recent graduates, familiar with IT and project work.
Scores allotted to Level 3 are understandably low, given that the expectation requirement is that this
Level will only be addressed after graduation. Team working at Level 3 does get a significant
weighting (17.9%) born, as above of the growing practice of team working within the university
curricula. However, over 30% expectation of M003 Client care, M005 Conduct rules, ethics and
professional practice, M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures to
be achieved at Level 2 seems unrealistic.
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
M001 Accounting
principles and
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
M003 Client care
M004 Communication
and negotiation
M007 Data
management
M005 Conduct rules,

ethics and
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 7: Expected Level of Achievement of Mandatory Competencies - New Graduate QS
3.1.1
Expected graduate Mandatory competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting,

Contracting & Public Sector perception
Comparative analysis of views for the three main sectors (consulting, contracting and public sector)
is presented here.
M008 Health and

safety
M002 Business
planning
Views of Industry
M001 Accounting
principles and
procedures
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
M002 Business
planning
M003 Client care
M008 Health and

safety
M004 Communication
and negotiation
M005 Conduct rules,
practice
M007 Data
management
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
management and
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 8 Expected levels of graduate Mandatory competencies: Consultant Perception
M001 Accounting
principles and
procedures
100.00%
M010 Team working
80.00%
40.00%
M009 Sustainability
M003 Client care
20.00%
0.00%
M004 Communication
and negotiation
M007 Data
management
M005 Conduct rules,

practice
M006 Conflict
avoidance, management
and1 disputeLevel
resolution
Level
2
Level 3
Figure 9 Expected levels of graduate Mandatory competencies: Contractor Perception
60.00%
Views of Industry
M001 Accounting
principles and
100%
M010 Team working
80%
M002 Business
planning
60%
40%
M009 Sustainability
M003 Client care
20%
0%
M008 Health and

safety
M004 Communication
and negotiation
M007 Data
management
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
Level 1
Level 2
M005 Conduct rules,

ethics and
Level 3
Figure 10 Expected levels of graduate Mandatory competencies: Public Sector Perception
All sectors were in agreement as to Level 3. The Public sector gave a roughly equal rating to Levels 1
and 2 (at 46% and 42% respectively). Both Consultancies and Contracting organisations showed
ratings in the 50-60% range for Level 1 and in the 30-40% range for Level 2. All sectors shared the
opinion that the two highest scoring areas were Business Planning and Accounting Principles at Level
One. The area of Sustainability achieved equally high scores from all. The pattern for Level 2 was
almost identical for Public and Consultancy sectors. Contracting varied, but all three ranked Team
Working, Communication and IT highly.
3.2 Expected Achievement of Core Competencies

The Core competencies represent the discipline specific competencies that are essential for the
function of quantity surveying. There are 7 different core competencies as indicated in Error!
Reference source not found. below.
Table 2: Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies
Core Competencies
services
works
Percentage rank
Level 1
32.60%
25.60%
Level 2
45.20%
53.20%
Level 3
22.30%
21.30%
24.60%
27.90%
20.90%
21.30%
12.60%
50.50%
50.80%
50.20%
46.50%
50.50%
24.90%
21.30%
28.90%
32.20%
36.90%
23.64%
49.56%
26.83%
Comparing Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 it is clear that there are more unified views across the
three sectors. All expect graduates to have high competencies in Team Working, Data Management
and Communication and Negotiation.
Views of Industry
Table 2 indicates that the highest rating is given to attainment at Level 2. This conforms to the
common expectation that students will, generally, have attained Level 2 by the time of graduating.
Correspondingly, there is a higher rating given for many competencies here at Level 3. Although
these are Core Skills it is important to ascertain whether a graduate can be expected to achieve
these competencies at Level 3, especially when Level 3 involves performing in the capacity of a client
advisor. This either indicates incorrect interpretation of achievement Levels or unrealistic
expectations. 37% expects T074 Quantification and costing of construction works be achieved at
Level 3 which is significant and highly over rated. A similar situation exists with T067 Project financial
control and reporting with 32% having Level 3 expectations. All other competencies have over 20%
expectation to be achieved at Level 3.
The lowest Level 2 ratings are given to Commercial Management (45.2%) and Project Financial
Control and Reporting (46.5%). All others are closely bunched, in the range between 50.2% and
53.2%.
T010 Commercial
management of
construction
0.6
0.5
T013 Construction
technology and
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

T062 Procurement and

tendering
Level 1
T022 Design economics

and cost planning
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 11: Expected Level of Achievement of Core Competencies - New Graduate QS
T074 Quantification
and costing of
construction works
Views of Industry
3.2.1
Expected graduate Core competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting,

is presented here.
T074 Quantification
and costing of
construction works

T010 Commercial
management of
construction
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
T017 Contract
practice
T022 Design
economics and cost
planning
T062 Procurement
and tendering
Level 1
T013 Construction
technology and
environmental
Level 2
Level 3
T074 Quantification
and costing of
construction works

T010 Commercial
management of
construction
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
T013 Construction
technology and
environmental
T022 Design
economics and cost
planning
T062 Procurement
and tendering
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 13 Expected levels of graduate Core competencies: Contractor Perception
Figure 12 Expected levels of graduate Core competencies: Consultant Perception
Views of Industry
T074 Quantification
and costing of
construction works

T010 Commercial
management of
construction
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
T013 Construction
technology and
T022 Design
economics and cost
planning
T062 Procurement and

tendering
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 14 Expected levels of graduate Core competencies: Public Sector Perception
The Contracting sector gave the lowest overall rating to Level 3 skills (13.71% as against 28% and
34% for Consultancy and the Private Sector respectively). All three gave the highest rating at Level 2,
which is in line with the traditional expectation that this skill level should have been reached by new
graduates. The Consultancy and Public sectors both gave noticeably higher ratings to Quantification
than did the Contracting sector. This may be explained by the fact that it is in the former that the
most preparation of documents takes place and so for these two, quality is an area of particular
significance. Accordingly perhaps, the Contracting sector gave by far the highest rating at Level 2 to
Commercial Management. Ratings for Construction Technology at Level 2 were very similar, at 53%,
59% and 50% respectively.
3.3 Expected Achievement of Optional Competencies

The Optional competencies are an indication of subspecialisation of QS services or a reflection of
experience gained in relevant areas of specialisation. This also represents an element of choice for
the APC candidate. It is expected that at least 2 optional competencies at Level 2 must be satisfied
by candidates facing APC. There are 7 optional competencies that are available for APC candidates in
quantity surveying.
The comparative analysis indicates that there is greater expectation levels from the Public Sector on
graduate competencies than all others with 3 competencies expected at Level 3 by majority and rest
at Level 2. Consultants also seem to have higher expectations for T074 Quantification and costing of
construction works with considerable numbers expecting it at Level 3.
10
Views of Industry
Table 3: Expected Level of Achievement of Optional Competencies
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
Percentage rank
Level 1
85.70%
30.90%
91.70%
83.40%
76.70%
60.80%
59.50%
69.81%
Level 2
13.30%
50.80%
7.30%
13.60%
19.90%
34.20%
33.60%
24.67%
Level 3
1.00%
18.30%
1.00%
3.00%
3.30%
5.00%
7.00%
5.51%
Returning to the pattern shown for Mandatory Competencies, above, the highest Levels of
expectation are seen at Level 1, the lowest by far at Level 3. However, there are noticeable extra
ordinary levels of expectation for some competencies: T016 Contract administration (over 50%),
T063 Programming and planning, and T077 Risk management at over 30%. These could be due to
one of these reasons:
1. Greater importance attached to these competencies even though these are currently
classified optional competencies.
2.
Wrong interpretation of competency achievement Levels.
T077 Risk
management
T063 Programming
and planning
T045 Insurance
T008 Capital
allowances
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
T016 Contract
administration
Level 1
T020 Corporate
recovery and
insolvency
T025 Due diligence
Figure 15: Expected Level of Achievement of Optional Competencies - New Graduate QS
Level 2
Level 3
The levels of expectation for T016 Contract administration are so high that there is more than 18%
expectation at Level 3.
11
Views of Industry
3.3.1
Expected graduate Optional competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting,

is presented here.
T008 Capital
allowances
100.00%
80.00%
T077 Risk
management
T016 Contract
administration
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
T020 Corporate
recovery and
insolvency
T063 Programming
and planning
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T008 Capital
allowances
100.00%
80.00%
T016 Contract
administration
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
T020 Corporate
recovery and
insolvency

planning
T045 Insurance
Level 1
T025 Due diligence
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 17 Expected levels of graduate Optional competencies: Contractor Perception
Figure 16 Expected levels of graduate Optional competencies: Consultant Perception
12
Views of Industry
T008 Capital
allowances
100.00%
80.00%
T016 Contract
administration
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
T020 Corporate
recovery and
insolvency

planning
Level 1
T025 Due diligence
Level 2
Level 3
Figure 18 Expected levels of graduate Optional competencies: Public Sector Perception
All three sectors consider T016 Contract administration the most important Optional competency at
Level 2 or 3. In general the Public Sector perceives a higher competency level for T063 Programming
and planning and T077 Risk management at Level 2.
The order and weighting for these competencies was similar across all sectors, the highest (at Level
1) ranging from 61% to76% and the lowest (at Level 3) between 5% and 9% . The most noticeable
exception to the general trend in the award of ratings was where the Public sector rated 34% of
Graduates at 34% at Level 3 in the area of Contract Administration, whereas the most common
rating at this Level was lesser than 5%.
4 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of

This section evaluates the level of awareness of the RICS NRM initiative and the publications of new
guidelines for estimating, measurements and whole life costing.
Note Scoring range: 1 Least aware to 5 Most aware
Responses to this question suggest that the order and extent of awareness of the NRM follow the
attention given to these by the media, together with their perceived topicality (Table 4 and Table 5).
There is most awareness of the Order of Cost Estimating, which has been published and is already
used in some quarters. This is followed by the proposed Whole Life Cycle Costing document. Whilst
this has not yet been published it perhaps attracts attention in line with rising awareness of the
significance of sustainability-related issues (Figure 19). There may be some caution or indifference to
Part 5 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
T045 Insurance
13
Views of Industry
the replacement for SMM7, until it has been published and it can be seen to be an improvement in
some way.
Table 4: Level of awareness of NRM Initiatives
NRM Initiative
Whole Life Costing
Mean
3.12
2.63
2.78
Median
3.00
3.00
3.00
Mode
3
3
3
Std. Deviation
1.34
1.31
1.30
Table 5: NRM Initiatives awareness levels
30%
2
16%
24%
19%
3
28%
26%
29%
4
20%
14%
19%
5
20%
12%
11%
29%
28%
25% 24% 26%
25%
20%
1
16%
25%
22%
22%
20% 20%
19%
19%
16% 16%
14%
15%
12%
11%
10%
5%
0%
Procurement an
alternative to SMM7
1
Whole Life Costing
Figure 19: Level of Awareness of the RICS NRM Initiatives
In evaluating level of importance of these initiatives a similar order has been perceived (Table 6 and
Table 7). Here, as above, the document already published receives the highest rating while others in
the order of their expected appearance. There is more support here for the replacement to SMM7
than above indicating that this is an important task.
Note Scoring range: 1 Least important to 5 Most important
Table 6: Level of Importance of the RICS NRM Initiatives
NRM Initiative
Whole Life Costing
Mean
3.31
3.09
2.92
Median
3.00
3.00
3.00
Mode
3
3
3
Std. Deviation
1.23
1.25
1.18
Part 5 Level of Awareness and Importance of the three RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
NRM Initiative
Whole Life Costing
14
Views of Industry
Table 7: NRM Initiatives importance levels
NRM Initiative
Whole Life Costing
1
10%
12%
15%
2
15%
22%
20%
40%
29% 27%
30%
25%
5
19%
16%
11%
27%
15%
10%
23%
22%
19%
20%
10%
4
27%
23%
20%
36%
35%
15%
3
29%
27%
36%
16%
12%
20%
20%
15%
11%
5%
0%
Order of cost estimating
and elemental cost planning
Procurement an
alternative to SMM7
1
Whole Life Costing
Figure 20: Level of Importance of the RICS NRM Initiatives
In overall terms (Figure 20) it is clear that all three aspects of the NRM initiatives are thought to be
important for the industry in general.

This section aims to ascertain the views of professionals on the future role of the quantity surveyor
and the directions of the industry. It also re-visits QS competencies with the view of ranking
competencies based on perceived importance considering future industry workload trends.
The perception of industry representatives of future areas of work in the industry was analysed in
this question. Refurbishment scored the highest followed closely by new building construction
perceived as growth areas for industry. This picks up on the general trend in the preservation and
retro-fitting of the existing building stock. Median scores and standard deviation both suggest a
degree of disagreement between respondents was fairly low.
Table 8: Future areas of work for Quantity Surveyors
Areas of Work
Building Services
Offshore Oil & Gas
Refurbishment
Mean
3.71
3.31
3.41
2.30
3.16
3.88
Median
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Mode
3
4
4
2
3
4
Std. Deviation
1.01
1.08
0.97
1.10
1.10
0.91
Part 5 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor
15
Views of Industry
Trends in future areas of work

Refurbishment
Offshore Oil & Gas
Mean
Building Services
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Figure 21:: Trends in future areas of work
Of other areas suggested by respondents as being potentially important in the future the top 5 most
frequently mentioned were:
(1) Sustainability, 40 respondents
(2) (2) Power Generation and Distribution , 12 respondents
(3) Project Management , 8 respondents
(4) Alternative Dispute Resolution, Contact Management and Maintenance,
Maintenance , 4 respondents each
(5) Data management and Employers Agent Duties, 3 respondents.

This section analyses the views of Industry on the perceived level of relative importance of
competencies. The respondents were required to score each competency on a scale of 1 to 5 (1
(1least important and 5 - most important). The result of the analysis is presented in Table 9 below.
RICS Competencies
Mean
Median
Mode

T074 Quantification and costing of
construction works
M003 Client care
practice
4.56
4.40
5.00
5.00
5
5
Std.
Deviation
0.72
0.92
4.33
4.25
4.20
4.19
4.17
4.01
3.82
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.82
0.84
0.84
0.91
0.90
1.06
1.14
3.99
4.00
0.92
Table 9:: Perception of order of importance of RICS QS Competencies
16
Views of Industry
M010 Team working
dispute resolution procedures
M009 Sustainability
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
3.99
3.93
4.00
4.00
4
4
0.91
1.01
3.64
4.00
0.95
3.51
3.41
3.39
3.22
3.15
2.61
2.80
2.61
2.46
2.50
2.39
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
1.07
1.19
1.14
1.09
1.11
1.05
1.09
1.18
0.89
1.08
1.00
The results show a very low standard deviation for most rankings (except few slightly higher)
indicating that the views expressed are more unified and similar to the mean (i.e. results are closely
related). As such Figure 22 shows the median distribution of the results. From this analysis it is clear
that all Core competencies have been ranked with the highest level of importance followed by
mandatory and then Optional competencies for the most part.
A median score of 5 has been attached to the Core competencies: T062 Procurement and tendering,
T067 Project financial control and reporting, T074 Quantification and costing of construction works.
This is followed by 5 Mandatory competencies, 4 Core competencies and 2 Optional competencies
receiving a median score of 4. It is notable that M004 Communication and negotiation, M003 Client
care, M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice receiving a very high rating over some
Core competencies (these have a mode of 5) followed by M010 Team working and M006 Conflict
avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures with a mode of 4. It is also noted that
T016 Contract administration and T077 Risk management even though set as Optional competencies
received a very high median score (4) with a mode of 4 making these significant.
17
Views of Industry
Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies

T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
M003 Client care
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Median
Figure 22: Order of Importance of RICS QS Competencies
18
5.2.1

3
4
5
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
2
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
Figure 23 Rank score level of importance of competencies scoring 1 to 5; 1 least to 5 most
Relative Importance of the QS Competencies: Comparative analysis of Consulting,

Here, all three sectors returned much the same range of mean scores, relating to the same items.
However, on examination of the Median scores some differences emerged. Firstly, the Consultancy
sector chose to give maximum importance (a rating of 5) to five areas, the Contracting sector chose
three and the Public sector only one, as follows;
0.00
M003 Client care
Views of Industry
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
19
Views of Industry
Table 10 Perception of order of importance of RICS QS Competencies: Consultant, Contractor and Public Sector
Perception
Consultancy
Contracting
Public
SCORE 5
Contract Practice
SCORE 5
Design economics and Cost Planning
SCORE 5
Procurement and Tendering
SCORE 5
Project Financial Control and Reporting
SCORE 5
SCORE 5
Quantification and Costing
SCORE 5
SCORE 5
Commercial Management of Construction
SCORE 5
Whilst this perhaps just reflects the differing types of involvement between Consultancy and
Contracting, it is interesting that the Public Sector does not mirror the Consultancy sector more, as
the two are performing much the same functions.
At the bottom end of the scale, all three sectors are in agreement over the Optional Competencies
of Corporate recovery and insolvency and Due Diligence, ranking both at under 3. All three sectors
rate the majority of Competencies whether Mandatory or Core at 4.00. Construction Technology is
also rated at 4.00 by all three sectors.

This section attempts to capture views on Quantity Surveying education system. The questions
primarily refer to courses accredited by the RICS. This section analyses the perception of industry
professionals on the level of knowledge of new graduates, the differences in Consultant QS and
Contractor QS education, suitability of curricular, delivery of programmes, and university and
industry collaboration in QS education.
1 - Not at all
2 - Partially
3 - Undecided
4 - Almost fully
5 - Perfectly
Part 5 Views on Quantity Surveying Education
6.1 Employers level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency

achievement
20
The respondents were asked whether the graduates meet their expectations with respect to
satisfying competencies. The ranking scale used was as follows:
Views of Industry
Table 11: Employers' Perception of QS Graduates level of satisfaction on RICS QS Competencies in Mean Rank order
Competencies
Mean
Median
Mode

M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
services
M003 Client care
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
2.96
2.90
2.77
2.60
2.58
2.57
2.55
2.51
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Std.
Deviation
0.99
0.89
0.95
0.87
0.92
0.94
0.98
0.98
2.39
2.59
2.46
2.46
2.11
2.52
2.48
2.40
2.39
2.39
2.38
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3
2
2 or 3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.92
0.99
0.96
0.91
0.92
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.88
1.08
0.88
2.28
2.27
2.07
2.05
2.05
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2
2
1
1
1
0.88
0.88
0.94
0.95
0.98
Mean scores (Figure 24) in respect of all competencies lie within the range 2.00 to 3.00, that is,
between partially and undecided . This cannot be described as a resounding vote of confidence
in the graduates capabilities by any measure. Excluding certain Optional Competencies the lowest
score for a Mandatory Competence (2.28) was for Business Planning. The highest three (2.77, 2.90
and 2.96) were for Sustainability, Team Working and Data Management. Core skill ratings ranged
between 2.39, for Quantification and costing of construction works, through to 2.59 for design
economics and cost planning. It is noticeable that Measurement, one of the most traditional and still
sought after skills (See Q.6 and Q.11) receives the lowest rating of all Core Skills.
Results in Table 11 show fairly low standard deviation values indicating that scoring is fairly uniform
across respondents and near to the mean.
21
Views of Industry
Mean
2.96
M010 Team working
2.90
M009 Sustainability
2.77
2.60
2.59
2.58
2.57
2.55
2.52
2.51
2.48
2.46
2.46
2.40
M003 Client care
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.38
2.28
2.27
2.11
T045 Insurance
2.07
2.05
T025 Due diligence
2.05
It is interesting to note that where there is higher level of expectation for a competency there is
lower level of satisfaction. For example competencies such as T074 Quantification and costing of
construction works, T010 Commercial management of construction and M003 Client care received
high expected competency level resulting in very low satisfaction rating.
Figure 24: Employers' Perception of QS Graduates on RICS QS Competencies
22
Views of Industry
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
T045 Insurance
T025 Due diligence
T074 Quantification and costing of
M010 Team working
M009 Sustainability
M003 Client care
0.00
5.00
A total of 122 comments were made by those respondents who had given scores of 1 or 2. Some
expressed negative feelings towards the training and/or experience of Graduates, whilst others
showed understanding of the graduates particular circumstances. The principle areas of comment,
in order of incidence, were as follows.
The most common observations suggested that classroom experience and expectations are
very different to those of the workplace
Secondly, Graduates display little understanding of how to put (skills) into practice
Thirdly, the Competency requirements of the RICS are seen by many as inappropriate to
their level or focus of work on graduation
Fourthly, Graduates cannot and should not be expected to be as competent as we (the
employers) would like them to be
Finally, there were a number of employers who stated that they had little experience
themselves of employing graduates, and thus they found it hard to give an accurate
assessment or opinion.
Figure 25 Employers level of satisfaction on graduate performance
23
Views of Industry
In addition, there were eleven other groups of specific criticisms or observations. None, however,
are as frequent as those above.
6.1.1
Level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement: Comparative

analysis of Consulting, Contracting & Public Sector perception
In their ratings of graduate capability in individual competencies a similar pattern emerges across all
three sectors, mean scores for all but one Competency lying between 2.00 and 3.00. The only
exception to this is that graduates are awarded 3.00 in respect of Data Management by both
Consultancy and the Private sector (2.95 by Contracting).
Looking at the ranked order of ratings those receiving the lowest scores in all three sectors are the
Option Competencies. The two top scoring competencies in all three cases are Data management,
followed by Team working. Sustainability is in the top four in all cases. Of the two most traditional
Quantity Surveying Skills, there are different findings.
Table 12 QS Graduates level of satisfaction on RICS QS Competencies in Mean Rank order: Consultant, Contractor and
Public Sector Perception
Competency
Consultancy
Contracting
Public
Construction Technology
11th Highest
10th Highest
11th Highest
Quantification and costing
17th Highest
7th Highest
15th Highest
Possibly the lower ratings awarded to Quantification skills by both the consultancy and Public sector
reflect higher expectations in this area, both being responsible for Bill production and other such
documentation whereas the contracting sector is not so engaged in this. It is noticeable that for all
three sectors these Core skills are quite far from the top of the list of capabilities as perceived by the
respondents to the survey.
6.2 Level of awareness of and satisfaction with the curriculum used to

produce graduate QSs
Of the respondents to this survey (Table 13), over half (52.5%) indicate that they are either not at all
or only partially aware of the content of the curricula taught in university. A further 29% perceive to
be reasonably aware. This leaves only 18% of this sample of the industry who perceive to be fully
aware.
This indicates a high degree of disconnect with the QS education system which is worrying as
professional education requires good degree of industry-academia collaboration.
Whilst Procurement and Tendering came 4th on the Public sector list it was 8th on the Consultancy
list. The same Competency was 13th for the Contracting sector. This is perhaps surprising when an
increasing proportion of project nowadays are issued by Contractors engaged in Design and Build
and the Like.
24
Views of Industry
Table 13: Level of awareness of the content of the curriculum taught in University
Level of Awareness
1 - Not at all aware
2 - Partially aware
3 - Reasonably aware
4 Aware
5 - Perfectly aware
Total
Mean = 2.51
Median = 2.00
Frequency
59
99
88
40
15
301
Percentage
19.60%
32.90%
29.20%
13.30%
5.00%
100.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 - Not at all
aware
2 - Partially aware 3 - Reasonably

aware
4 - Aware
5 - Perfectly
aware
Analysing Table 14, 60% of Employer respondents were dissatisfied or only partially satisfied with
the curriculum. Those reasonably satisfied or better amounted to only 40%. This directly
corresponds with the views expressed on awareness with the curricular. Therefore it is not
surprising that the industry respondents would be less satisfied with the QS curricular as they are
clearly not aware of what is being included in the curricular used.
Table 14: Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QS
1 - Not satisfied
4 - Satisfied
Total
Mean = 2.29
Median = 2.00
Frequency
47
113
85
17
1
263
Percentage
17.90%
43.00%
32.30%
6.50%
0.40%
100.00%
Figure 26: Level of awareness of the content of the curriculum taught in University
25
Views of Industry
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 - Not satisfied
2 - Partially
satisfied
3 - Reasonably
satisfied
4 - Satisfied
5 - Perfectly
satisfied
Figure 27: Level of satisfaction with the curriculum used to produce graduate QS
6.3 Areas not adequately covered by the curriculum

Altogether there were 150 responses to this optional question. There was a wide variety of
demands, some quite specific, reflecting the particular needs of individual practices. However, some
general trends emerged also. A call was made for more coverage of QS Skills generally (citing
technology, measurement, estimating, pricing and the like) by 12 respondents.
An increased concentration on Measurement was requested by 41 respondents and an increase in
technology-related subjects was requested by 31.
Other main area where respondents sought more work was Legal /contractual skills (6).
6.4 The level of confidence in Lecturers programme delivery capability

There was generally reasonable to full confidence with the level of lecturers academic knowledge,
QS Practice and Use of teaching materials. The rank criteria used were:
4 - Confident
5 - Fully confident
Further 12 respondents suggested that graduates lacked practical, industry experience.
26
Views of Industry
Table 15: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability
Criterion
Academic Knowledge
handouts, tutorials etc.)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
0%
7%
1%
2
6%
37%
15%
3
30%
37%
45%
4
44%
16%
34%
5
19%
3%
5%
45%
44%
37% 37%
34%
30%
19%
6%
16%
7%
3%
0%
Academic Knowledge
15%
5%
1%
Use of teaching material

(notes, handouts, tutorials
etc.)
Figure 28: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability
Table 16: Confidence levels in lecturers' ability in the following three knowledge areas
Median
Mode
3.77
2.70
3.28
4.00
3.00
3.00
4
2, 3 (Bimodal)
3
Std.
Deviation
0.84
0.91
0.81
This would be encouraging to the academia to see that the industry in general has reasonable
degree of confidence in the academia to deliver QS programmes. However, only 59% were
reasonably confident of the QS Practice skills of academics.

The majority of respondents considered (Figure 29) the Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate
Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation to be more valuable than the production of a
Graduate with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying, by a
ratio of 57% to 43%. This mirrors the popular conception of the Industrys response to academia,
although in fact the gap is narrower than might have been expected.
Academic Knowledge
handouts, tutorials)
Mean
27
Views of Industry
43%
Graduate with overall

academic knowledge and
a good foundation in
Quantity Surveying
57%
Training Quantity
Surveyors for immediate
Quantity Surveying
employment upon
graduation
Figure 29: Industry Perception of the Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor
This is a very important factor that academia, industry and the RICS must fully resolve as the focus of
academic programmes in quantity surveying will have to be adjusted accordingly.
accordingly.
The Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Comparative
is presented here.
37%
63%
Universities should
immediate Quantity
Surveying employment
upon graduation
good foundation in
Quantity Surveying
Figure 30 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Consultant Perception
6.5.1
28
Views of Industry
47%
53%
Universities should
immediate Quantity
upon graduation
good foundation in
Quantity Surveying
Figure 31 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Contractor Perception

Perception
48%
52%
Universities should
immediate Quantity
upon graduation
good foundation in
Quantity Surveying
Comparing Figure 30, Figure 31 and Figure 32,, it is fascinating to see that the public sector holds
entirely different view to that of consultant and contractor on this particular issue. Whilst the latter
two went with the popular industry
industry notion about QS education that Universities should concentrate
on training Quantity surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation, the
majority of the public sector respondents still believe that Universities should produce a graduate
with overall academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying.
A simple explanation for this could be the fact that private sector being largely profit
profit-driven is always
on the look-out
out for employees who can hit the ground running with little or no training. On the
contrary, the public sector which seems too often consider the bigger picture is in a better position
to look at the more important long-term
long
benefits of providing on-the-job
job training to the right
candidates with basic academic
ademic knowledge.
Figure 32 Role of Universities in producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor: Public Sector Perception
29
Views of Industry

Over 50% of respondents were either willing or very willing to collaborate with universities. Only
11% were unwilling. This is encouraging. Through active collaboration lies the route to better
understanding in areas such as analysis above (6.5).
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 - Not at all
willing
2 - Partially willing
3 - Unsure
4 - Willing
5 - Very willing
Figure 33: Willingness of the Industry to collaborate with Universities on QS Education
Mean = 3.40
Median = 4.00
Notwithstanding the above enthusiasm (Figure 33) those stating that are actually likely to commit
time to such commitment amount to only 28% of all respondents (Figure 34). Given their enthusiasm
to collaborate it is perhaps shortage of time or opportunity which prevents actual involvement?
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 - Not at all likely 2 - Partially likely
3 - Unsure
Figure 34: Possibility to commit time for industry collaborative activities
Mean = 2.79
Median = 3.00
4 - Likely
5 - Very Likely
20.00%
30
Views of Industry
.
If the enthusiasm expressed for collaboration can be converted to real time commitment both the
industry and academia will benefit immensely.

This section attempts to capture the views of industry on the different modes of study and industry
placement offered for undergraduates undertaking Quantity Surveying programmes. Seven
alternative modes of study were presented for evaluation as indicated in Table 15. Respondents
were requested to indicate preferences on 1 to 7 as Most to Least preferred.
Table 17: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
Modes of Study
experience no
placement
university study with
prior experience no
placement
placement
1
1.00
2
0.7
3
4.00
4
8.00
5
32.60
6
15.30
7
34.90
Total
100.00
4.00
15.60
26.20
26.60
13.60
9.30
1.70
100.00
39.50
31.90
14.60
7.60
3.30
1.00

university study
summer placements
5.30
24.30
26.60
21.60
12.00
5.60
2.70
100.00

university study
45.50
11.00
13.30
11.00
10.00
4.00
3.30
100.00

1.00
3.30
3.70
8.60
10.00
36.20
32.60
100.00

3.00
11.60
9.60
13.60
15.00
24.30
19.90
100.00
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Of the seven possible study patterns (Figure 35 and Table 17) the highest, most positive, score was
given to Part time undergraduate university study, followed by full-time undergraduate study with a
1 year placement. The least popular routes were full-time postgraduate study non-cognate route,
followed by full time undergraduate university study with no prior experience and no placement.
The negative response of the industry sample to postgraduate study for non- cognate graduates is
note worthy, given the particular push given to this route in recent years by the RICS.
Part 5 Modes of Study & Industry Placement
100.00
31
Views of Industry
50.00
45.00

experience no placement
40.00
35.00

university study with prior
experience no placement
30.00

placement
25.00
20.00

university study summer
placements
15.00
10.00

university study
5.00
0.00
1
Figure 35: Mode of study that produces the best Graduate Quantity Surveyor
7.2 Industry Placement in Construction Organisation

Generally, industry commitment to placements (Table 18 & Figure 36) is sound, and will be
maintained to some extent
ent in time of recession, bearing out the support shown above ((7.1) for new
employees with some experience of the industry.
Table 18: Level of commitment to placement
Mean
3.49
2.79
Median
4.00
3.00
27%
30%
25%
10%
Std. Deviation
1.22
1.29
28% 28%
26%
26%
18%
20%
15%
Mode
3
3
13%
13%
15%
8%
5%
0%
1 - Not at all
committed
2 - Partially
committed
3 - Committed

Figure 36: Level of commitment to placement
4 - Very
Committed
During a recession
5 - Fully
committed
Level of Commitment
During a recession
32
Views of Industry
80% of respondents indicated that they were committed to industry placement which dropped to
56% during recession periods.
Over 85% of the employer sample recognises the importance of a structured placement training
model (Table 19). Again, this is consistent with responses analysed in 7.1 and 7.2 above.
Table 19: Importance of a structured placement training
model
Level of Importance
1 - Not at all
important
2 - Partially
important
3 - Important
4 - Very important
5 - Extremely
important
Total
Mean = 3.86
Median = 4.00
Std. Deviation =
1.06
Mode = 5
Frequenc
y
8
Percenta
ge
2.70%
21
7.20%
76
86
102
25.90%
29.40%
34.80%
293
100.00%
1 - Not at
all
important
, 2.70%
5Extremely
important
, 34.80%
2Partially
important
, 7.20%
3Important
, 25.90%
4 - Very
important
, 29.40%

model
7.3 Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement

This section analyses the views of respondents on perceived benefits of placement (Table 20 &
Figure 38). Responses varied to the options offered considerably.
There is no consensus upon whether the Placement period can be seen as a good source of
economic and flexible labour. 30% feel that it can, 34% that it cannot, and 34% uncertain. This is a
contentious question where hard opinions are tested. The opinions are evenly divided as 34% stated
they are uncertain.
In answer to part three, 46% of respondents feel the Placement to be a source of new ideas from
current education, 36% disagree with this and the remainder are uncertain. This shows that there is
reasonably high perception that placement positively contributes the employer.
Finally, 61% of respondents feel that the Placement Year allows for the two-way flow of knowledge
between university and industry, 30% do not, the remaining 9% are uncertain. This is significant and
very positive and is very much in line with the opinions expressed for the areas analysed before (7.1,
7.2 and 7.3).
There is the greatest agreement with the first section of the question, where 89% feel it to be a good
test bed for potential staff after graduation, only 1% disagree with this. They see it as a trail period
of employment to test the suitability of a future permanent employee.
33
Views of Industry
Table 20: Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement
Criteria
It is a good test bed for potential staff after
graduation
Yes
91.19%
Uncertain
7.46%
No
1.36%
It is a source of economic and flexible labour
29.90%
35.40%
34.71%
It provides source of new ideas from current

education
45.70%
35.74%
18.56%
It allows for a two way flow of knowledge

between universities and industry
60.82%
29.90%
9.28%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
It is a good test bed
for potential staff
after graduation
It is a source of
economic and
flexible labour
Yes
It provides source of It allows for a two

new ideas from
way flow of
current education knowledge between
universities and
industry
Uncertain
No
Figure 38: Perceived opinion on the benefits of offering a placement

The RICS has three main routes of membership available for prospective members joining. The level
of awareness of these routes of membership within industry and their perception on the
appropriateness of these routes in producing a competent chartered surveyor was evaluated in the
following sections.
This section investigates the level of understanding of the three main routes of membership
available for members to become a chartered surveyor.
Part 5 RICS Membership Routes and Training
This section evaluates the level of understanding on the routes of membership and their
appropriateness in producing chartered surveyors. It also investigates the influences of other
professional bodies and training of APC candidates.
34
Views of Industry
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
43%
33%
27%
18% 19%
9% 8%
29%
25%
20% 21%
20%
17%
8%
3%
1 - Not at all
Graduate route
5 - Perfectly well
Figure 39: Level of understanding of the routes of membership

Table 21: Analysis of level of understanding of the routes of membership

Graduate route
Mean
4.00
3.23
3.31
Median
4.00
3.00
3.00
Mode
5
3
3
Std. Deviation
1.10
1.22
1.23
It is clear that the Graduate route of membership is the most well understood route while other two
routes are equally understood. This is somewhat expected given that these two were recently
introduced where as the graduate route has been well established over the years. There are 27%
each who do not clearly understand the Assoc RICS route as well as the Senior professional route.
These are significant numbers and can have a detrimental impact on the RICS membership
recruitment when employers do not clearly understand routes of membership to their professional
body.
The appropriateness of routes of membership
45%
39%
40%
35%
29%
29%
30%
36%
30% 31%
33%
23%
25%
20%
8%
10%
5%
13%
13%
15%
1%
4%
8%
4%
0%
1 - Not at all
appropriate
Graduate route
Figure 40: Level of Appropriateness of routes of membership
8.1.2
35
Views of Industry
Ratings in response to this question are very close, all deemed to be fairly appropriate
appropriate, but with the
most popular being the Graduate Route , least most popular being the Associate Route. There is
17% and 12% who see both Senior Professional route and Assoc RICS route are inappropriate
respectively.
Table 22: Analysis of Appropriateness of routes of membership

Graduate route
Mean
3.85
3.36
3.67
Median
4.00
3.00
4.00
Mode
5
3
4
Std. Deviation
0.99
1.00
1.03
8.1.3 Support given to candidates to attain professional qualification

In Table 23 it is clear that almost 70% of candidates go through the graduate route from
organisations while followed by Senior professional route and Assoc RICS route
ro ute at 17% and 13%
respectively.
Table 24: Candidates supported through routes of
membership

Graduate route
Assoc RICS route
(associate)
Total
80%
Percentage
69.64%
13.09%
60%
40%
20%
17.27%
100.00%
0%
Graduate
route
Assoc RICS
Senior
route
Professional
(associate)
route
Figure 41: Candidates supported through routes of

membership
80%
56%
60%
46%
50%
40%
33%
24%
30%
28%
27%
20%
10%
4%
4%
7%
13%
24%
14%
11%
8% 7%
4%
7% 6%
11%
0%
1 - Not important
2 - Little important
RICS
Figure 42 Importance of Professional status
3 - Important
CIOB
CICES
4 - Very important
Other
5 - Extremely
important
68%
70%
36
Views of Industry
The RICS was judged to be the most appropriate organisation, rated twice as important as either
CIOB or CICES. This might be accounted for by the fact that most of the respondents (98%) were
members themselves of the RICS.
Table 25: Analysis of Importance of attaining Chartered status
Professional Institutions
Mean
Median
Mode
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors RICS

Chartered Institute of Builders CIOB
Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors
CICES
Other
4.25
2.32
2.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
5
1
1
Std.
Deviation
1.05
1.21
1.18
1.82
1.00
1.37
8.3 Availability and Importance of a Structured Training Programme for

APC
8.3.1 Availability of a Structured Training Programme
Figure 43 shows that 56 % of respondents reported that their firm or company have a structured
training scheme in operation, 44% report that they do not. The Public Sector is what is performing
worst with 57% not having a Structured Training Programme in the organisation.
65%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
56%
44%
40.00%
35%
61%
39%
57%
43%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
Have a Structured
Training Programme
No Structured Training
Programme
Figure 44: Availability of Structured Training Programme for APC
44% of organisations not having a Structured Training Programme are a matter of grave concern
especially when the respondents overwhelmingly perceive it to be a very important aspect of the
APC training.
Surprisingly perhaps, whilst over 60 % of both Consultancy and Construction sectors (65% and 61%
respectively) responded that they do indeed have such a Training Programme, the figure for the
Public sector is only 43%. This last is an area where one might have expected quite high levels of
provision of staff training.
0.00%
37
Views of Industry
8.3.2 Importance of Structured Training Programme
70% of respondents suggested that having a Structured Training Programme is very or extremely
important. Only 8% felt it to be not important at all. This should be read and considered in the light
of the responses in the analysis above (8.3.1).
Table 26: Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC candidates
Level of Importance
3 - Important
4 - Very important
Total
Frequency
24
19
47
79
132
301
Percentage
8.00%
6.30%
15.60%
26.20%
43.90%
100.00%
Mean = 3.92
Median = 4.00
Mode = 5
60.00%
50.00%
52%
44%
39%
40.00%
31%31%
30.00%
20.00%
26%
24%
16%
22%
25%
21%
3 - Important
4 - Very important
13%
10.00%
0.00%
ConsultantContractor
Public
Sector
Figure 45 Importance of Structured Training Programme for APC
The analysis of the importance of the structured training programme by sectors (Figure 46) also
indicates that Consultants attach greater importance to it than both the Contractors and the Public
Sector.
This is considered to be highly important by 52% of Consultancy respondents, by 31% of Contractors
and by 39% of the Private sector. Thus, whilst the Private sector rates the need for such provision as
noticeably higher than do contractors, actual provision seems much lower, if the figures reported in
32 (above) are correct. It is perhaps not surprising to see the figure for Consultancies to be the
highest, as they have traditionally had the strongest links with the RICS and its qualification
structures.
Total
38
Views of Industry

This section attempts to capture the views of the industry on RICS as a professional body regulating
the Quantity Surveying profession.

Table 27: Summary of Analysis of perception on quality of services provided
RICS Services
profession A
Developing standards and new methods of
practice B
C
World-wide representative of the Quantity
Surveying profession - D
Mean
3.60
Median
4.00
Mode
4
Std. Deviation
1.11
3.32
3.00
1.01
3.19
3.00
1.04
3.23
3.00
1.17
Dissemination of related information - E

Influencing related national policy - F
Continued Professional Development for the
Quantity Surveying profession - G
2.98
2.86
3.31
3.00
3.00
3.00
3
3
4
1.05
1.09
1.13
General member services (directory, journal,

benefits scheme etc..) - H
2.86
3.00
1.09
Responses to this question produced a fairly consistent result across all of the suggested services, all
having a median score of 3 except for (A) Regulating the QS profession where the score was 4. The
lowest ratings (mean scores) being given to (H) General member servicers and (F) the influence the
RICS might have on national policy. The lower standard deviation indicates that the responses
across sectors are fairly uniform (detailed analysis of data confirms this as well).
40%
39%
40.00%
34%
35.00%
39%
34%
29%
25%
24%
25.00%
19%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
35%
31%
30%
28%
30.00%
41%
39%
10%
13%
12%
10%
7%
6%
4%
17%
9%
0.00%
A
B
D
2
Figure 47: Perception on quality of services provided
E
4
Part 5 Views on the Role of RICS
45.00%
39
Views of Industry
Generally a mid-point, neutral score was given to the above listed services. The Institution fares best
in respect of its regulation of the QS Profession and in its provision of CPD. One of its poorest ratings
was in respect of its influencing of national policy which perhaps the RICS would have to consider it
its own policy directions.
Table 28: Perception on quality of services provided
Service
Regulating the Quantity
Developing standards and
new methods of practice
Regulation of Quantity
Surveying education
World-wide representative
of the Quantity Surveying
profession
information
Influencing related
national policy
Continued Professional
Development for the
Quantity Surveying
profession
General member services
(directory, journal, benefits
scheme etc...)
1
4.20%
2
13.60%
3
24.40%
4
34.10%
5
23.70%
6.30%
10.50%
39.00%
33.80%
10.50%
6.80%
15.50%
39.60%
28.10%
10.10%
10.30%
15.20%
29.80%
30.90%
13.80%
10.00%
19.60%
39.30%
25.00%
6.10%
12.30%
23.10%
38.60%
18.80%
7.20%
8.60%
13.70%
29.20%
35.40%
13.10%
12.60%
21.80%
40.70%
16.80%
8.10%
Quality of services provided by the RICS: Comparative analysis of Consulting,

It will be seen from the chart below that the greatest contentment with RICS services is shown, in
every case, by respondents from the Public sector. Correspondingly, this sector registers the lowest
levels of dissatisfaction. The least contentment is shown in the highest number of areas (5/8) by the
Contracting sector, although the differences between this sector and the Consultancy sector are not
as great as between these and the Public sector.
The most satisfactory provision, for all respondents, appears to be Regulation of the Profession,
whilst the area where there is universal dissatisfaction is General Member services.
9.1.1
Code
A
40
Views of Industry
Table 29 Perception on quality
uality of services provided by the RICS: Consultant, contractor and Public Sector Perception
Consultant
QS
Contractor
QS
Consultant
QS
Contractor
QS
Public
Sector QS
Poor /
V.poor
Public
Sector
QS
Poor / V
Poor
Service
Poor /
V.poor
Good/
V.Good
Good/
V.Good
Good/
V.Good
Regulating the
Profession
Developing
Standards
Regulating QS
Education
World-wide
Representatn
Dissemination of
Info.
Influencing
Nat.Policy
Continued CPD
Genera Member
Services
16%
24%
17%
57%
52%
57%
15%
24%
10%
42%
30%
52%
21%
24%
21%
38%
28%
41%
30%
24%
19%
40%
44%
50%
32%
35%
16%
26%
26%
37%
40%
28%
24%
22%
19%
35%
29%
28%
17%
34%
14%
28%
42%
20%
45%
23%
60%
35%
The most common response lay in the mid range of scores, with only 24% of respondents being very
or highly satisfied and 31% being satisfied little or not at all.
all The low standard deviation indicates
that the results are fairly uniform across sectors as well (confirmed by the detailed data anal
analysis as
well).
Level of
Satisfaction
1 - Not satisfied
2
3
4
5 - Fully satisfied
Total
Mean = 2.87
Median = 3.00
Std. Deviation =
0.98
Mode = 3
Frequenc
y
32
61
134
63
11
301
Percentag
e
10.60%
20.30%
44.50%
20.90%
3.70%
100.00%
1 - Not satisfied
4%
11%
21%
20%
45%
Figure 48: Overall level of satisfaction
5 - Fully satisfied
Table 30: Summary of Overall Satisfaction
41
Views of Industry
9.3 Industry level of Communications with the RICS

Again, most responses fell in the mid range, 33% being very or highly satisfied and 28% being
satisfied little or not at all.
Table 31: Level of Communication with members
Level of
Communication
1 - Very poor
2
3
4
5 - Very good
Total
Mean = 3.04
Median = 3.00
Mode = 3
Frequen
cy
25
58
118
80
20
301
Percenta
ge
8.30%
19.30%
39.20%
26.60%
6.60%
100.00%
1 - Very poor
27%
7% 8%
5 - Very good
19%
39%
Figure 49: Level of Communication with members
9.4 Appropriateness of Services provided by the RICS to Industry

The majority of respondents felt that RICS responds unsatisfactorily towards their needs. 39% of
responses fell below the midpoint, 36% at mid point and only 25 % above this. This is an important
factor for RICS to further consider.
Level of
Appropriateness
1 - Not at all
appropriate
2
3
4
Total
Mean = 2.77
Median = 3.00
Std. Deviation =
1.01
Mode = 3
Frequen
cy
35
Percenta
ge
11.60%
83
109
65
9
301
27.60%
36.20%
21.60%
3.00%
100.00%

3
3%
22%
2
4
12%
27%
36%
Figure 50: Appropriateness of RICS Services
9.5 The value of RICS services

Only 15% of respondents consider that RICS Membership
Memb
provides good
od or very good value for
money. The majority 55% consider RICS services do not provide value for money. Further 29%
remains in the midpoint. This is one of the most important factors the RICS need to consider for the
future.
Table 32: Appropriateness of RICS Services
42
Views of Industry
Table 33: Do RICS provide value for money
Value for Money

1 - Not at all
2
3
4
5 - Very good value for
money
Total
Mean = 2.39
Median = 2.00
Mode = 2
Frequen
cy
70
100
86
33
12
Percenta
ge
23.30%
33.20%
28.60%
11.00%
4.00%
301
100.00%
1 - Not at all
2
3
4
4%
11%
23%
29%
33%
Figure 51: Do RICS provide value for money
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
1 - Not at all
33%
23%
31%
25%
20%
20.00%
14%
18%
7%
10.00%
3
4
5 - Very good value for
money
0.00%
Total
Consultant Contractor
Public
Sector
Figure 52 Do RICS provide value for money:

money by sector
Overall level of satisfaction with and the value of RICS services: Comparative
The results related to Overall service and Value for money for the RICS services are shown in the
same Table 34 below as they are related.
related As before, the highest levels of satisfaction
ction are registered
by those in the Public sector, as are the lowest levels of dissatisfaction. The Contracting sector
emerges here as noticeably discontent than either of the other sectors, particularly in its measure of
the overall value for money of membership.
membership. Here though, even the Public sector only 50% of
respondents rate the value for money as above poor or very poor.
9.5.1
43
Views of Industry
Table 34 Summary of Overall Satisfaction and whether RICS provide value for money: Consultant, Contractor and Public
Sector Perception
Consultant
QS
Contractor
QS
Public
Sector QS
Service
Poor /
V.poor
Poor /
V.poor
Poor / V
Poor
Consultant Contractor Public

QS
QS
Sector
QS
Good/
Good/
Good/
V.Good
V.Good
V.Good
Overall level of
satisfaction with RICS
services
Is Membership good
value for money
33%
33%
25%
23%
16%
29%
56%
63%
50%
13%
6%
23%
10 Conclusions
The survey received a very good level of response with 615 overall responses from which 301 were
fully complete. The incomplete responses were removed from analysis for greater consistency of the
analysis. The population size of chartered surveyors is estimated at 7000. This data sample is very
much adequate to carry out an analysis with over 99% confidence level as the population size is large
(Bartlett et.al. 2001).
The overwhelming majority of respondents were well experienced chartered surveyors well over 10
years experience. Majority represented the private sector consultants amounting to 52% followed
by 17% in contracting, 15% in the public sector. These in tern represented 38% large, 17% medium
18% small and 27% micro level organisations. The survey therefore achieved a balanced and
representative composition of experienced chartered quantity surveyors from the UK construction
industry.
10.1 Key findings of the Industry Survey

The following sections provide the highlights of the 6 main areas evaluated under the study.
10.1.1 Organisations current workload
The survey indicated that the current main areas of work load as: post contract cost control (17%),
pre contract cost control (13%), project management (13%), and tender documentation (12%) as the
top 4.
10.1.2.1 Mandatory competencies

Table 35 indicates the summary of expected levels of mandatory competencies. These represent a
very acceptable level of expectation for the most part except for M008 Health & Safety. Mandatory
competencies cannot be expected beyond Level 1 for the most part.
Part 5 Conclusions
10.1.2 Expected Levels of Graduate Quantity Surveying Competencies

All 24 competencies prescribed for the QS pathway were analysed to find the level of expectation of
fulfilment of the competencies by newly qualified graduate quantity surveyors. In the absence of a
standard benchmark for judging graduate competence, unrealistic expectations were observed. 27%
of respondents expected Core competencies to be achieved at Level 3.
44
Views of Industry
Table 36 Summary of expected levels for mandatory competencies
M003 Client care
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
Level
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1 or 2
1
2
Expectation of Level 2 competency for M004, M007 and M010 is reasonable given that most
undergraduate programmes aim to achieve these competencies at a higher level. However, there
are a considerable number of respondents (38%) expecting Mandatory competencies to be achieved
at Level 2. These are in the cases of M003 Client care, M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional
practice, M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures and M009
Sustainability. These seem very unrealistic to expect a newly qualifying graduate to possess.
10.1.2.2 Core competencies
Table 37 indicates that the all core competencies are expected by the majority at Level 2. However,
there are a considerable number of respondents (27%) expecting core competencies to be satisfied
at Level 3. This increases significantly to 37% for T074 Quantification and costing of construction
works and 32% for T067 Project financial control and reporting. This is a disturbing finding as Level 3
can practicably be achieved by working in the industry.
Table 38 Summary of expected levels for core competencies
Level
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10.1.2.3 Optional competencies

Table 39 indicates that all optional competencies except T016 Contract administration is expected to
be achieved at Level 1. This is what that can be reasonably expected. However on overall terms
there are greater levels of expectation (at Level 2) from 34% of respondents for T063 Programming
and planning and T077 Risk management competencies.
Part 5 Conclusions
Core Competencies
45
Views of Industry
Table 40 Summary of expected levels for optional competencies
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
Level
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
The absence of a guide benchmark for assessing graduate competency levels is the key factor that
arises from this analysis.
10.1.3 RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM) Initiatives
The industry respondents indicated that there is only an average level of awareness of all three NRM
initiatives. 40% of respondents expressed above midpoint awareness levels for Order of cost
estimating and elemental cost planning which is already published which drops to around 20% for
the other two initiatives.
The levels of importance of these initiatives follow a similar pattern. The Whole Life Costing
initiative can be considered as the least important of the three.
10.1.4 Future role of the Quantity Surveyor
Refurbishment has been ranked highest as the growth area for work for quantity surveyors while
closely followed by Building Construction and Building services. Notably Civil Engineering
construction received a lower ranking.
10.1.4.1 Order of importance of QS competencies
All 7 Core competencies were ranked high as being most important with top 4 competencies form all
24 competencies being (in order of mean scores):
1.
2.
3.
4.

2. M003 Client care
These would be as mostly expected with T067 Project financial control and reporting seen to be the
most important of all competencies.
Part 5 Conclusions

46
Views of Industry
10.1.5 Views on Quantity Surveying Education
10.1.5.1 Employers level of satisfaction on graduate QS competency achievement
Mean scores (Figure 24) in respect of all competencies lie within the range 2.00 to 3.00, that is,
between partially satisfied and undecided . This indicates that the industry employers are
generally not satisfied with the level of graduate performance. The highest satisfaction levels are
indicated for 4 Mandatory competencies. The top 5 competencies are:
1. M007 Data management
2. M010 Team working
3. M009 Sustainability
4. M008 Health and safety
5. T022 Design economics and cost planning
The least satisfied Core competency is T074 Quantification and costing of construction works
followed by T067 Project financial control and reporting, the two most important competencies
ranked in the previous analysis.
This raises an important issue that there is significant level of dissatisfaction in the industry as to the
ability of graduates to perform core QS functions.
10.1.5.2 Level of awareness and satisfaction with the curriculum
Of the respondents to this survey (Table 13), over half (53%) indicate that they are either not at all or
only partially aware of the content of the curricula taught in university. A further 29% perceive to be
reasonably aware. This leaves only 18% of this sample of the industry who perceive to be fully
aware. This indicates a high degree of disconnect with the QS education system which is worrying as
professional education requires good degree of industry-academia collaboration.
60% of Employer respondents were dissatisfied or only partially satisfied with the curriculum. Those
reasonably satisfied or better amounted to only 40%. This directly corresponds with lack of
awareness indentified above.
Curricular used for programme delivery are continuously updated and it may not be surprising that
most senior industry practitioners not being aware of the curricular used in universities. Most
respondents when further probed on areas that they feel need more coverage identified technology,
measurement and estimating as the areas need attention.
10.1.5.4 The role of universities producing a Graduate Quantity Surveyor

A resounding 57% indicated that Training Quantity Surveyors for immediate Quantity Surveying
employment upon graduation to be more valuable than the production of a Graduate with overall
academic knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying at 43%. This indicates that
industry ethos is Training for professional employment as opposed to Educating graduates for
professional employment.
Part 5 Conclusions
10.1.5.3 The level of confidence on programme delivery

The Industry respondents were fairly confident (reasonably confident to fully confident) that very
good standards are maintained with respect to: Academic knowledge (93%), QS practice knowledge
(56%) and use of teaching material (84%). In comparison to the level of dissatisfaction expressed in
terms of graduate quality and curricular this is quite striking.
47
Views of Industry
10.1.5.5 Industry Academia Collaboration
54% of industry respondents indicated that they are willing to collaborate with universities on QS
education. However, the figure drops to 29% when asked about the likelihood of committing time
for university-industry collaborative activities.
10.1.6 Modes of Study & Industry Placement
10.1.6.1 Perceived Success of different Modes of Study
Industry respondents were of the view that part time undergraduate studies produce the best
quality of QS graduate which was very closely followed up by full time study with 1 year industry
placement. It is important to note that the emphasis and value attached to the role of industry
placement as highly valued by industry respondents.
10.1.6.2 Industry Placement
A high degree of commitment to placement was expressed by industry respondents with 80%
committed to placement dropping 56% during recession.
A placement training model was considered very to extremely important for the success of industrial
placements by 64% of respondents. A further 26% stated it as important. This implies there is a very
good need to provide such structured training during industrial placements.
Industry respondents also indicated that Placements act as an employment test bed for the
employer and it allows two way flow of knowledge indicating that placement help to improve the
organisational knowledge base.
10.1.7 RICS Membership Routes and Training
10.1.7.1 Routes of membership
The Graduate route of membership is clearly the most well understood route of membership (with
72% understanding it very well) followed by Senior Professional route (46%) and Assoc RICS (40%).
Same patter was found in terms of appropriateness of routes.
Over 70% APC candidates supported by the industry went through the Graduate route followed by
Senior professional route (17%) and Assoc RICS (13%).
10.1.7.2 Importance of RICS professional qualification
The RICS membership was by far the most important qualification for a QS graduate followed by
CIOB. 93% ranked membership of RICS as very or extremely important with comparative figures for
CICES and CIOB dropping to 27% and 43% respectively. It is interesting to note that 33% and 46%
respectively indicated that CICES and CIOB membership is not important.
More than 85% considered it as important (to extremely important). In analysing the sectors it was
clear that both the Public sector and Contractors had less belief in structured training programmes
than Consultants.
Part 5 Conclusions
10.1.7.3 Structured Training Programme for APC

Only 56% of organisations reported as having a structured training programme for APC candidates
with the lowest reported from the Public Sector (43%). This is a significant drawback in provision of
required training for Quantity Surveyors.
48
Views of Industry
10.1.8 Views on the Role of RICS
10.1.8.1 Quality of services provided by the RICS
The top 3 services provided by the RICS with over 60% rating it highly or very highly rated service are
as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Regulating the Quantity Surveying profession A

Continued Professional Development for the Quantity Surveying profession - G
Developing standards and new methods of practice B
World-wide representative of the Quantity Surveying profession - D
Regulation of Quantity Surveying education C received a rating of 38% for highly or very highly
rated service is seen as a negative reflection of views on RICS involvement in graduate education.
related national policy F as lowest and second lowest respectively. These are two aspects where
RICS needs to make an effort to improve. The RICS must be seen to represent the profession at
10.1.8.2 Overall level of satisfaction
Only 24% indicated overall higher level of satisfaction with the majority (44%) stickling to a mid level
of satisfaction. 31% has indicated a degree of dissatisfaction. This indicates that industry expect a
higher level of service from the RICS than what is currently provided.
10.1.8.3 Level of Communications with Industry
Only 33% indicated that there is good level of communication between Industry and RICS whereas
28% expressed a degree of dissatisfaction. This is an important aspect the RICS as a professional
body would have to consider.
10.1.8.4 Appropriateness of Services
Only 25% of industry respondents perceive that RICS provide an appropriate type and level of service
to the industry members with further 36% indicating a mid level and 39% expressing dissatisfaction.
This is an area RICS could consider how they can improve and greater dialogue and liaison with
industry would be recourse for improvement.
Part 5 Conclusions
10.1.8.5 The value of RICS services

There is significant discontent here with 56% expressing there is poor value for money in RICS
services as a professional body. 29% reminded at mid point while 15% indicated that they see value
for money in RICS services. Value is a direct function of cost and level of service received in return.
This indicates that there is a generally higher fee in proportion to the level of service received. This
can also be a result of detachment with the professional body and its activities.
49

Quantity Surveyors: Competency
Mapping
Part 6
Competency Mapping Case Studies

Mr John Pearson
Newcastle upon Tyne
UK

January 2011
Part 6 Contents
1. List of Contents
2. List of Figures
3. List of Tables
4. Report
ii
List of Contents
PART 6 CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................III
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... V
1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
1.1
COMPETENCY MAPPING METHOD .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 Mapping Process............................................................................................................................... 3
OVERALL TOTAL COVERAGE OF ALL COMPETENCIES BY UNIVERSITIES ....................................................3
INTER-LEVEL SPLIT ACROSS UNIVERSITIES ...............................................................................................4
COVERAGE OF SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES BY UNIVERSITIES ......................................................................4

4.1
4.2
4.3
MANDATORY COMPETENCIES ....................................................................................................................... 4

CORE COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................................................. 7
OPTIONAL COMPETENCIES ......................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................12
KEY FINDINGS OF THE COMPETENCY MAPPING............................................................................................... 12
LIMITATIONS OF MAPPING ......................................................................................................................... 13
5.1
5.2
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Competency Mapping Matrix form .......................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 Mandatory Competency mapping scores: Level 1.................................................................... 7
Figure 3 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 1 .............................................................................. 9
Figure 4 Core Competency mapping scores: Level 2 ............................................................................10
Figure 5 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1......................................................................12
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Map scoring system.................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2 Total mapping score comparison ............................................................................................... 3
Table 3 Final Scores by competency level............................................................................................... 4
Table 4 Summary of scores for Mandatory competencies ..................................................................... 5
Table 5 Summary of scores for Core competencies ............................................................................... 8
Table 6 Summary of scores for Core competencies .............................................................................11
Competency Mapping
1 Introduction
A detailed competency mapping exercise was carried out based upon 4 RICS accredited quantity
surveying programmes offered by 4 leading universities (referred to as case studies A, B, C and D).
This involves mapping RICS QS competencies to the individual module specifications of the
respective QS programmes. These are referred to as mapping case studies.
The RICS Competencies are arranged into three groupings, depending upon their perceived
relevance to the Role of the Quantity Surveyor:
1
2
3
Mandatory Competencies: personal, interpersonal and professional practice and business skills
common to all pathways [into membership] and compulsory for all candidates.
Core Competencies: primary skills of the candidates chosen [RICS] pathway
Optional Competencies: selected as an additional skill requirement for the candidates chosen
[RICS] pathway from a list of competencies relevant to that pathway. In most cases there is an
element of choice
The RICS distinguish between three possible levels of attainment in each of a range of competences
when setting its requirements of those seeking membership. Briefly, these are as follows;
Level 1: Knowledge (theoretical knowledge)

Level 2: Knowledge and practical experience (putting it into practice)
Level 3: Knowledge, practical experience and capacity to advise (explaining and advising)
There are 10 Mandatory competencies, 7 Core competencies and 7 Optional competencies (two only
of these last to be selected by the candidate). The RICS defines that an APC candidate needs to
achieve all Mandatory competencies at Level 2 or above, all Core competencies at Level 3 (except
one not relevant to specialisation depending on employment in consulting or contracting practice
which is at Level 2) and 2 Optional competencies at Level 2 or above.
1.1 Competency mapping method
The main method of competency mapping involved the use of a two dimensional matrix comprised
of QS competencies on the Y axis (vertical listing) and Programme specifications on the X axis
(horizontal listing). Each competency was subdivided in to the three Levels (1 to 3). Figure 1
illustrates an example of this mapping matrix created as a protected spreadsheet form.
Competency Mapping
Figure 1 Competency Mapping Matrix form
A detailed map scoring system (Table 1) was devised to enable to indicate perceived level of
achievement of competencies through the evaluation of the individual module specifications
pertaining to a programme.
Table 1 Map scoring system
Score criteria
Achieves small parts of a competency
Partially achieves a competency
Score
0.25
0.5
0.75
Fully achieves a competency at respective level
1.00
The respondents completing the form were required to make a judgement as to what amount of a
competency at which Level (Levels 1, 2 or 3) was achieved by each module of a programme.
Considerably achieves a competency
Competency Mapping
1.1.1 Mapping Process

Competency mapping to programme specifications was carried out in 3 stages:
1. Scoring the mapping matrix by the researchers
2. Scoring the mapping matrix by programme directors of the respective programmes
3. Consensus adjustment of scoring by the researchers to eliminate bias
This three stage process established the final scores of competency mapping to programme
specifications which were then used for the evaluation explained in this report.
Programme Directors of the respective programmes selected as case studies were requested to
complete the matrix form based on their judgement of the level of attainment of competencies.
These case studies are referred to as Case study A, B, C, D. Each was asked to allocate approximate
scores, at each Level, as defined above, on a scale of 0.25 to 1.00 depending upon their estimation
of the coverage they achieved of each of the RICS Mandatory, Core and Optional Competencies
through delivery of the modules making up their Undergraduate Quantity Surveying Programme.
Through this exercise total scores were achieved in respect of each of the above competencies for
each University, together with totals relating to all Modules delivered.
This last figure can be split to show total estimated delivery at each of the Levels, 1, 2 and 3. The
overall figures are shown in Appendix D.
2 Overall total coverage of all competencies by Universities

There is some variation between the universities studied. Two Universities return total scores of 45
to 48, as against the others who both score 37, a difference between the two pairs of 25%. This
would seem to be a significant variance, given that all are offering broadly the same overall
programme of delivery and assessment, within broadly similar timescales, and all leading to the
same award.
Table 2 Total mapping score comparison
Total Score
University A
University B
University C
University D
45.25
37.25
37.75
48
Part 6: Overall total coverage of all competencies by Universities
There are three possible levels of analysis; the overall total coverage of all competencies for each
University, the split between levels for each University and the individual Universities actual
coverage of specific competencies. These are each analysed in the following sections.
Competency Mapping
3 Inter-Level split across Universities

The aggregated level of competency mappings for each university is evaluated in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Final Scores by competency level
Cumulative Level Score

Level
University
A
University
B
University
C
University
D
Level 1
32.5
27
26
37
Level 2
12.25
10
11
11.25
Level 3
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
The main reason for the high level of variance between total coverage of competencies (Table 2) is
the level of variance in built in due to different volumes of coverage at Level 1. Both Level 2 & 3
scores are very similar between universities. This suggests that they have a similar appreciation of
the significance of the value of the higher two levels required of new graduates by the RICS. As
would be expected, in all cases the total score for Level 1 far exceeds that for Level 2, and that for
Level 2 is far in excess of that for Level 3. The Level 3 hardly features at all, as one might expect for it
is a competency level only expected of candidates at the time they come to sit their APC, one year or
more after graduating.
4 Coverage of specific Competencies by Universities
Every graduate wishing to become a Chartered Quantity Surveyor must meet the RICS requirements
in these areas. All should be achieved to Level 1 or greater, some to Level 2 and, in the case of M005
Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice, to Level 3.
Part 6: Inter-Level split across Universities
This section examines the coverage of competencies at the three different levels by the four QS
programmes studied. The coverage of competencies are analysed separately for Mandatory, Core
and Optional competencies.
4.1 Mandatory Competencies
Competency Mapping
Table 4 Summary of scores for Mandatory competencies
Mandatory Competency
M001 Accounting principles
and procedures
Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
M003 Client care
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
M004 Communication and

negotiation
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
M005 Conduct rules, ethics

and professional
practice
M006 Conflict avoidance,
management & dispute

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
M009 Sustainability
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
M010 Teamworking
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
University
A
University
B
University
C
University
D
0
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0.25
0
0
0.5
0
0
1.5
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
0.75
0
0
1
0.25
0
1
0.25
0
0.5
1
0.25
0.5
0.25
0
1
0.25
0
1.75
0.75
0.25
1.5
1.25
0
1.5
1
0
2
0.5
0
0.75
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
1
0.25
0
1.75
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.75
0.25
0
0.75
0
0
1.5
0.25
0
2
1
0.25
1.5
1
0.25
1.25
1.5
0.25
2.25
1
0.5
2.25
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
0.75
0.25
0
0.75
0
0
2.5
0
0
1.75
0.25
0
1.25
0
0
1.5
0.25
0
1.5
1.25
0
1.25
1.75
0
1.5
1.5
0
2.25
0.75
0
M001 Accounting Principles (Level 1 required): Only one University progresses beyond Level 1 in
this area. University A does not address it at all.
M002 Business Planning (Level 1 required): This area is addressed significantly by all Universities at
Level 1. Two progress even to level 2.
Part 6: Coverage of specific Competencies by Universities
Total Cumulative Score by Level
Competency Mapping
M003 Client Care (Level 2 required): All Universities address this up to and including Level 2 to some
extent.
M004 Communication and negotiation (Level 2 required): This competency features strongly across
all universities, as might be expected of a generic, transferable skill at university level. University A
progresses this to Level 3.
M005 Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice (Level 3 required): All Universities address
this important area though to differing extents, even at Level 1 where the total score ranges from
0.5 to 1.75. Universities B,C and D progress this to Level 2 to some extent but University A stops at
Level 1. This variance between Universities may be a cause for concern, especially when this has
always been considered by the RICS to be one of the most important competencies.
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution (Level 1 required): All Universities
address this Competency at level 1 to varying degrees, all progress this to Level 2 with the exception
of University C.
M007 Data Management (Level 1 required): As with M 04 above, this competency is addressed at
all Levels by all Universities, though to varying degrees. All show some evidence of coverage at Level
3. This competency often involves dissertation modules and as such high level of coverage is
expected.
M008 Health and safety (Level 2 required): This important area appears to be addressed in a varied
manner. Only two Universities, A and C, progress beyond Level 1
M010 Team working (Level 1 required): Whilst the RICS only require attainment of Level 1 in this
area, all three Universities give equally strong ratings, well into Level 2. This is probably a reflection
of the emphasis placed by most Universities on project work, involving teams of students as it does.
Generally, given that the required attainment levels set by the RICS for the Mandatory
Competencies do not seem very high, most Universities are already meeting or working towards
acceptable targets in most areas for their students at this stage in their education.
M009 Sustainability (Level 1 required): Again, an area which is considered by most to be significant
for the future, this is addressed reasonably well to Level 1 by all Universities, but only two achieve
any coverage at Level 2. Perhaps although it is being met at present, the RICS might reconsider their
requirement due to increasing significance and developments in this area.
Competency Mapping
3
2.5
2
A
B
1.5
0.5
0
M001
M002
M003
M004
M005
M006
M007
M008
M009
M010
Figure 2 Mandatory Competency mapping scores: Level 1
Figure 2 above illustrates the scores for Level 1 for Mandatory competencies. The yellow benchmark
line is set at a score of 1 to indicate competencies not meeting this requirement. It is clear that many
universities are below this threshold for M001, M002, M003, M005, M006 and M008 competencies.
This indicates some aspects that universities need to address.
It is in this area that the most demanding requirement is made of those seeking membership, for
they must have attained Level 3 in all Core Competencies before being admitted to full membership
of the RICS. If there is any one area which Universities might be expected to equip the students with
a sound grounding, even in the early stages of their education and training, then this is it.
4.2 Core Competencies
Competency Mapping
Table 5 Summary of scores for Core competencies
T010 Commercial
management of
construction
T013 Construction
technology and
Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T022 Design economics and

cost planning
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T062
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T067 Project financial control

and reporting
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T074 Quantification and
costing of construction
works
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
University
A
University
B
University
C
University
D
2.25
0.25
0
1
0.25
0
2
0.25
0
1.25
0.25
0
3.25
0.75
0
1.75
0
0
2
0.5
0
3
0.75
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.25
0
1.5
0.75
0
1.5
0.75
0
2
0.75
0
1.75
0.75
0
1.25
0.75
0
1.5
0.75
1.25
0.75
0
0.75
0.25
0
1.75
0.25
0
0
1.25
0.25
0
1.25
0.75
0
1
0.25
0
1.75
0.75
0
2.75
1
0
1.25
1
0
2.5
0.75
0
2.75
1.25
0
3.25
1.25
0
T010 Commercial management of Construction: All Universities display a strong performance in this
area at Level 1. All achieve the same (0.25) at Level 2. This seems appropriate at this stage in
students development.
T013 Construction technology and environmental services: This is one of the key areas for the QS
where there is a strong attainment at Level 1. However, there is more variance at Level 2, with
University B, remarkably, failing to claim any score at all at this Level.
T017 Contract practice: Scores are reasonably consistent across all Universities across Level 1,
although Universities C and D are higher at Level 2.
T022 Design economics and cost planning: Scores are quite healthy and pretty much the same
across all Universities at both Levels.
T062 Procurement tendering: Mostly as for T022 above, although University B is lower at Level 1.
T067 Project financial control and reporting: Both Levels 1 and 2 are addressed by all Universities
but the figures show some variance at each Level.

Core competency
Competency Mapping
T074 Quantification and costing of construction works:
works In this, one of the most traditional of the
Quantity Surveyors skills there is quite a range of results at Level 1, (from 1.25 through to 3.75)
which may reflect the differing emphasis placed on teaching the basics of this skill. At Level 2 there is
more agreement between the figures submitted by the four Universities.
Generally, the Universitiess in this section of the study are addressing the targets
targets set them although
there are some exceptions, as noted above. Perhaps
Perh
the RICS should be slightly concerned at these
last, occurring as they do in Core Skills T013, T067 and T074 those skills which specifica
specifically define the
Quantity Surveying specialism.
Core competencies can be further analysed using the following Figure 3 and Figure 4 at Level 1 and 2
respectively.
3.5
3
2.5
A
1.5
0.5
0
T010
T013
T017
T022
T062
T067
T074
The illustration above (Figure 3)) indicates that core competencies are well achieved by all
universities. However this is based purely on our interpretation
interpretation of map scores and when you
consider a benchmark score of 1 only.
Figure 3 Core Competency mappingg scores: Level 1
Competency Mapping
1.4
1.2
1
A
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
T010
T013
T017
T022
T062
T067
T074
Figure 4 Core Competency

mpetency mapping scores: Level 2
Figure 4 indicates that Core Competencies are achieved to some extent by the universities but
nowhere near completely.. Since core competencies for the most part define the profession it is
some area where universities might
ight ought to make a greater effort to progress.
10
Competency Mapping
4.3 Optional Competencies

Candidates are required to attain Level 2 in a choice of two optional Competences of their choice. As
might be expected, being specialist areas, availability of which may vary across Universities
according to the specialism of their staff, there is no uniformity of provision. Correspondingly, there
is no sensible detailed comparison which can or should be made. As a general rule, the Optional
Competencies are not being covered beyond Level 1 which is perhaps appropriate at this stage.
Table 6 Summary of scores for Core competencies
T008
Optional competency
Level
Capital Allowances
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T016
Contract
administration
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T020
Corporate recovery
and insolvency
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T025
Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T045
Insurance
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T063
Programming and
planning
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
TO66 Project Evaluation
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T077
Risk management
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
University
A
University
B
University
C
University
D
0.5
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
0.75
0
0.75
0.25
0
1.25
0.5
0
2.25
0.75
0
0.75
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0.5
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.75
0.25
0
1.25
0.75
0
2.75
0.75
0
0.5
1
0
1.75
0.5
0
1
1
0
1.25
0
0
0.75
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
0.5
0.25
0
1.75
0.5
0
0.75
0
0
1.25
0.5
0
11
Competency Mapping
3
2.5
2
A
1.5
B
C
0.5
0
T008
T016
T020
T025
T045
T063
TO66
T077
Figure 5 Optional Competency mapping scores: Level 1
Figure 5 indicates that most optional competencies are not adequately achieved except 44. For
example;
ple; T016, T063, T066 and T077 are reasonably attained by some universities with scores well
over 1 for Level 1 and some approaching Level 2 as well. This is may be due to lack of direction on to
what extent universities should deal with optional competencies.
competenc
5 Conclusions
Competency mapping in this analysis is carried out based on the limited guidelines provided in the
QS pathway documents.. This document does not provide in depth information on the actual
knowledge areas which should be covered.
covered As such, these are open for interpretation by individuals
and organisations. The less prescriptive nature of these documents may help innovation and
freedom to design curricular. On the other hand this very feature inhibits the full attainment of
competencies across all institutions due to narrow or incorrect interpretation. Therefore, a score of
over 1 for a competency may not assure that a competency is fully attained to the level expected. In
any case RICS do not specify a level of attainment of competencies by a graduate completing aan
accredited degree. The absence of such a benchmark means that it is at the discretion of the
individual universities to set these benchmarks at levels they see suitable. This means that invariably
there will be differences in the level of graduate quality expected by the industry employers and the
ones set by individual universities.
5.1 Key findings of the Competency Mapping

1. There is no threshold standard
standard or benchmark for level of competencies to be achieved by QS
graduates completing a RICS accredited programme.
2. Different universities aim to achieve competencies at different levels,
levels based on their own
interpretations.
Part 6: Conclusions
The key findings of the competency mapping study can be summarised as follows:
12
Competency Mapping
3. In the absence of a detailed competency specification, the level of achievement of
competencies judged by our own interpretation seems satisfactory for the most part. There
are inadequacies in level of coverage of some competencies.
4. Programme leaders tend to interpret levels of achievement of competencies differently to
one another resulting in apparent differing levels of achievement of competencies and
different levels of coverage.
5. There is no standard way to interpret the actual achievement of competencies.
6. There is no formal competency mapping process available for universities in curricular
development or revision.
7. Most mandatory competencies are not achieved to a significant extent by the universities
studied to date.
8. Core competencies are well achieved at Level 1 based on interpretations made by
universities and some attempt made at Level 2. There is greater scope towards achieving
core competencies to some extent at Level 2.
9. Optional competencies are not reasonably achieved at Level 1 by most universities. Some
competencies are however dealt with to a considerably higher level by some universities.
There is greater variation across universities.
5.2 Limitations of Mapping
Part 6: Conclusions
The mapping of competencies using a scoring system attempts to allocate a map score for each
competency by each module specification of an accredited programme. The scoring was carried out
by individual Programme Directors of the four programmes analysed and moderated by the
researchers to eliminate bias and impact of individual interpretation. This is a very difficult activity as
degree of interpretation varies considerably across individuals. There are no standard guidelines as
to what curricular content should exist, to map directly to a competence. As such it is difficult to
achieve a uniform and even scoring of competencies across all case study universities. This is an
inherent limitation which could only be eliminated by proper and full definition of competencies to
include standard curricular content expressed as sub competencies. Competency mapping then has
to be carried out by a third party interpreting curricular and negotiating with module tutors
responsible for delivery. This is an impossible task to be achieved within the resource levels for this
research. Therefore, the method adopted was a compromise in order for the research team to
make a reasonable judgement of the mapping of competencies to programme curricular, to achieve
its objective of identifying relative levels of mapping of competencies.
13
Part 7 References
Baarttlletttt J. E.., Kottrlliikk, J. W., Higgins, C. (2001) Organizational Research: Determining
Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research, Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2001, pp 43-50.
Davis, Langdon and Everest.(1991) Quantity Surveying 2000. Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, RICS.
Lowe, D. And Leiringer, R. (2006), Commercial Management of Projects, Defining the
Discipline, Blackwell Publishing.
Perera R S, (2006), Views of Prospective Graduate Surveyors on their Professional Career
Plans, Final Report, RICS NI, August 2006.
RICS (1971),The Future Role of the Quantity Surveyor RICS.
RICS (1983) The Future Role of the Chartered Quantity Surveyor. RICS.
RICS, (2009) (1) RICS Employability Threshold Consultation Document letter to Partner
Institutions RICS Oct 2009.
RICS,(2009) (2), Requirements and competencies, RICS Education and Qualification Standards,
RICS,
http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/download_info.aspx?fileID=3729&categoryID=98 .
Rowe and Wright (2001): Expert Opinions in Forecasting. Role of the Delphi Technique. In:
Armstrong (Ed.): Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook of Researchers and Practitioners, Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
UNN Returns, (2001- 2008), UNN Returns Annual 1st Destination returns from the University of
Northumbria to RICS Partnership Accreditation Board 2001 2008.
Walker, I. and Wilkie, R. (2002), Commercial Management in Construction, Blackwell
Publishing.
Part 8 Appendices
Appendix A.
Expert forum interview questions
Appendix B.
Academic survey questionnaire
Appendix C.
Industry survey questionnaire
Appendix D.
Competency mapping scores
Appendix A Expert forum interview

questions
Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial Development

Needs for Quantity Surveyors
Northumbria University are currently carrying out a piece of investigative
research to assess the degree of fit between RICS competencies, Academic
teaching curricula and industry needs for new and emerging graduate
Quantity Surveyors. This work is co-funded by Northumbria University and
RICS and aims to accrue major benefits to all three parties (Academia,
Industry and RICS) the quantity surveying graduates and wider community by
providing:
Cohesion and unified view towards professional development of
Quantity Surveyors.
Greater satisfaction derived for all parties and stakeholders.
A systematic and verifiable partnership agreement between RICS and
Universities
Producing balanced and employable quantity surveying graduates.
As part of this research we will be carrying out semi-structured interviews to
gather the views of each group of stakeholders. The results of these
interviews will inform a set of questions to be distributed via an online survey
and set the broad context for the research. We would be extremely grateful if
you could give an hour of your time to discuss the attached questions. All
responses will be treated confidentially and reporting of any findings will be
aggregated and anonymous.
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact
Professor Srinath Perera on details given below.

Professor of Construction Economics
School of the Built Environment
Wynn Jones Building
Ellison Place
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK
Tel: 0044 (0) 191227 3172
Fax: 0044 (0) 191227 3167
e-mail: srinath.perera@northumbria.ac.uk
Co investigator: Mr John Pearson
Director of Quantity Surveying Subject Group
Lyn Dodds, Senior Research Associate, SCRI, Northumbria University
Forum Interview 01
1. Role of Quantity Surveyor
1.1. What do you see as the present role of the Quantity Surveyor in the
construction industry?
1.2. How would you project the future role of QS? In what way will it
change?
2. RICS Competencies for QSs
Note: Provide details of competencies and briefly explain it.
2.1. How relevant do you think the RICS competencies are to what you
would expect from a graduate QS?
2.1.1. Mandatory competencies
2.1.2. Core competencies
2.1.3. Optional competencies
2.2. Would future QSs require any additional competencies/skills?
2.3. What are your views on the extent of coverage (for academic forum
members) of these competencies in the undergraduate curricular?
OR for non-academic forum members
2.4. Do you think that present graduate QSs have acquired these
competencies to at least Level 2 as expected by the RICS?
2.4.1. Explain why you think so?
3. What are your views on present QS education system?
3.1. Nature and system of education
3.2. Level of employer/prospective employer engagement?
3.3. The academic curricular content?
3.4. The relevance of curricular; are there obsolete content? New content
to consider?
3.5. What areas of the curricular needs greatest attention?
3.6. What are your views on placement?
3.7. Do you see a difference between Part time and Full time students level
of knowledge, dedication and attitude to work?
4. RICS-Industry-Academic Institution communication
4.1. Have you communicated with these parties with respect to QS
education? What is your experience in this regards?
4.2. What are your views on current RICS partnership arrangements with
the academic institutions?
4.3. Do you think there is good communication between:
4.3.1. Universities and RICS
4.3.2. RICS and Industry

4.3.3. Universities and Industry
5. RICS Membership path ways
5.1. What are you views on the different pathways to membership?
5.1.1. Graduate
5.1.2. New, Associate pathway
5.1.3. New, Senior Professional route
For Industrial forum members;
5.2. Do you provide training for graduate QSs for APC?
5.3. Could you explain your views on this process?
6. Do you think that Universities should provide overall academic knowledge
and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying or Universities should
concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for direct QS employment?
7. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Thank you for your time.
Appendix B Academic survey

questionnaire
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2 AC: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial De... Page 1 of 23
Ver 2 AC: Alignment of Professional,

Academic, and Industrial Development Needs
of Quantity Surveyors
Northumbria University are currently carrying out a piece of investigative research to assess the degree of fit between
RICS competencies, Academic teaching curricula and Industry needs for new and emerging Graduate Quantity
Surveyors. This work is co-funded by Northumbria University and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and
aims to accrue major benefits to all three parties (Academia, Industry and the RICS), the quantity surveying graduates
and wider community by providing:
Cohesion and unified view towards professional development of Quantity Surveyors.
A systematic and verifiable partnership agreement between RICS, Universities, and employers
As part of this research we are carrying out an online survey. All responses will be
treated confidentially and reporting of any findings will be aggregated and anonymous.
We would be grateful if you could take the time to fill in as much of this questionnaire as
possible. This should take approximately 20 minutes.
There are 41 questions in this survey
Respondent Profile
General information that is useful to categorise respondent profile.
1 [1]Which university do you work ?

Please write your answer here:
Name of the university
2 [3]What is your age? *

Please choose only one of the following:
18 - 24 Years
25 - 34 Years
35 - 45 Years
Over 45 Years
Indicate the age category you belong.
3 [4]How many years experience do you have in Quantity Surveying? *

http://northumbria-qs.org/limesurvey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintablesurvey...
03/06/2010
Up to 5 Years
6 - 10 Years
11 - 20 Years
21 - 30 years
Over 30 Years
Select the category best describes your experience in Quantity Surveying
4 [5]
Are you a member of any of the following professional bodies?
*
Please choose all that apply:
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

Chartered Institute of Builders (CIOB)
Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors (CICES)
Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineering (CIBSE)
Not a member of any Professional Body
Other:
You may select more than one Professional Body if you are a memeber of several Professional Bodies. Please
indicate the full name of the Professional Body if it is not listed above.
5 [6]How much time (expressed as a percentage) do you spend on the

following: *
* Total of all entries must equal 100
Please write your answer(s) here:
Teaching & Learning activities

Research
Academic Enterprise
Administration
Other
Enter percentages for each of the type of activities. (Total = 100%)
Do not leave any field blank: If none enter zero "0"
6 [2]Are you a course leader (having management responsibility)? *

Yes
03/06/2010
No
Course management responsibility such as Programme Leader, Course Director etc.
7 [2a]How many students are there in all years of Quantity surveying?
RICS accredited programmes in Quantity Surveying only.

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
Answer was 'Yes' at question '6 [2]' (Are you a cour se leader (having management responsibility)?)

Part Time undergraduate
Enter the student numbers for Full Time and Part Time modes for all years of the course. The question relates
only to Quantity Surveying students in RICS accredited programmes.
8 [2b]How many years has your Quantity Surveying course been accredited
by the RICS ?
9 [2c]How many full time core Quantity Surveying staff do you have?
Members of RICS
Others
Inluclude all Tutors, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Orinciple Lecturers, Readers, Professors etc.
All grades of full time staff.
10 [2d]What are the course contact hours per student per week ?
Include lectures, tutorials, seminars, workshops, studios etc..
03/06/2010

QS Undergraduate
QS Postgraduate
All contact hours per student per week.
03/06/2010
Quantity Surveying Competencies

Full details of Quantity Surveying competencies can be found from the link below:
Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction
Note: this will open in an new window.
11 [7]
Considering the list of competencies below please state which of these a
new graduate Quantity Surveyor should possess, and at which level:
Level 1 = knowledge (theoretical knowledge)
Level 2 = knowledge and practical experience (putting it in to practice)
Level 3 = knowledge, practical experience, and capacity to advise
(explaining and advising)
you may find details of Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and
Construction here.
*
Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
03/06/2010
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
M001 Accounting
principles and
procedures
M002 Business
planning
M003 Client care
M004
Communication
and negotiation
M005 Conduct
rules, ethics and
professional
practice
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
management and
dispute resolution
procedures
M007 Data
management
M008 Health and
safety
M009
Sustainability
M010 Team
working
T010 Commercial
management of
construction
T013 Construction
technology and
environmental
services
T017 Contract
practice
T022 Design
economics and
cost planning
T062
Procurement and
tendering
T067 Project
financial control
and reporting
T074
Quantification and
costing of
construction
works
T008 Capital
allowances
T016 Contract
administration
T020 Corporate
recovery and
insolvency
T025 Due
diligence
03/06/2010
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T045 Insurance
T063
Programming and
planning
T077 Risk
management
Enter 1, 2 or 3 only.
12 [8]
Indicate your level of awareness of the following three RICS New Rules of
Measurement (NRM) initiatives and
Rate the level of importance of each of these initiatives, respectively.
Details of NRM Initiatives can be found here: http://www.rics.org/nrm
*
Level of Awareness
1
2
3
4
5
Level of Importance
1
2
3
4
5

Procurement an alternative to
SMM7
Whole Life Costing
1 - Least aware or Least important
5 - Most aware or Most important
03/06/2010
Future role of the Quantity Surveyor

This section attempts to indentify your views with respect to the future role of the Qunatity Surveyor.
13 [9]Which of the following areas of work will become more important to the
role of Quantity Surveyor in the future? *
Building Services
Offshore Oil & Gas
Refurbishment
1 - Least important
5 - Most important
14 [9a]Is there any other area you think will be more important in the
near future?
If so please state the Area and it's level of importnace using the same
scale of 1 - 5 as before.
1 - Not important
5 - Very important
15 [11]
Rank the following RICS competencies in order of importnace 1 to 5.
(1 being the least and 5 being the most)
03/06/2010

M003 Client care
M006 Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution
procedures
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
1 - Least important
5 - Most important
16 [12]Are there any competencies you think will be important in the future
that are not listed?
If so could you please state the two most important below.
Also indicate how you would rank it on 1 - 5 scale.
Additional Competency 1
03/06/2010
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2 AC: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial ... Page 10 of 23
Quantity Surveying Education

This section attempts to capture your views on Quantity Surveying education system. The questions primarily refer to
courses accredited by the RICS.
17 [13]Do you think there is a difference in teaching to produce a graduate to
become a Consultant Quantity Surveyor or a Contractor Quantity Surveyor?

1
2
3
4
5
1 - No difference
5 - Completely different
18 [14]To what extent is this difference in teaching to produce a graduate to
become a Consultant Quantity Surveyor or a Contractor Quantity Surveyor

reflected in your curricular?
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not refelected at all
5 - Fully refected in curricular
19 [16]How satisfied are you with the curriculum taught at universities in

producing a graduate quantity surveyor "fit for purpose"? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not satisfied
4 - Satisfied
03/06/2010
20 [17]List areas you feel are not adequately covered by the curriculum?
List as many items that you think that are not covered in RICS accredited Quantity Surveying degree courses.
21 [18]How confident are you in the level of knowledge you have in the
following:
Academic Knowledge
Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
4 - Confident
5 - Fully confident
22 [19]Please choose which of the following statements most closely

describes the role of universities in producing a graduate Quantity Surveyor:
*
Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic

knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying
Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for
immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
Select what you think most appropriate.
03/06/2010
23 [20]How willing do you find industry is to collaborate with

Universities in Quantity Surveying education related matters ? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all Willing
2 - Partially Willing
3 - Unsure
4 - Willing
5 - Very Willing
24 [21]How likely are you to be able to commit time for industry

collaborative activities? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all Likely
2 - Partially Likely
3 - Unsure
4 - Likely
5 - Very Likely
03/06/2010
Modes of study & Placement

This section attempt to capture your views on different modes of studies and placement.
25 [22]Which mode of study do you feel produces the best graduate

Quantity Surveyor? *
Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 7
Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience

no placement
Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience
no placement
Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement
Full time undergraduate university study summer placements
Full time postgraduate study - non-cognate route
Part time postgraduate study - non-cognate route
Rank in order.
Non-cognate route implies graduates of other disciplines following a RICS
accredited postgraduate masters degree in Quantity Surveying to enter in to
the profession of Quantity Surveying.
26 [23]Please indicate your university's level of commitment to

industrial placement.
Do you encourage placement or the course structure do not support
placement. *

During a recession
03/06/2010
1 - Not at all committed

2 - Partially committed
3 - Committed
4 - Very Committed
5 - Fully committed
27 [24]How important is it for an organisation providing placement to

have a structured placement training model? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all Important
2 - Partially Important
3 - Important
4 - Very Important
5 - Extremely Important
28 [24a]Should RICS should determine and regulate the entry

requirements for RICS accredited programmes: *
Yes
Uncertain
No
29 [25a]Should the entry level for RICS accredited

Quantity Surveying programmes change?
Is it too low, appropriate or too high at present? *
03/06/2010
1 - Very low
2 - Low
3 - Appropriate
4 - High
5 - Very High
03/06/2010
RICS Routes of membership and training

These question attempts to capture your views on RICS routes of mebership
30 [26]How well do you understand the following routes of RICS

membership? *
Graduate route
Assoc RICS route (Associate )
1 - Not at all
5 - Perfectl well
31 [27]How appropriate are the following routes in producing competent

Quantity Surveyors?
Graduate route
5 - Very Appropriate
32 [29]How important do you think it is for early career graduates to

attain Chartered status in the following institutions?

RICS
Chartered Insttute of Builders CIOB
Surveyors CICES
Other
03/06/2010
1 - Not important
3 - Important
4 - Very Important
33 [30]If answered Other to previous question please

indicate what other institution (s) and how imprtant.
Answer was '4' or '2' or '3' or '5' at question ' 32 [29]' (How important do you think
it is for early career graduates to attain Chartered status in the following
institutions? (Other))
Type as text the name of Institution(s) and level of importance in 1 - 5 scale as

before.
1 - Not important
5 - Very important
34 [33]How important is it for an organisation to have

a Structured Training Programme to prepare
candidates for APC? *
1
2
3
03/06/2010
4
5
03/06/2010
RICS - Royal Institution of Chartered

Surveyors
This section attempt to capture your views on RICS as a professional body regulating the
Quantity Surveying profession.
35 [34]How would you rate the following services

provided by the RICS?
Use the Scale of 1 - 5 provided.

profession
practice
Continued Professional Development for
the Quantity Surveying profession
Genral member services (directory, journal,
benefits sheme etc..)
36 [35]
Are there any other services providded by the RICS
which you value as important?
03/06/2010
Service
1
Service
2
Service
3
Give a brief description of such services.
37 [36]What is the overal level of satisfaction for the

services provided by the RICS? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not satisfied
5 - Fully satisfied
38 [37]
How do you rate the communications between you and
RICS?
*
1
2
3
03/06/2010
4
5
1 - Very poor
5 - Ver good
39 [38]Are the services provided by RICS appropriate to your

academic/professional needs? *
1
2
3
4
5
40 [39]Do you think RICS membership provide value for money? *

1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all
41 [40]How successful is the RICS partnership agreement related

process in producing good quality graduate? *
03/06/2010
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all successsfull
2 - Partially successful
3 - Undecided
4 - Successfull
5 - Very successfull
03/06/2010
Chair in Construction Economics
Wynne-Jones Building
Ellison Place
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK
Tel: 0044 (0) 191227 3172
Fax: 0044 (0) 191227 3167
31.12.1969 19:00
Submit your survey.
Thank you for completing this survey.
03/06/2010
Appendix C Industry survey

questionnaire
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2Ind: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial De... Page 1 of 22
Ver 2Ind: Alignment of Professional,

Academic, and Industrial Development Needs
of Qunatity Surveyors
Northumbria University are currently carrying out a piece of investigative research to assess the degree of fit between
RICS competencies, Academic teaching curricula and Industry needs for new and emerging Graduate Quantity
Surveyors. This work is co-funded by Northumbria University and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and
aims to accrue major benefits to all three parties (Academia, Industry and the RICS), the quantity surveying graduates
and wider community by providing:
Cohesion and unified view towards professional development of Quantity Surveyors.
A systematic and verifiable partnership agreement between RICS, Universities, and employers
As part of this research we are carrying out an online survey. All responses will be
treated confidentially and reporting of any findings will be aggregated and anonymous.
We would be grateful if you could take the time to fill in as much of this questionnaire as
possible. This should take approximately 25 minutes.
There are 39 questions in this survey
Respondent Profile
General information that is useful to categorise respondent profile.
1 [1]What type of company do you work in? *

Private practice Quantity Surveyor (consultant)

Contracting organisation
Public Sector
Specialist sub-contractor
Specialist supplier
Other
Indicate the type of organisation you currently work for.
2 [2]How many employees does your organisation have? *

Micro (1 - 10)
Small (11 - 99)
Medium (100 - 499)
03/06/2010
Large (> 500)

Select the category that best describes your organisation based on employee numbers
3 [3]What is your age? *

18 - 24 Years
25 - 34 Years
35 - 45 Years
Over 45 Years
Indicate the age category you belong.
4 [4]How many years experience do you have in Quantity Surveying? *

Up to 5 Years
6 - 10 Years
11 - 20 Years
21 - 30 years
Over 30 Years
Select the category best describes your experience in Quantity Surveying
5 [5]
Are you a member of any of the following professional bodies?
*
Please choose all that apply:
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

Chartered Institute of Builders (CIOB)
Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors (CICES)
Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineering (CIBSE)
Not a member of any Professional Body
Other:
You may select more than one Professional Body if you are a memeber of several Professional Bodies. Please
indicate the full name of the Professional Body if it is not listed above.
03/06/2010
Quantity Surveying Competencies

Full details of Quantity Surveying competencies can be found from the link below:
Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction
Note: this will open in an new window.
6 [6]
From the following list, which of these activities makes up your
organisations current workload?
*
Pre-contract cost control (preliminary estimating, cost planning)

Post-contract cost control (Interim valuations to final accounts)
Value management
Risk management
Whole life costing
Project management
Disput resolution
Managing claims
Other
Please express these as a percentage (%).
7 [7]
Considering the list of competencies below please state which of these a
new graduate Quantity Surveyor should possess, and at which level:
Level 1 = knowledge (theoretical knowledge)
Level 2 = knowledge and practical experience (putting it in to practice)
03/06/2010
Level 3 = knowledge, practical experience, and capacity to advise

(explaining and advising)
Pathway Guide for Quantity Surveying and Construction can be found
here.
*
03/06/2010
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
M001 Accounting
principles and
procedures
M002 Business
planning
M003 Client care
M004
Communication
and negotiation
M005 Conduct
rules, ethics and
professional
practice
M006 Conflict
avoidance,
management and
dispute resolution
procedures
M007 Data
management
M008 Health and
safety
M009
Sustainability
M010 Team
working
T010 Commercial
management of
construction
T013 Construction
technology and
environmental
services
T017 Contract
practice
T022 Design
economics and
cost planning
T062
Procurement and
tendering
T067 Project
financial control
and reporting
T074
Quantification and
costing of
construction
works
T008 Capital
allowances
T016 Contract
administration
T020 Corporate
recovery and
insolvency
T025 Due
diligence
03/06/2010
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T045 Insurance
T063
Programming and
planning
T077 Risk
management
Enter 1, 2 or 3 only.
8 [8]
Indicate your level of awareness of the following three RICS New Rules of
Measurement (NRM) initiatives and
Rate the level of importance of each of these initiatives, respectively.
Details of NRM can be found here.
*
Level of Awareness
1
2
3
4
5
Level of Importance
1
2
3
4
5

Procurement an alternative to
SMM7
Whole Life Costing
1 - Least aware or Least important
5 - Most aware or Most important
03/06/2010
Future role of the Quantity Surveyor

This section attempts to indentify your views with respect to the future role of the Qunatity Surveyor.
9 [9]Which of the following areas of work will become more important to the
role of Quantity Surveyor in the future? *
Building Services
Offshore Oil & Gas
Refurbishment
1 - Least important
5 - Most important
10 [9a]Is there any other area you think will be more important in the
near future?
If so please state the Area and it's level of importnace using the same
scale of 1 - 5 as before.
1 - Not important
5 - Very important
11 [11]
Rank the following RICS competencies in order of importnace 1 to 5.
(1 being the least and 5 being the most)
03/06/2010

M003 Client care
procedures
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
1 - Least important
5 - Most important
12 [12]Are there any competencies you think will be important in the future
that are not listed?
If so could you please state the two most important below.
Also indicate how you would rank it on 1 - 5 scale.
03/06/2010
Quantity Surveying Education

This section attempts to capture your views on Quantity Surveying education system. The questions primarily refer to
courses accredited by the RICS.
13 [13]
Do graduates meet your expectations with respect to the following

competencies:

M003 Client care
procedures
M009 Sustainability
M010 Team working
T025 Due diligence
T045 Insurance
1 - Not at all
2 - Partialy
3 - Undecided
4 - Almost fully
5 - Perfectly
If you are not sure of an answer please select 3.
14 [14]If you chose 1 or 2 for more than half the

competencies can you state why?
03/06/2010
Northumbria-QS - Ver 2Ind: Alignment of Professional, Academic, and Industrial ...
Page 10 of 22
15 [15]How aware are you of the content of the curriculum taught in

university? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all aware
2 - Partially aware
3 - Reasonably aware
4 - Aware
5 - Perfectly aware
16 [16]How satisfied are you with the curriculum taught at universities in

producing a graduate quantity surveyor "fit for purpose"? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not satisfied
2 - Partialy satisfied
4 - Satisfied
17 [17]List areas you feel are not adequately covered by the curriculum?
03/06/2010
Page 11 of 22
List as many items that you think that are not covered in RICS accredited Quantity Surveying degree courses.
18 [18]How confident are you in the level of knowledge that the lecturers
have in the following:

Academic Knowledge
Use of teaching material (notes, handouts, tutorials etc.)
4 - Confident
5 - Fully confident
19 [19]Please choose which of the following statements most closely

describes the role of universities in producing a graduate Quantity Surveyor:
*
Universities should produce a graduate with overall academic

knowledge and a good foundation in Quantity Surveying
Universities should concentrate on training Quantity Surveyors for
immediate Quantity Surveying employment upon graduation
Select what you think most appropriate.
20 [20]How willing are you to collaborate with Universities in

Quantity Surveying education related matters? *
1
2
3
03/06/2010
Page 12 of 22
4
5
1 - Not at all Willing
2 - Partially Willing
3 - Unsure
4 - Willing
5 - Very Willing
21 [21]How likely are you to be able to commit time for collaborative

activities? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all Likely
2 - Partially Likely
3 - Unsure
4 - Likely
5 - Very Likely
03/06/2010
Page 13 of 22
Modes of study & Placement

This section attempt to capture your views on different modes of studies and placement.
22 [22]Which mode of study do you feel produces the best graduate

Quantity Surveyor? *
Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 7
Full time undergraduate university study no prior experience

no placement
Full time undergraduate university study with prior experience
no placement
Full time undergraduate university study 1 year placement
Full time undergraduate university study summer placements
Full time postgraduate study - non-cognate route
Part time postgraduate study - non-cognate route
Rank in order.
Non-cognate route implies graduates of other disciplines following a RICS
accredited postgraduate masters degree in Quantity Surveying to enter in to
the profession of Quantity Surveying.
23 [23]Please indicate your level of commitment to industrial placement.

*

During a recession
03/06/2010
Page 14 of 22
1 - Not at all committed

2 - Partially committed
3 - Committed
4 - Very Committed
5 - Fully committed
24 [24]How important is it for an organisation to have a structured

placement training model? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all Important
2 - Partially Important
3 - Important
4 - Very Important
5 - Extremely Important
25 [25]Which of the following statements apply to the benefits of

offering a placement? *
Yes
Uncertain
No
It is a good test bed for potential staff after

graduation
It is a source of economic and flexible
labour
It provides source of new ideas from
current education
It allows for a two way flow of knowledge
between universities and industry
03/06/2010
Page 15 of 22
RICS Routes of membership and training

These question attempts to capture your views on RICS routes of mebership
26 [26]How well do you understand the following routes of RICS

membership? *
Graduate route
Assoc RICS route (Associate )
1 - Not at all
5 - Perfectl well
27 [27]How appropriate are the following routes in producing competent

Quantity Surveyors?
Graduate route
5 - Very Appropriate
28 [28]What percentage of the candidates has your organisation

supported through any of the following routes of membership?
Total of all entries must not exceed 100
03/06/2010
Page 16 of 22
Graduate
route
Assoc RICS
route
(Associate)
Senior
Professional
route
Indicate the percentage (%) category.
29 [29]How important is it for your organisation to enable your graduate

quantity surveyors to attain chartered status in the following institutions?

RICS
Chartered Insttute of Builders CIOB
Surveyors CICES
Other
1 - Not important
3 - Important
4 - Very Important
30 [30]If answered Other to previous question please

indicate what other institution (s) and how imprtant.
Answer was '3' or '2' or '4' or '5' at question ' 29 [29]' (How important is it for your
organisation to enable your graduate quantity surveyors to attain chartered status
in the following institutions? (Other))
03/06/2010
Page 17 of 22
Type as text the name of Institution(s) and level of importance in 1 - 5 scale as

before.
1 - Not important
5 - Very important
31 [31]Please state any negative aspects which would limit your

encouragement to graduates to join the RICS
Negative
aspect 1
Negative
aspect 2
Negative
aspect 3
Indicate the three most important negative aspects.
32 [32]Does your organisation have a Structured Training Programme to

prepare candidates for APC? *
03/06/2010
Page 18 of 22
Yes
No
33 [33]How important is it for an organisation to have

a Structured Training Programme to prepare
candidates for APC? *
1
2
3
4
5
03/06/2010
Page 19 of 22
RICS - Royal Institution of Chartered

Surveyors
This section attempt to capture your views on RICS as a professional body regulating the
Quantity Surveying profession.
34 [34]How would you rate the following services

provided by the RICS?
Use the Scale of 1 - 5 provided.

profession
practice
Continued Professional Development for
the Quantity Surveying profession
Genral member services (directory, journal,
benefits sheme etc..)
35 [35]
Are there any other services providded by the RICS
which you value as important?
03/06/2010
Page 20 of 22
Service
1
Service
2
Service
3
Give a brief description of such services.
36 [36]What is the overal level of satisfaction for the

services provided by the RICS? *
1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not satisfied
5 - Fully satisfied
37 [37]
How do you rate the communications between you and
RICS?
*
1
2
3
03/06/2010
Page 21 of 22
4
5
1 - Very poor
5 - Ver good
38 [38]Are the services provided by RICS appropriate to your need? *

1
2
3
4
5
39 [39]Do you think RICS membership provide value for money? *

1
2
3
4
5
1 - Not at all
03/06/2010
Page 22 of 22
Chair in Construction Economics
Wynne-Jones Building
Ellison Place
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK
Tel: 0044 (0) 191227 3172
Fax: 0044 (0) 191227 3167
31.12.1969 19:00
Submit your survey.
Thank you for completing this survey.
03/06/2010
Appendix D Competency mapping

scores
Competency Code
Mandatory
Name
M001 Accounting principles

and procedures
Competen
cy Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Mandatory
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Mandatory
M003 Client care
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Mandatory
M004 Communication and
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
negotiation
Mandatory
M005 Conduct rules, ethics

and professional
practice
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Mandatory
M006 Conflict avoidance,
Mandatory
management and
dispute resolution
procedures
Mandatory
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Mandatory
M009 Sustainability
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Mandatory
M010 Teamworking
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Core
T010 Commercial
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
management of
construction
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Core
T013 Construction
Core
Core
T022 Design economics and Level 1
Level 1
technology and
Level 2
environmental services Level 3
cost planning
Core
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2
Level 3
T062 Procurement tendering Level 1

Level 2
Level 3
Core

Level 1
Final
Score
Final
Score
Final
Score
Final
Score
0
0
0
1.5
0.5
0
1
0.25
0
1.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
2
1
0.25
2.25
0.5
0
2.5
0
0
1.5
1.25
0
2.25
0.25
0
3.25
0.75
0
1
0.5
0
2
0.75
0
1.25
0.75
0
1.25
0.5
0.25
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
0.25
1.5
1.25
0
0.5
0.25
0
0.75
0.25
0
1.5
1
0.25
0.5
0
0
1.75
0.25
0
1.25
1.75
0
1
0.25
0
1.75
0
0
1
0.25
0
1.75
0.75
0
0.75
0.25
0
1
0.25
0
0
0.75
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
1.5
1
0
1
0.25
0
0.75
0
0
1.25
1.5
0.25
0.75
0.25
0
1.25
0
0
1.5
1.5
0
2
0.25
0
2
0.5
0
1.5
0.75
0
1.25
0.75
0
1.75
0.25
0
1.75
0.5
0
0
1
0.25
0
1
0.25
0
2
0.5
0
1.75
0.25
0
1.5
0.25
0
2.25
1
0.5
0.75
0
0
1.5
0.25
0
2.25
0.75
0
1.25
0.25
0
3
0.75
0
1.5
0.75
0
1.5
0.75
0
1.25
0.25
0
2.75
Competency Code
Mandatory
Name
and reporting
Accounting
principles
M001 control
Competen
cy Level
Final
Score
Final
Score
Final
Score
Final
Score
0.75
0
1.25
1
0
0.5
0
0
1.5
0.75
0
0.75
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
1.25
0.75
0
1
1
0
0.5
0.25
0
0.25
0
2.5
0.75
0
0.25
0
0
0.75
0.25
0
0.25
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.25
0
0
2.75
0.75
0
1.25
0
0
1.75
0.5
0
0.75
0
2.75
1.25
0
0
0
0
1.25
0.5
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.5
1
0
0.75
0.5
0
0.75
0
0
1
0
3.25
1.25
0
0
0
0
2.25
0.75
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0.75
0.25
0
1.75
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
1.25
0.5
0
TOTAL
ALL LEVELS
45.25
37.25
37.75
48
Level 1
Level 2
32.5
27
26
37
12.25
10
11
11.25
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
Level 2
Level 3
Core
T074 Quantification and
Optional
T008 Capital Allowances
Optional
T016 Contract administration Level 1
Level 1
costing of construction Level 2
works
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2
Level 3
Optional
T020 Corporate recovery and Level 1

insolvency
Level 2
Level 3
Optional
T025 Due diligence
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Optional
T045 Insurance
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Optional
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
planning
Optional
TO66 Project Evaluation
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Optional
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Guidance Notes
Knowledge
Application of
knowledge in to practice
Ability to advice clients Level 3
on aspects of knowledge
gathered

Alignment of Views Final Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alignment of Views Final Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALIGNMENT OF PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC AND

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR

Alignment of Professional, Academic and

Professor Srinath Perera

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

Analysis of Expert opinion

Analysis of Perception of the academia

Analysis of Perception of the Industry

Competency Mapping Case Studies

Expert forum interview questions

Academic survey questionnaire

Industry survey questionnaire

Competency mapping scores

Srinath Perera and John Pearson

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Part 1 Executive Summary

3.1 The status of the RICS QS Competencies

Part 1: The Study

3.2 Views of Academia

T067 Project financial control and reporting

1. M004 Communication and negotiation

Part 1: Key findings

4 Proposed Alignment of views framework

4.2 Competency mapping framework

Part 1: Proposed Alignment of views framework

4.1 Graduate competency threshold benchmark (GCTB)

4.3 Detailed competency specification

4.4 Re-evaluation of status of competencies

4.5 University-Industry collaboration

4.6 RICS-University-Industry partnership

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 1: Proposed Alignment of views framework

4.7 Review of stakeholder roles and responsibilities

Part 2 Main Report

Professor Srinath Perera

RICS Trust Grant Project No: 401

THE STUDY ..............................................................................................................................................2

PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF VIEWS FRAMEWORK....................................................................................4

GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................... 4

RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................................................................................3

THE SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILES.......................................................................................................5

ROLE OF THE QS & DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................................................................6

ORGANISATIONS CURRENT WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 6

RICS QUANTITY SURVEYING COMPETENCIES ...........................................................................................8

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Contents

THE STATUS OF THE RICS QS COMPETENCIES .................................................................................................. 2

QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ......................................................................................................23

MODES OF STUDY & PLACEMENT..........................................................................................................27

PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE RICS..................................................................... 34

ALIGNMENT FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................38

LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................ 31

RICS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................34

PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF MODES OF STUDY .................................................................................................... 27

RICS ROUTES OF MEMBERSHIP & TRAINING..........................................................................................31

GRADUATE COMPETENCY THRESHOLD BENCHMARK (GCTB)............................................................................. 39

Perera & Pearson, 2011

Part 2: List of Contents

CROSS COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF EXPECTATION, ACHIEVEMENT AND IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES ..................... 21

Part 2: List of Contents

Perera & Pearson, 2011

FIGURE 1 KEY STAKEHOLDERS INFLUENCE ON QUANTITY SURVEYING EDUCATION ..................................................................... 1

Perera & Pearson, 2011