Speak Up!

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1442 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 09:57 am:    131023 SPEAK UP! by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Cincinnati, Ohio In professional registration examinations, formulas may be required, but how you do the math manipulations is open to many methods [including fingers and toes]. Great principles are examined in the context of how they are applied in any of several solutions—but the testing is in the knowledge of what principle to use. Design problems, be they structural, architectural or mechanical, all are subjective to a point, and modified by principles, again, to produce any of many solutions. The testing is that the correct principle is used, and the solution reflects correct use of that principle. Another method of verifying competence and skill lies in the various certification programs. Many of these involve narrowly drawn training programs that offer the “certification” notation upon successful completion. For example, a company that makes a specific type of machine can develop a technicians’ program for trouble shooting and repair of the machines when in place. The certificate, here, is also drawn carefully in that it certifies the skill and ability to work on the specific machine or line of machines-- it does not address similar work on machines produced by other manufacturers. Often these other product lines are quite similar and one “can” work on them, but the basic certificate is still verifying only the single training that was completed. May be a “non-player”, but there is a gray area when the technician works “outside the certification”. In contrasting the certification to the registration, it is fairly obvious that the registration is more principle oriented—and those principals have wide application, in any number of circumstances. The certification is tied to the one system, period of training, product line, or organization. This is the same of the certification programs of CSI. The concept is quite valid to establish and verify skill, understanding and ability in the process of writing specifications. The measure applied here is the MF04 and the other various guides, instructions and guidelines of CSI-- it is not intended to measure every program in every office. But in this there is no implication or innuendo intended to portray that there is but one way of writing and formatting specifications. Certainly the overall system developed by CSI is highly creditable, but within all the information there are options, and flexibility wherein any user can adjust the various aspects of the program to better facilitate specific conditions, projects, or office standards and procedures. Instructional and training sessions usually point this out. Therefore, contrary to common thought, there is no “right”, “wrong”, or “CSI" way! True, the certification is based strictly on the CSI documents and the measure is so indicated.-- and properly so! But MF04, and the other CSI documents are DYNAMIC, not static, parochial, or dictatorial. Certification is one thing; speaking in your own words is another!