<snip>
...vested practititioners are the ones that create the certification
and tend to adhere to what they needed to know "back then".
<snip>
Given the volume and the complexity of electronic records vs.
traditional paper records management, it would seem that many of our
efforts (the CRM exam and many of the university courses available) are
significantly off-kilter in proportionality.
<snip>
...frequently the certifications are created to serve as a mechanism to
limit competition to those who have already gotten it by ensuring that
the barriers to entry are high.
<snip
These are not true regarding the ICRM; not accurate at all. The ICRM
Exam Development Committee captures the body of RIM knowledge, and
reflects it back in the questions and case studies. Cutting edge RIM
technology is included, to the nth degree. Any CRM is welcome to sit in
on the committee to observe. I have heard from a number of CRMs who
have done so, including some Ph.D.s, that it is a very humbling
experience.
I am not saying that Jesse is running down the ICRM; not at all.
However, I will say this. Anybody who states, asserts, or implies that
the above copied blurbs are true in the case of the ICRM and the CRM
certification credential is either badly misinformed, ignorant, wrong,
or telling mistruths. There have even been some who had an agenda in
spreading misinformation.
Best regards, Steve
Steven D. Whitaker, CRM
Records Systems Manager; City of Reno
>>> [log in to unmask] 10/19/05 06:07PM >>>
I've been sitting this one out as I chew on the various aspects of both
this
thread and the greater competencies vs. education thread. But this
statement:
>Frankly, I believe that we would be very likely to get government to
>confer a monopoly on the ICRM for certification if we were to work to
>that end.
troubles me. One of the other key points regarding certification and
licensure that either I missed or has been missed to date is that
frequently
the certifications are created to serve as a mechanism to limit
competition
to those who have already gotten it by ensuring that the barriers to
entry
are high. You can see this in a number of fields. I think it would be
difficult to do this in RM in part because it is not as well known.
It also serves, in my mind, to restrict the adaptability of the field,
because the vested practititioners are the ones that create the
certification and tend to adhere to what they needed to know "back
then". I
don't mean this to specifically target the CRM, nor ARMA or the ICRM,
but
simply to point out that certifications and competencies have a
tendency to
result in echo chambers. Given the volume and the complexity of
electronic
records vs. traditional paper records management, it would seem that
many of
our efforts (the CRM exam and many of the university courses available)
are
significantly off-kilter in proportionality. This raises a second issue
to
my point above, which is that doctors have to keep up with current
developments in medicine, and lawyers, in law; while there is a
requirement
to do continuing education for the CRM, there is no requirement, for
example, to test on the newest RIM-related technology every X number
of
years, nor do I think the ICRM and ARMA would be particularly
interested in
so doing as I suspect the corpus of CRMs might drop by 50% or more
through
such a process (although those remaining would command significantly
higher
salaries).
NB: Not a CRM, not eligible to sit for the exams yet.
I'm going to quit for now and see what else comes up. I think this is
one of
the more critical threads I have seen on the list for a while and I
strongly
encourage everyone who has an opinion to voice it.
Respectfully submitted,
Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, LIT, EDP, ICP
IMERGE Consulting
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
[log in to unmask]
Yahoo!: jessewilkins8511
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
