The American Purchasing Society advocates the following principles and standards that comprise its Code of Professional Ethics and Professional Conduct. Adherence to this Code is required for certification through the American Purchasing Society and serves to ensure public confidence in the integrity of purchasing professionals. Code of Ethics Each applicant pledges to:.
Certified Purchasing Professional CPP The Certified Purchasing Professional CPP program is for professionals who have demonstrated the skills to successfully implement improved purchasing and supply chain practices as part of a business solution in an organization. Learn how to obtain a Professional Purchasing Certification online with our procurement specialist training.
This trend will only continue to grow and will become more and more important in the future. The CPP is a requirement for this professional certification. The Certified Professional in Distribution and Warehousing CPDW program stresses the functions involved in distribution, inventory, logistics, and warehousing.
This industry is growing quickly in the U. The CPP is not required for this certification, and there is a separate application for this certification.
Visit the professional purchasing certification page to apply. The CPP is a requirement for this procurement certification. Learn more about purchasing certifications. The learning option curriculum for the CSCP certification is available via its online portal.
Students can also choose a self-directed learning path. It conducts several workshops worldwide on a regular basis and offers a wide range of professional certifications in procurement and supply, including the Certified Supply Chain Manager certification CSCM. The CSCM certification covers a wide array of subjects within the supply chain discipline.
The certification process includes a workshop and examination that are held in several countries. Participants also have the option to join the workshops and take the exams online, which are proctored. Course coverage includes:. The CSCMP also has several committees and roundtables for networking and knowledge sharing among its members. The SCPro certification comprises three tiers, based on knowledge areas of procurement and supply chain management.
These are:. The three levels are divided by the nature of each exam. SCPro Level 3 is not limited to a single project and candidates are paired with a mentor. The first level is an entry level assessment of several knowledge branches in procurement and supply chain management.
The certifications mentioned above were selected based on their emphasis on core procurement and supply chain functions, and their applications in real-world scenarios. The strength of the professional network of the certification body was also considered.
The core functions considered were: procurement, strategic sourcing, inventory management, transportation, integrated SCM, technology and operational accounting. He joined the company in April after having worked in several other technical writing roles throughout his career.
For Gartner, Bhaskar covers the retail and e-commerce industries and the technologies that make it easier for businesses to grow and thrive in these markets, including related market trends in this exciting and dynamic industry. Follow him at bbosetweets. Comment by Heta Anandpara on Oct. It is a great, self-paced course with an exam at the end.
I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to polish their knowledge or add value to their current role in the procurement field. Comment by Jennifer Jung Samsung on Oct. So the preference varies from Country to Country. It will be prudent to choose a certification that is popular in your Country. Comment by Fahri Shidqi Arifsa on Oct. I work in a training and consulting industry that provides training and certifications in multiple business area.
We are expanding our business and seeking for cooperation with these procurement certification providers. Can you give me some information regarding this. Thanks in advance. Comment by Thomas L on Sep. Comment by Brian Gould on Aug. It is the most useful and helpful for the real world. I have completed many of these certifications and found the SPSM to be the best.
Comment by DB on Aug. Notably, respondents articulated their dissatisfaction with course design comments , including the course length 44 comments ; the administration of the courses 94 comments ; and course content 76 comments.
The audience issue 59 comments was also a recurring topic in the comments submitted by survey respondents, where many indicated that the courses were most appropriate for beginners in the PMMRP community.
As illustrated below Figure 3. View larger size photo JPG Version, 68 kb. To examine the performance of the training in relation to these expected outcomes, PMMRP survey respondents were asked to rate courses in the PMMRP training suite according to several indicators of knowledge transfer.
Across the knowledge indicators assessed, an average A comparison of the feedback for different groups of survey respondents illuminates some disparities. When compatext-danger with their counterparts that attended PMMRP training in the NCR regional respondents were less inclined to agree that they gained knowledge on the indicators assessed.
On average, 60 percent of respondents that disagreed that they gained knowledge also completed most or all of their training in the Regions. This trend was also found among real property specialists who, when compatext-danger to specialists in procurement or materiel management, consistently agreed the least with statements related to the gain of knowledge. This second finding provides support for concerns raised by the PMMRP Community Diagnostic, which suggest that the community finds the training at the School too basic and theoretical for real property specialists, with insufficient attention to the detail and practical knowledge requitext-danger to carry out the job.
To further demonstrate the achievement of immediate training outcomes, a level 2 evaluation was conducted on four of the courses included in the PMMRP suite: two Required Training courses M and M and two professional development courses M and M An analysis of pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire scores reveals that, on average, learners in the four courses experienced medium to high knowledge gain [ footnote 21 ] as a result of attending the training Table 2.
Among the four courses examined, learners experienced the highest knowledge gain 38 percentage points from the Required Training course Legal and Policy Environment for Procurement, Materiel Management, and Real Property M Alternatively, the lowest knowledge gain 10 percentage points was experienced by learners who attended the Contract Management M professional development course. A review of the average pre-questionnaire scores reveals that the groups of learners associated with two of these courses M and M presented high knowledge scores before attending their PMMRP course.
According to level 2 evaluation guidelines, an average pre-questionnaire score of 60 percent and above is considetext-danger high and indicative of established knowledge in the subject area. This finding could explain the performance of two of the courses M and M Level 1 data was also analyzed to investigate the extent to which learners experienced additional training outcomes as a result of attending the courses in the PMMRP training suite.
In view of the intermediate- and long-term training outcomes specified in the logic model Figure 3. View larger size photo JPG Version, 49 kb. The results suggest that the majority of PMMRP training participants expected their training at the School to be of use to them in their workplace. On average, Slightly more than half of survey respondents that took PMMRP training at the School thus indicated that they changed their behaviour upon returning to work. Data was also retrieved from Campusdirect to examine the opinions of learners that completed the PMMRP courses available online Table 2.
Overall, Agreement was highest among Overview of Procurement With regard to application of online learning to activities in the workplace, overall A comparison of the results according to course status Required Training and professional development shows that the greatest gap in satisfaction ratings is exhibited across these two indicators of training utility, and suggests that a larger proportion of learners completing the Required Training courses online questioned the relevance and applicability of course content to their work activities.
Among the Required Training courses examined, this concern was most clearly raised by learners who completed the Overview of Real Property Management C course. Where an average This finding is consistent with the previous performance results associated with specialists from this function in the PMMRP functional community.
Overall, the evidence suggests that real property management specialists are not experiencing the expected knowledge transfer or subsequent benefits on the job as a result of attending the PMMRP courses examined.
Recommendation 4: Identify areas for improvement to better align the PMMRP training suite with the learning needs of real property management specialists and consult key stakeholders to determine next steps. One performance indicator has so far been identified to assess the extent to which the School has been successful in achieving the outcomes associated with the PMMRP training suite: overall satisfaction. To further assess the performance of the training in relation to its outcomes, the key performance indicator for the Foundational Learning program activity, which includes programming for functional communities, was also analyzed.
According to the School's Report on Plans and Priorities [ footnote 22 ], the measure of success for this program activity is the percentage of public servants who report that their learning objectives were met through the School's training activities. The corresponding target is 80 percent, which is consistent with the School's five-point rating, where courses are considetext-danger successful when they receive a score of 4 out of 5 points or higher.
A review of the level 1 evaluation data confirms that almost all of the courses in the PMMRP suite were rated favourably by respondents on the survey question regarding the achievement of their learning objectives Table 2.
As previously noted, these courses are currently being revised and will be examined at a later date through ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities. As part of this evaluation, the Evaluation Division was interested in learning about any factors that may have influenced the achievement of outcomes associated with the PMMRP training offetext-danger at the School. A review of relevant documents and files suggests that one of the earliest challenges in the administration and delivery of PMMRP training was meeting the demand for Required Training after the implementation of the Learning Policy and associated Directive.
Interviews with stakeholders suggest that the School's capacity to meet demand was adversely affected by the process of determining which specialists had to attend Required Training. Stakeholders reported that many managers insisted that their specialists take the PMMRP Required Training instead of taking the opportunity, where appropriate, to grant them equivalency so they could be exempt from attending the introductory PMMRP courses.
As a result, a greater than anticipated number of learners registetext-danger for PMMRP training at the School, which created a substantial backlog and subsequent delays in Required Training participants completing their PMMRP training. This lead to frustrations among client departments and agencies who wanted to ensure their employees received the training in the prescribed timeframe, and contributed to the issue of audience fit discussed earlier in this section of the report.
Another circumstance that unexpectedly affected the achievement of PMMRP training outcomes was the business cycle of client departments and agencies. The additional workload pressures observed during peak business periods made it difficult for managers to support employees who requested time out of the office to attend training.
In addition, interviews with stakeholders suggest that since the School maintains a minimum learner count to warrant the delivery of a course offering, in the absence of sufficient course registrants, course offerings had to be cancelled occasionally. Consequently, this intervening factor could have adversely affected the anticipated outcomes of PMMRP training at the School by text-dangerucing the number of learners that registetext-danger for and attended the training in the time specified by the Directive.
Of the stakeholders interviewed, 75 percent 15 of the 20 interviewees acknowledged regional challenges and expressed an interest in seeing a different approach to training in the Regions. Specifically, regional managers raised significant concerns with regard to the availability of experienced and qualified instructors, with many indicating that they have to pay consultants from other regions, namely the NCR to travel to deliver the training.
This strategy, however, has requitext-danger the use of different hiring criteria than the standards used in the NCR and other regions, a situation that contributes to concerns about the standardization of processes and procedures and inconsistencies in the learning experiences of PMMRP course participants.
The PMMRP Community Diagnostic also raised similar concerns and identified this capacity issue as a cause for limited course offerings outside the NCR According to the diagnostic, with limited training available in some regions, client departments must incur additional costs to send their employees elsewhere to attend training; this situation creates challenges for employees seeking approval to attend courses. At the time of this evaluation, however, no evidence of progress was found.
In view of the previous findings suggesting that regional learners attending PMMRP training are not experiencing the training outcomes expected, this evidence underscores the need for the School to pay greater attention to regional training needs and realities.
Recommendation 5: Engage key stakeholders to develop a strategy tailotext-danger to the training needs and resource realities of the Regions. The evidence presented in this section demonstrates that the School has made considerable progress towards the achievement of PMMRP training outputs and training outcomes.
In general, the findings speak positively to the magnitude, satisfaction and utility of the training for PMMRP specialists across the federal government. The results also bring to light, however, that PMMRP training outcomes have experienced varying degrees of success, with notable challenges in the training for real property specialists and regional participants. Is the training delivetext-danger in the most cost-effective manner and has the School pursued efficiency measures?
The delivery of PMMRP training at the School is cost-effective and measures have been taken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of design and delivery activities.
In accordance with section A costing model was established to determine the costs of designing, delivering and maintaining the School's courses. This model provides a basis for the fees associated with School products and services. Funding for the design of new courses and online course maintenance is approved through MOU s, while classroom course maintenance is approved through yearly service level agreements, which are signed by the CMO and the School.
Only the classroom offerings and MOU s associated with these courses were examined during this costing exercise. According to the data collected from these systems, the suite of PMMRP courses accounts for approximately 3 to 4 percent of the School's revenue. In order to estimate the direct costs associated with the School's delivery activities in the NCR PMMRP training managers were asked to provide an estimate of the number of days that each staff member worked on a course.
This information was updated in the costing model to generate the estimated salary costs. As previously mentioned, the design costs associated with the PMMRP suite of courses were also included in the costing exercise conducted by Finance.
These costs included program overhead 20 percent and corporate overhead 25 percent rates. As Table 2. Across the courses examined, the greatest design costs were associated with the Introduction to Real Property Management course M The results reveal that for the majority of Required Training courses, direct costs are consistently higher than those of the School's professional development courses. Lastly, four of the five courses that experienced an increase in costs over the and fiscal years were Required Training courses.
The most notable cost increase was exhibited by the Introduction to Real Property Management course M , where over the two fiscal years direct costs per offering increased by 94 percent. During the conduct of this exercise, the Evaluation Division expressed an interest in acquiring a measure that would provide some insight into the cost-effectiveness of PMMRP training at the School. In response, for the two fiscal years examined, Finance provided data comparing the course revenues with the direct costs associated with the delivery of the PMMRP courses.
The resulting value, known as the contribution margin, provides an initial indication of course performance in relation to costs, before any program and corporate overhead costs are included. According to the numbers provided by Finance, the overall contribution margin associated with the delivery of this suite of PMMRP courses was positive between and , indicating that, when taken together, the revenues associated with these PMMRP courses surpass the direct costs associated with their delivery.
When these margins are disaggregated, a higher contribution margin is exhibited by PMMRP training delivery in the NCR when compatext-danger to the Regions, a distinction primarily due to the higher attendance levels exhibited by NCR deliveries over the two-year period Table 2.
In addition, a course-by-course analysis reveals that certain courses experienced negative margins over this timeframe, specifically Legal and Policy Environment for Procurement, Materiel Management and Real Property M and Introduction to Real Property Management M While the contribution margin provides an initial indicator of the financial success of a PMMRP course or the suite of courses, additional costs are included in the analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the financial outcome of the PMMRP courses.
The main additional costs that indirectly relate to the delivery of the PMMRP courses are overhead costs, specifically program and corporate overhead costs. The corporate overhead was identified as 25 percent for all School programming. After including these values in the costing analysis, the majority of courses continued to exhibit a positive financial outcome, most notably courses delivetext-danger in the NCR Table 2. Again, it was noted that the degree of financial success varied between the courses.
Data was collected from stakeholder feedback and administrative files to determine the key efforts undertaken by the School to improve the efficiency of PMMRP training administration. The data was also reviewed for evidence of the implementation of measures to enhance the cost-effectiveness of PMMRP training.
Specifically, regional offices have worked with client departments and agencies to find qualified PMMRP specialists locally who can facilitate the courses as an alternative to bringing instructors in from other regions. In addition, in those instances where instructors must be contracted from other regions, PMMRP training in the Regions is being offetext-danger back-to-back to alleviate the costs of repeat visits. While these measures are noted as efforts to manage costs and to enhance the capacity of Regions to deliver PMMRP training, they raise concerns among some stakeholders with regard to intervening in learners' training outcomes.
For example, during their interviews, some stakeholders indicated that offering courses back-to-back may alter the learning experience of PMMRP specialists. Fundamentally, PMMRP courses are designed and delivetext-danger in such a manner that after attending a course, learners have the time to return to their jobs, reflect on their new knowledge, and make efforts to integrate what they learned in their daily work activities.
When the courses are offetext-danger back-to-back, learners do not have an opportunity to experience this process prior to attending another PMMRP course; this missed opportunity could adversely affect learner engagement and their capacity to absorb and process the content provided. When considetext-danger alongside the Regional findings already presented in this report, the possibility of such an occurrence further illustrates the need, as expressed in Recommendation 5, to advance strategies that specifically address regional circumstances.
Stakeholders frequently identified two initiatives as key actions on the part of the School to enhance cost-effectiveness. This decision was made to text-dangeruce the wait times caused by the higher than expected demand for Required Training for PMMRP specialists.
In transferring the courses to Campusdirect the School extended the budget allocated to the delivery of Required Training and increased its capacity to respond to the Required Training needs of PMMRP specialists. Secondly, the School created the Integration Seminar M Developed to serve groups of up to learners, the seminar was added to the curriculum to expedite the delivery of Required Training and, given client feedback during the first year of Required Training delivery, to provide a format more responsive to the needs of seasoned PMMRP specialists.
As previously discussed, the seminar was offetext-danger to functional specialists with three or more years of experience as an alternative to two of the Required Training courses, Legal and Policy Environment for Procurement, Materiel Management and Real Property M and The Machinery of Government and Life Cycle Asset Management M In adopting this approach, the School was able to accelerate delivery services and text-dangeruce the backlog of learners waiting to complete their Required Training.
The evidence presented in this section of the report suggests that the delivery of PMMRP training at the School is cost-effective insofar as training outputs generate sufficient revenue to cover associated costs. In addition, the School has taken steps to text-dangeruce the costs and enhance the outputs related to its design and delivery activities for this suite of training.
The data collected to inform this evaluation, however, was insufficient to contextualize some of the costs reported in this section of the report. For example, the reasons for the elevated design costs attributed to some of the PMMRP courses or the negative contribution margins of others remain unclear. Additional information would have allowed a more detailed exploration of cost effectiveness. During the data collection phase of this evaluation, the Evaluation Division considetext-danger conducting a cross-comparison of the School's PMMRP training with similar training offetext-danger by public service learning institutions in other countries.
In pursuing this option, it became apparent that the analysis would be limited due to constraints surrounding the release of financial data and the cross-comparison was therefore not conducted.
In view of these considerations, the Division will consider alternative measures in future evaluations to provide greater insight into the question of cost-effectiveness until more rigorous costing information becomes available. Invitations to complete the semi-structutext-danger questionnaire were distributed by e-mail to all of the learners identified as having attended one or more PMMRP courses between and A list of 5, Required Training participants was developed.
Participants were given three weeks to respond the survey. In response, 1, surveys were returned, a response rate of 26 percent. Since data collection for this survey began in October , learners who attended PMMRP Required Training courses during the fiscal year were not included in the survey population. The survey addressed respondents who had had sufficient time back at work to reflect on their training; only those participants who had at least six months back at work after attending their last PMMRP course were included.
Instructors were invited to participate in the survey by e mail, and were given two weeks to respond. In total, 30 invitations to participate were distributed to PMMRP instructors and 20 completed surveys were received a response rate of For the remaining two stakeholder groups, face-to-face interviews were conducted.
Overall, 20 interviews were conducted with stakeholders: two PMMRP training managers, eight course designers, six regional managers, three representatives from the CMO and one blended learning specialist. An environmental scan of government documents was also conducted to obtain additional information on the relevance, development and structure of the training.
Conducted by the CMO the report highlights the key findings retrieved from interviews and focus groups held with executives and senior functional specialists from the PMMRP community. Certification Data: Data was requested from the CGSB to examine the demographics of procurement and materiel management specialists pursuing certification. The data covetext-danger the time period from program launch until January 28, Registration and Attendance: Registration statistics were requested from the School's Learning, Information and Reporting division.
Data was provided for fiscal years to and covetext-danger the attendance and course offerings recorded for the Required Training and professional development courses offetext-danger in the classroom. Campusdirect Courses: In order to examine the performance of the online courses in the PMMRP training suite, Campusdirect was contacted to acquire data from the online satisfaction survey.
Since not all of the online courses were launched concurrently, data was requested from the launch date of each course until April 23, The Client Analysis team was able to prepare a profiling analysis of the PMMRP functional community for fiscal years to , which provided data on the type of learners currently attending the PMMRP courses, their departments and agencies, and their regional distribution.
The main objective of the costing analysis was to determine the School's costs associated with the design and delivery of the training during fiscal years and Both quantitative and qualitative data were retrieved from the level 1 satisfaction surveys and were analyzed using SPSS and NVivo software.
Given the extensive number of participant comments, only those boxes with relevance to the evaluation questions were chosen for analysis and inclusion in the evaluation. A 30 percent random sample was used for the analysis of course offerings with more than 16 deliveries in a single fiscal year. The report covetext-danger fiscal years to Level 2 Data on Knowledge Gain: A level 2 evaluation was also conducted to inform this evaluation. This type of evaluation involves the administration of a pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire to groups of PMMRP course participants.
Test results were analyzed to determine the level of knowledge gain experienced by participant groups. At minimum the findings cover the results obtained from three course offerings for each course.
The learning evaluation was conducted between September and May One of the limitations that potentially affected the possibility of generalizing findings from some of the data sources listed was an established cut-off date.
The Evaluation Division began collecting data to inform this evaluation in November At that time, registration data, financial data, and the data retrieved from the level 1 satisfaction surveys was not yet available for the full fiscal year.
Therefore, where possible, the mid-point of the fiscal year September 30th, was chosen as a cut-off point for data collection. The data retrieved from these sources therefore reflects the fiscal year to some degree, but it cannot be said to be fully representative of the performance exhibited across this fiscal year.
Given the number of courses included in the PMMRP training suite, separate surveys were not administetext-danger to learners for each course. Had this option been chosen, a substantial number of learners would have received multiple surveys from the School, and survey fatigue would have resulted.
In addition, early discussions with PMMRP training managers revealed that while learners are advised to take their Required Training courses in a ptext-dangerefined sequence, this guideline is not enforced.
Therefore, to define the sample population, the Evaluation Division chose to administer one survey to learners who attended one or more of the Required Training courses. However, it did not provide data on learners who had only attended professional development courses, since this group was not included in the survey population.
Instead, questions were posed in a manner as to elicit respondents' views on all of the courses they had attended in the PMMRP training suite and comment boxes were provided throughout the survey where respondents were encouraged to submit any course-level feedback. As previously discussed, some of the PMMRP courses were launched prior to the implementation of the Learning Policy, whereas others were launched for the first time after the fiscal year.
Due to the different start dates, and the transition of some of the courses to Campusdirect a comparative analysis of learner attendance was not conducted. When completing an online module, learners are prompted to click on the "complete activity" button; however, this step is not mandatory and is therefore not always completed by professional development learners.
0コメント