Thread: DACUM Home Inspectors

Occupational or job analysis is a systematic effort to collect information about the work requirements associated with particular jobs. The analysis forms detailed frameworks for describing jobs. DACUM validations are conducted to ensure accuracy, update the analysis or customize the chart to a specific work setting, in this case Home Inspection in Canada. I look forward to constructive comments from any home inspector pertaining to the enclosed “draft report”. www.nationalhomeinspector.net/2014Report3.pdf

Comments may be also emailed to me if you prefer – nhicc1@gmail.com

Uses of DACUM
•Curriculum development
•Training needs assessment
• Student achievement evaluation
• Worker performance evaluation
•Competency test development
•Job descriptions

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

Occupational or job analysis is a systematic effort to collect information about the work requirements associated with particular jobs. The analysis forms detailed frameworks for describing jobs. DACUM validations are conducted to ensure accuracy, update the analysis or customize the chart to a specific work setting, in this case Home Inspection in Canada. I look forward to constructive comments from any home inspector pertaining to the enclosed “draft report”. www.nationalhomeinspector.net/2014Report3.pdf

Comments may be also emailed to me if you prefer – nhicc1@gmail.com

Uses of DACUM
•Curriculum development
•Training needs assessment
• Student achievement evaluation
• Worker performance evaluation
•Competency test development
•Job descriptions

So what is the driving force behind this and why?

EBPHI has done a similar study with inspectors from Canada and the States. They do one every 4-6 years to reflect changes in the profession and then the NHIE is modified as dictated by the role delineation study (RDS). The NHIE has significant Canadian input over the past several years and I'm pretty sure EBPHI has produced and I thought even released an exam just for Canada. EBPHI even makes the RDS available to others for a small fee.

Seems like it would be a whole lot less expensive and a major time saver to not reinvent what is already available.

The optics concerning the make up of the panel leave me pondering.

Given the questionable and troubling issues concerning the validity of CMI how does NHICC justify the expertise, experience required to validate DACUM?

Once again its interesting to find a private business entity P2P is right up there. In my view there should be no business entities least of all a multi-national franchise.

Also in the opening pages it alludes to the fact the panel is not made up of one association. Out of 15 panelist eleven are NHI designated.

Also is this study not duplicating that which CAHPI has undertaken with their National Certification?

This will be interesting on several fronts.
Thanks Claude.

Who designed the DACUM and why?
The government of Ontario?

I will read the PDF link and come back with my observations..
Thanks.

For those who might not know what DACUM stands for:
Developing a Curriculum (DACUM)

Produced by the
NHICC
National Home Inspector
Certification Council
with co-operation from
National Home Inspector
Certification Council


1: CanNACHI
2: OntarioACHI
3: PHPIC
4: Pillar-to-Post

Quote, "The NHICC administrator issued letters of interest to all home inspection associations in Canada"
I only see 4.

I understand whom cooperated with the NHICC but still like to understand its purpose as a DACUM.
The assembly of contributors is short on inclusion. Better a start than I have seen through.

Just me thinking out loud.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Produced by the
NHICC
National Home Inspector
Certification Council
with co-operation from
National Home Inspector
Certification Council


1: CanNACHI
2: OntarioACHI
3: PHPIC
4: Pillar-to-Post

Quote, "The NHICC administrator issued letters of interest to all home inspection associations in Canada"
I only see 4.

I understand whom cooperated with the NHICC but still like to understand its purpose as a DACUM.
The assemble of contributors is shot on inclusion.

Just me thinking out loud.

Food for thought..... When EBPHI performs their Role Delineation Study(the same as a DACUM) they have a core group of about 25-30 to develop the domains and then survey about 3000 across the USA & Canada for their input.

Robert,

P2P is not an association.

Raymond, please:-)

I don't recall ASHI members in Canada being asked.

Further PHPIC is an affiliate of NHICC in that membership requires one to become Nat. Cert.

IPHPC
www.phpic.ca/ - Translate this page
PHPIC is a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to supporting the National Initiative for Canadian home and property inspectors across Canada.

Let's keep it factual.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I don't recall ASHI members in Canada being asked.

Further PHPIC is an affiliate of NHICC in that membership requires one to become Nat. Cert.



Let's keep it factual.

I concur.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I don't recall ASHI members in Canada being asked.

Further PHPIC is an affiliate of NHICC in that membership requires one to become Nat. Cert.



Let's keep it factual.

I concur.

It will be an interesting survey and I look forward to it..
Best of luck Claude.

First - Thanks for the feedback.....so far.

Scott P stated: So what is the driving force behind this and why?

A>The NHICC has licensing rights to use, maintain and update National Occupational Standards (NOS) for Canadian Home Inspectors as well as the National Certification Program. Currently the previous review was completed in 2008. In order to maintain value and applicability a NOS it should be reviewed approximately every 5 years.

Q> EBPHI has done a similar study with inspectors from Canada and the States. They do one every 4-6 years to reflect changes in the profession and then the NHIE is modified as dictated by the role delineation study (RDS). The NHIE has significant Canadian input over the past several years and I'm pretty sure EBPHI has produced and I thought even released an exam just for Canada. EBPHI even makes the RDS available to others for a small fee.

A>The EBPHI study although similar lacks several key criteria. To my understanding the review panel is primarily composed of US home inspectors. Secondly it does not represent a larger group from the majority of home inspection associations.

In a study done by U Berkeley on DACUMS it notes another concern – “If the industry is not reflected broadly, it is unlikely that the occupations within the industry will be given the latitude to move out of their traditional, skill components framework.”

One of the major flaws with the NHIE exams are lack of exam centres in Canada. In addition other concerns include the issue of official languages recognized in Canada, and also concerns noted regarding the significant difference in cost to take the exam (in Canada). I have spoken to NHIE last year and relayed these concerns.

Q> Seems like it would be a whole lot less expensive and a major time saver to not reinvent what is already available.

A> Scott although I agree in principle at least in Canada there’s been 3 reviews completed on Home Inspection on a National scale. The first by SAIT (Southern Alberta Institute of Technology) in the mid 90’s) and two more 2003 and 2008 completed and largely funded by CMHC with CAHPI members stated as representing the entire industry. Much of the push back and lack of support for the earlier NOS is based on the lack of representation for “other” panel members – aka associations and independents.

Regarding cost – much of the current DACUM study was independently funded by the participating home inspection associations and through volunteered contributions. Matter of fact the cost is significantly less than any of the prior DACUM studies. Regarding representation - most every major home inspection association was invited to participate, but based on the representation on the panel it’s obvious who chose to participate.

Raymond W stated: The optics concerning the make up of the panel leave me pondering.

A>Raymond regardless of the optics claim, as I stated earlier to Scott - most every major home inspection association was invited to participate; but based on the representation on the panel it’s obvious who chose to participate. This included invites to individuals such as yourself and few others that voiced their concerns about inclusion.

Q>Again DACUM is Given the questionable and troubling issues concerning the validity of CMI how does NHICC justify the expertise, experience required to validate DACUM?

A>Good question – but this was not about the legitimacy of any one credential. DACUM is represented best by all levels of “workers” in the industry. Workers are recruited directly from business and industry. These workers become the Panel of Experts who collectively and cooperatively describes the occupation in the language of the occupation. Typically 5 to 12 experts are part of the panel; however it is incumbent to also get input from other workers that are from the position, occupation, or other area of analysis. The vast majority of the panel composition was composed of highly experienced inspectors.

Validity also comes in the form of feedback. Feedback can be incorporated to make change. No one is claiming that the report is final or valid at this point without an opportunity to solicit feedback from other inspectors beyond the original panel’s recommendations. hence the call for feedback.

Q>Once again its interesting to find a private business entity P2P is right up there. In my view there should be no business entities least of all a multi-national franchise.

I might agree, to some degree. I have been involved in several DACUMS where companies funded and sat at the DACUM sessions. The major difference is in control "undue" influence. However even with that said, it’s a business directly related to training home inspectors albeit as a franchise, and equally as important representing the interest of educators. Again other franchises were contacted. Equally so, it’s also interesting that the same person previously sat on 3 other DACUM reviews. For the record - other franchises and educators have been on record sitting on past DACUMS.

Q>Also in the opening pages it alludes to the fact the panel is not made up of one association. Out of 15 panelist eleven are NHI designated.

A>You also offer another interesting observation. But then again there are a good number with multiple association memberships. The report only portrayed those that offered what was listed on their reference form. The actual number that directly participated in the original panel session was 9. Those attending by webinar offered follow-up feedback after the preliminary results were established. As may be noted several offered no association affiliation.

Q>Also is this study not duplicating that which CAHPI has undertaken with their National Certification?

A>This earlier studies performed only by CAHPI members and without input from other associations are fundamentally flawed. They are not flawed necessarily in direct relationship to content or the total process, but more related to seeking a more balanced input that represents a larger pool of workers. Today CAHPI represents at best 20% to 25% of the industry. Should such findings of the minority really reflect the majority of the occupation?

Simply this study aimed at seeking more input from a larger and varied pool of inspectors. It included an invitation for representation from most every association in Canada. It was interesting to hear of this concern echoed not just by the NHICC, but also from others. This message was also conveyed during meetings with the MCS study.

The other concern was the lack of opportunity from CAHPI to solicit input from other groups.
Posting this on several of the open home inspector’s forums at least provides an opportunity for feedback. However this was not the case where others restrict and take punitive action against those that would post such a document on their forum.

Thank you Claude for taking the time to answer the questions.

Claude, sorry for my na·ive·té but can any home inspector fill out the questionnaire?
I say this as someone that only wishes to help and not hinder this great industry.

Raymond, being not formally educated does not mean a person is short on vision or insight..
It does not mean the individual is not willing, ready and capable of learning.
Acronyms, such as P2P can have many descriptions.
So please sir, enough with the pretence and condescending behavior. It does does not ware well on anyone let alone a professional.
Best regards..

Claude, I will understand more of this great industry and what it has to offer by reading and being introduced to questionnaires. And hopefully with patience I will acquire your composure under adverse conditions.

Only the best to you and your endeavors.

Robert,

They are legitimate questions, if you don't like the inferences don't read it. This is Inspection News Forum not Nachi!
Further I never implied lack of education was a short coming, what I did raise concern about is the legitimacy of CMI and ones ability to partake given the lack of legal vetting the title is lacking. Questionable designations overseen by a private business is in my long held view not legitimate and the fact it is given away for nothing is not done professionally by any other profession.

In addition P2P has one meaning and the acronym is recognized in the industry as Pillar to Post.

Claude, thanks for the reply answers.... As we say in my neck of the woods, " I really don't have a dog in this hunt!", but ....

EBPHI uses an exam administrator for the NHIE, they are the ones providing the testing centers. I think PSI is their current admin, but they also license other testing providers to provide the exam in locations that do no have a PSI center. I'm sure Canada is a challenge to the testing providers due to its shear size and spread out centers of population.

The language issue is something that will never be resolved in a cost effective manner. When I served on the EBPHI board we looked at offering a French version but the cost verses the return on the investment just did not make economic sense and nobody in Quebec or any other province wanted to contribute. Alan Carson tried his best to get folks to help with the cost but it was just not going to happen. I think at the time (2009) we identified less than 200 French speaking home inspectors....

Again - THANKS, one and all for the opportunity to dialogue.

One suggestion brought forward is - why can we not learn to share this type of information with as many as we can that are involved in the industry? Unfortunately there are some (not those involved in this discussion...so far) that have closed minds, and feel threatened when another group brings forth their point of view.

Even during the DACUM sessions, it's always wise to state that participants should leave their politics and association views at the door. In other words start with an open mind.

I have never met any one,who works as hard as Claude to advance the home inspection profession for all home inspectors in North America
As he stated,if more people would leave there politics at the door,the profession would be much futher ahead then it is today
Claude,thanks rot all your efforts,keep up the good work.

Kevin there will likely always be those that seek the path of least resistance when it comes to certification and education. Hence the differences in associations in general.

One thing licensing of the home inspection sector has done is at least create the minimum acceptable level to practice. Again if an association chooses to meet or exceed what is regulated, that is the decision of the association.

At the same time when it comes to creating a DACUM, a well-balanced panel of "workers", can only help in providing their experience of describing the work they perform. All decision are based on consensus, so there's no per-determined agenda during study other than accurately recording work descriptions based on the panel input.

On another note even "veteran" or "highly experienced" home inspectors can fall victim of missing significant conditions. Having been involved with "test inspection and peer reviews", data indicates that between 15 - 20% of the participants failed to meet the minimum 80% reporting pass rate. That's not asking for perfection, and deemed a high pass score. That would seem to provide evidence that there's still a large gap and need for improvement even by so called experienced experts.

Originally Posted by Kevin Wood

Not only the Association but the so called expert, as they may have been trained way back and carried that info all along. The Instructor also may have fallen behind in training. This problem is evidenced everywhere and it must not be ignored that like any profession you must prove that you are continually updating your knowledge of change. I think setting the bar at 50 hrs/year of Continuing Education is better but not so easy to achieve. I think this should be mandatory for the teachers as they carry a much higher responsibility to the public and the HI Industry.

I think you will be hard pressed to find any profession that requires 50 hours of CE per year. If this could be accomplished the educators would love it, more hours equal more classes which equal more money! Honestly, more CE does not necessarily equate to better inspectors. With all of the online offerings that allow a person to click through a two hour session in thirty minutes or less and this includes taking chapter test, folks are just going through the motions to satisfy the requirements. Way too often very little if anything is learned when a person just wants to complete a forced CE requirement.

Originally Posted by Kevin Wood

Nope! I do not agree with classroom learning unless it is strictly set for hands on. There is well known fact that in class learning is less beneficial as the ability to retain info at the time is way beyond what the brain can absorb in one sitting. What happens and it can be proven, is the brain only takes in the most important info and disregards the rest.
When the test comes at the end of the day or complete session, it also is the wrong time to do that test, as also can be proven. Reason most exams are simplified to provide a little higher mark.
However you are right that the Associations that do not provide free Education would benefit the most.
Even Architect's get free Continuing Education and need a minimum of 25 hrs I believe.

Kevin, can you cite a known source where classroom training is inferior to online training. I just do not agree with you on this. Online is easier and takes less effort but I can not see how it is more beneficial than classroom training.

As for Free CE, nothing is free. You will be paying for it in some way, either through annual dues or fees for the class.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Robert,

They are legitimate questions, if you don't like the inferences don't read it. This is Inspection News Forum not Nachi!
Further I never implied lack of education was a short coming,
Thank you for the concerns. As you express and rightly so, InterNACGI message board be congested or appear to be, by the few bad apples that do not deserve the privileges of free speech.
It appears theirs cost many members discomfort for no other reason that amusing themselves.



what I did raise concern about is the legitimacy of CMI and ones ability to partake given the lack of legal vetting the title is lacking. Questionable designations overseen by a private business is in my long held view not legitimate and the fact it is given away for nothing is not done professionally by any other profession.

In addition P2P has one meaning and the acronym is recognized in the industry as Pillar to Post.

Now some may agree while other not Raymond but Legitimacy is not dependant upon hearsay, conjecture or personal assumptions.
The CMI is quite clear about how one is to apply for and maintain the designation.

There are no conflicts of interest and it is at arms length for all intensive purposes a legitimate vetted designation.

Let me point one thing out and be clear on my ongoing observations, just because one person said he heard from a source is no conformation.
Unless that source agrees then it MAY start to show some merit.

To go further, when I am given verbal confidence, and know full well in no uncertain terms it is and was meant to be in confidence/confidential without having to sign a paper in blood or swear an oath to God Almighty, I will be the only one that will ever say a thing to anyone.

It is plan and clear what is required by the CMIB.
Every Certified Master Inspector® must:

1. have completed 1,000 fee-paid inspections and/or hours of education (combined);
2. have been in the inspection business for at least three years;
3. agree to abide by the inspection industry’s toughest Code of Ethics;
4. agree to periodic criminal background checks; and
5. submit the application and the one-time fee (no annual dues, ever).

There is no deception or room for interpretation unless you are not willing to read.

On a firther note, Members as myself that acquired the designation legitimately are happy we have a symbol of our past and present achievements to offer on our websites.
All symbols of earned merit cost money to earn.
I d not expect the CMI to be a free charity.
No one works for fee.

There are cheats throughout the industry and information is bought and sold for individuals to accept and use to pass tests.
I am sorry you feel the way you do but do not take ot out on us.

Best regards.
Thank you for clarifying your post.

Okay.

Robert noted: "On a firther note, Members as myself that acquired the designation legitimately are happy ......"

I commend any inspector for doing it right and honestly, however I also know of some that have provided improper information.

The issue is more about the potential for manipulation or perhaps lack of audit to assure "full" compliance. It has been documented even on that "association" members forum that abuses have happened, and certification offered to others without the necessary paperwork. It's also obvious that even some well experienced home inspectors choose not to become associated as one.

Maintaining compliance and opening to external audits can only help maintain full accountability.

But more directly to the point of my DACUM posting; feedback is helpful in describing the work of a home inspector. The politics is best left in the domain of the association(s) that create these beliefs and marketing ploys. That has nothing to do with describing the work of a professional home inspector.

Claude,I agree with you 100 per cent,if we left out all the politics,in other words all the BS,we would have advanced the profession by leaps and bounds
If we want to stay were we are ,lets continue to oppose every one who wants to advance this profession.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Now some may agree while other not Raymond but Legitimacy is not dependant upon hearsay, conjecture or personal assumptions.
The CMI is quite clear about how one is to apply for and maintain the designation.

There are no conflicts of interest and it is at arms length for all intensive purposes a legitimate vetted designation.

Let me point one thing out and be clear on my ongoing observations, just because one person said he heard from a source is no conformation.
Unless that source agrees then it MAY start to show some merit.

To go further, when I am given verbal confidence, and know full well in no uncertain terms it is and was meant to be in confidence/confidential without having to sign a paper in blood or swear an oath to God Almighty, I will be the only one that will ever say a thing to anyone.

It is plan and clear what is required by the CMIB.
Every Certified Master Inspector® must:

1. have completed 1,000 fee-paid inspections and/or hours of education (combined);
2. have been in the inspection business for at least three years;
3. agree to abide by the inspection industry’s toughest Code of Ethics;
4. agree to periodic criminal background checks; and
5. submit the application and the one-time fee (no annual dues, ever).

There is no deception or room for interpretation unless you are not willing to read.

On a firther note, Members as myself that acquired the designation legitimately are happy we have a symbol of our past and present achievements to offer on our websites.
All symbols of earned merit cost money to earn.
I d not expect the CMI to be a free charity.
No one works for fee.

There are cheats throughout the industry and information is bought and sold for individuals to accept and use to pass tests.
I am sorry you feel the way you do but do not take ot out on us.

Best regards.
Thank you for clarifying your post.

Robert,

Obviously you wrote your above opinions before all hell broke loose on your associations forum over the legitimacy of CMI and concerns over misuse(s) of credentials one has not earned.

Raymond,life would be much simpler,if you would listen to the facts once in a while,instesd of always being so negative,nothing in life is ever simple,but you constant ranting and raving does nothing to improve any thing,do you not see what others post about you,I guess you do not care.
Go to sleep for a long time,when you wake up,every thing may fall in place,in spite of you
Have a good day

What are the facts Harry? Can you lay them on the table?

Negative? By asking for facts, correcting mistruths, questioning the politics, the conflicts, the business relationships affecting mine and other inspector’s profession by business, Realtors, Insurers, writing letters to get the real facts, et ceteras?

You keep coming at me with this mantra filled with vehemence. I make no apologies especially to you for what I say, suggest and opine on home inspection licencing in Ontario, past or present.

How would I know what others are saying of me? No one here is saying anything untoward. I have many 'likes' on my profile, I am respected in the community so what proof would you like to share?

Can you share with me and others what is being said about me on the other forum (I assume Nachi)? You’ve made an allegation and I would like you to back up with facts what you present as the truth.

In addition, I certainly hope you are not inferring that contrary to what you dispense suggesting my reputation or ethics as an inspector is being questioned on a public forum by others.

Harry for once I wish you would practice what you preach about ethics.

Suggestion to Claude:
Include an ethics provision in the DACUM specifically with making unfounded comments, seems to have been overlooked.

ZZZZzzzzz