The role of the IIMS Professional Assessment Committee explained


In the first of an occasional series on the ‘inner workings’ of some of the various committees within the Institute and, in the interests of transparency for existing members, the spotlight is turned on to the work of the Professional Assessment Committee (PAC) and their responsibilities. It seems that to some people, simply making an application for membership to join IIMS is all one has to do to be accepted. Whilst it could possibly be argued this might have been the case a decade or more ago, it most certainly is not the position these days. As you will learn from this short article, the process of assessing new application is taken very seriously indeed. It is thorough and rigorous.


PAC Chairman, Capt Chris Kelly, takes up the story. “The


It is a fact that not all applications are successful. Some applicants fail to achieve their desired level of membership; others are not credited with their requested range of surveying classifications due to a lack of evidence. My suspicions are always aroused when


an IIMS Professional Assessment Committee


currently has 16 members from around the world. All members are highly capable and experienced marine surveyors and, in the case of the commercial ship side, have backgrounds covering dry, liquid, refrigerated and gas cargoes, hull and machinery condition, salvage and towage, the offshore sector, auditing, classification and flag state surveys. Those who assess applications from large yacht and small craft surveyors have detailed knowledge and experience of this area of surveying. A further pool of experience is available from suitably experienced IIMS members who can advise on specialist areas of surveying and on the surveying practices in various parts of the world, which differ from territory to territory.


Membership applications are scrutinised by two PAC members and care is taken to ensure that the scrutineers have the necessary experience to assess the applicant’s claimed areas of expertise. This can sometimes result in more than two scrutineers being involved in the assessment process.


Scrutineers look closely for evidence in the


application to support the claimed areas of surveying expertise. Many applicants fail to provide sufficient relevant evidence or credible references. Examples of unsuitable evidence are claiming sea-time or irrelevant shore based marine positions as full-time surveying experience, which is of little relevance. The content of references is sometimes of a general, non-specific nature and fails to support the specific claims put forward by the applicant. This can result in prolonged communication with the applicant to verify the claimed expertise, or otherwise.


There is regular communication between the PAC members to clarify any questionable points in applications before membership is granted.


Capt Chris Kelly


PAC member and small craft surveyor, David Pestridge, comments as follows:


“The PAC serves a vital role in helping establish and maintain the credibility of the IIMS on the global maritime stage. If members are able to progress through the membership hierarchy with no checks made on their suitability, their claimed areas of expertise and the quality of their professional output, then it will only serve to dilute the Institute’s standing over the long term. By having a rigorous assessment process for members wishing to upgrade or broaden their professional specialisations, we ensure that only those deemed to have reached an acceptable standard are allowed to progress and that the IIMS’ own Marine Surveyor Search app delivers results that are credible and of genuine use to potential clients.


From a personal perspective, I have seen the reports of a wide range of surveyors at varying stages of their professional development from several


countries.


The quality of the reports, the style in which they are written, and the effectiveness of the surveyor’s technique (or lack of) are all laid bare. It is only by subjecting one’s work to peer review that one can really gain true insight into the current quality of that work and to identify areas for improvement. If, as is widely held, a ‘surveyor lives and dies by their reports’ then regular peer review enables support to be given where a professional training deficit becomes evident and to reward those operating at the top of their membership level seeking to upgrade.”


David Pestridge applicant claims multiple surveying


classifications and rarely does their evidence stack up to support them all.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18