Unbiased:

To ensure unbiased assesment of written exams is fairly simple -you just ensure the assesor has no access to the canidate’s name, gender, race, nationality, etc.

For interviews, many governments and companies have policies and procedures in place to ensure recruiting is unbiased, and I would have thought it a fairly simple matter to transfer them to an accreditation interview. I’m thinking of things like standard questions, at least 2 interviewers, standard criteria of assesment, etc.

Accurate:

Tough one. This would all come down to choosing the right assesment criteria, and ensuring a consistent application of those criteria. I would also suggest feedback be sought from recruiters one this scheme is up and running, so if recruiters are consistenly dissapointed with the quality of accredited candidates we know we need to make the criteria more challenging, and vise versa.

Only time will tell if the accreditation is unbiased and accurate. Be optimistic, when members are out there doing planning and scheduling, in due time, the employer will look if the planner is a member before recruitment. The standard to be established will play a big role.

One good way to start, maybe, is to get commitment from pp members, a headcount.

Cheers to all...

We cannot be assure the market /employers because in will not make any difference anyway since:

in most countries, the position are achieve through political connection not by accreditation.

In some countries, the client’s preference are sons of their native lands, so even though we have international accreditation, we cannot impose on the client’s preference.

in all practicality, it is easiear to answer in the negative, the naysayers,

being on the positive side needs a Don Quixote’s attitude or character to achieve results.

Cheers,
happy planning and scheduling