270703

#148822

Brian Sellers
Participant

Great suggestions, Jaime and John.

My understanding from talking with FAI leadership is that they are pursuing a model with their FAC-P/PM and FAC-COR certifications that is very similar to John’s UC-Berkely/UIUC analogy. That is, they’re laying out overarching certification requirements and learning objectives that all training vendors must meet to have FAI-compliant material, but that they then allow the individual vendors (universities, in John’s example) to achieve those learning objectives according to their own curricula.

Now as I’m a senior manager at a training vendor, I am admittedly somewhat biased, but one of the problems with the FAC-C certification, in my opinion, is that it is so tightly regulated by DAU/FAI, which leaves little room for curriculum innovation. This commoditization of the curriculum leaves vendors to compete primarily on price in the FAC-C space.

John’s suggestion of using more case-based, HBS-like simulations is a good one, as the classroom is a great “safe environment” to explore, try, make mistakes, and learn. I think a solution where FAI invests in some case or simulation development, which is made mandatory GFI for all vendors to use in their classes, would both create a more standardized curriculum across learning organizations, while still leaving vendors the room to innovate and compete on quality, efficiency, and creativity.