IT’S ALL A MATTER OF STANDARDS

Back in the deep, dark depths of the 1990s the Australasian Incentive Association, as it was then called, decided to set up a process of accreditation for its members; for it’s practitioner members and for its supplier members.  The practitioner accreditation (AIP) was reasonably  successful resulting in some forty or so incentive practitioners being accredited.  However the supplier accreditation barely got off the ground with only one supplier - the late Ruth Ellis - becoming accredited.

Since those days the MIAA, now the MEA, has developed an excellent accreditation process for meeting managers and the PCO Association has launched an accreditation scheme for PCOs although that’s still at the stage of accrediting members via it’s ‘grandfather’ scheme (prove you’ve been a PCO and not offended anybody for five years).  Neither organisation has yet developed an accreditation scheme for suppliers to it’s respective industries.

The PCO Association scheme is further weakened by the fact that the PCO Association is governed not by an elected body but by a few PCOs who have set themselves up as the arbiters of what’s good for professional conference organisers and there is no sign that this situation will change anytime soon.  This does beg the question: what makes these PCOs feel they have the right to dictate standards to the rest of the industry?  The governing body is not accountable to its members nor, in fact, to anybody and gives itself the right to appoint or dismiss council members at its own discretion.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the PCO Association (of which I am a member) has found the weak link in the MEA armour insomuch as the MEA seems to want to be all things to all meeting people - suppliers and practitioners alike - whereas the PCO Association is purely for PCOs.  Or is it?

Membership of the PCO Association is free to bona fide PCOs so the money for the administration must come from somewhere - unless Rob Henshaw, Peter Sugg and co are subsidising it  - and so they have gone down the age-old path of obtaining sponsorship.  But sponsorship is a double edged sword.  Yes, the sponsor provides financial support for the organisation but in return requires it to do certain things and one of those things is not to offend the sponsor or it’s business activities.  Is this a policy which can sit comfortably with an association which represents an industry which has to demand high standards from its suppliers?

Accreditation of suppliers or a ratings system which allows PCOs to register their experiences with suppliers is an essential part of the necessary control that PCOs and Incentive Practitioners need to provide for their clients.  It’s simply not possible for all of us to have visited every venue or hotel, have used every AV or staging company or designer or tour company or used every merchandise supplier that we will need to employ for a particular conference or incentive reward experience.  Most of the directories that are accessible to the industry simply relay information provided by the supplier and give no indication of quality of service, ethical standards or other vital information we need.

We rely on trusted industry colleagues and site inspections, particularly for overseas suppliers but even then it’s very much a case of ‘suck it and see’.  The sooner one or the organisations that are supposed to represent the interests of PCOs and Incentive Practitioners will commit to supplier accreditation and ratings system accessible to all who need it the better.

Peter Gray is the Managing Partner of Motivating People
peter.gray@motivatingpeople.net
www.motivatingpeople.net