Hi All

Does anyone know any alternatives other than membership of:

APS
RMAPS

in order to grant the first step of the ladder to becoming a CDMc?

many thanks

Dave

Obtain wide-ranging experience of the construction industry, both in implementation (on site) and in design.

Actually, it's not an alternative to RMaPS, it's a requisite for a good cdmc, but one which very few cdmcs appear to fulfill. I've yet to meet a cdmc that properly understands design.

The ACOP, incidentally, states that membership of an institution gives an INDICATION that the person is competent, that a NEBOSH certificate is one way to demonstrate H&S knowledge, and so on. Appendix 5 provides examples of attainment that should indicate competence.

But what the ACOP says a cdmc NEEDS is a SOUND understanding of the design process.

I wish people paid more attention to what the ACOP says the cdmc needs, rather than the paperwork it says might indicate they possibly have the competence required.

Quote - I wish people paid more attention to what the ACOP says the cdmc needs, rather than the paperwork it says might indicate they possibly have the competence required.

Why do you wish that? Does it impact on you negatively or are you some authority and like to self promote.

Maybe some professionals on here have lots of ACOP's to read and are highly competent in a number of areas rather than just one- Food for thought possibly.

Of course it impacts on me negatively - if it had no impact on me I wouldn't care two hoots what they did, would I.

If it's not obvious why it would be better for cdmcs to meet the requirements of the ACOP than to not meet those requirements, I don't think I can express it any more clearly.

Your question suggests you think it perfectly reasonable to elevate things that are not required by the CDM ACOP into absolute requirements, while disregarding things that actually are specifically and explicitly mandated by the ACOP. Is that really what you think?

Possibly they do.

That's not a sound understanding of the design process, however. Understanding design risk management is not understanding the design process. I'm not proposing that some other requisite knowledge be added to the requirements - in fact that's precisely my point - they should get the things that the ACOP says they do need before worrying about other stuff.

Precious few cdmcs know that there is no need of separate design risk assessment, that the design process itself is the application of risk assessment to the design, and that the significant findings of that process are teh design drawings.

As I alluded before (maybe not explicitly enough) I think people that do both cdmc and design are likely to be better at either role than someone that can do only one. Unfortunately, I think very few cdmcs are actually experienced designers (or have been...).



I don't think they can. Cdmc is a thankless role, redundant when teh designer is properly competent and practically impossible when teh designer is not, that has rubbbish fees and little opportunity to exercise creativity. That's why we don't do it unless we really really have to - being designer is a much better job.