We’ve previously written about the minimum standards approach employed in Quality Assurance (QA) programs in regulated professions. Regulators must be mindful at all times of serving the public interest;

We at the CSC Collab like to characterize entry-to-practice (EtP) competence in a profession as being a ‘one size fits all’ requirement. EtP specifications are typically laid out in great detail to ensure that all licensees can provide a minimum standard of service to the public.

One of the most powerful aspects of the CSC Framework and the Career-Span Competencies is their applicability to almost every profession. Application of the 14 competencies at some level is required throughout a career no matter what occupation is being considered.

Ensuring the ongoing competence of regulated professionals is a key focus for regulators and often an important objective of Quality Assurance programming. However, in most cases, ongoing competence is almost exclusively tied to continuing education and the associated

We at the CSC Collaborative advocate for professional competence to be considered as a dynamic quality, that is expressed in the context practice.

When talking about workplace performance beyond entry-to-practice, much emphasis is typically placed on the concept of quality assurance (QA). Compliance with QA requirements is mandatory in most regulated professions, such as health professions, as well as legal, education, and real estate.

How a professional develops over the span of their career is not straight forward nor an easy process to define. It is highly individualized and variable over time. At the CSC Collaborative, we often refer to it as a ‘moving target’.

Pretty much any regulator of professional practice will tell you that their mandate from government is to serve and protect the public interest.

But what is the public interest?

Blog 1 - Regulators and the Public Interest

The traditional perspective embedded in Quality Assurance Programs (QAPs) is that ‘continuing competence’, or what we prefer to call ‘career-span competence’, is primarily dependent on learning activities.

Language in the field of performance management can be confusing. Two of our key

terms: competency and competence are particularly problematic when used casually.