The first three stages of the new framework represent a journey towards quality improvement that does not involve IIP. The first stage, commitment to improving
quality, directly replaces the now irrelevant and redundant raising awareness and diagnostic stage within Tickle and McLean‘s (2004) framework. The stages action planning and evaluation remain within the new framework, but their emphasis is now
internally controlled. In other words, these first three stages within the new model retain similarities with Tickle and McLean‘s (2004: p.10) first four stages in terms of content, but with the processes being traversed and fulfilled without IIP involvement. Consequently, this may also provide a more fitting framework representation for Down and Smith‘s (1999) research cases, whereby organizations required little involvement from IIP to initially attain IIP status.
The fourth stage of the newly developed framework is newly incorporated to represent the initial consideration for IIP involvement and recognition. This stage reflects the issues and findings discussed within earlier themes concerning IIP recognition and the business performance nexus. In essence, this stage represents the initial consideration for IIP after significant improvements to business performance through training and development practices had been achieved.
The final three stages of the new table resemble the final three stages of the original framework in Table 1. It is important to highlight that this new framework simplifies the language used within these final stages. The content has not changed, but the information is delivered more succinctly. Ultimately, the revised framework closely resembles six of the seven organizations studied and provides an alternative and practical representation of the IIP journey of recognition. This contrasting framework contributes an empirical perspective that can significantly support the opinions of authors that are critical of the actual benefits gained from IIP involvement and recognition (e.g. Westhead and Storey, 1997; Cosh et al., 1998; Down and Smith, 1999; Douglas et al., 1999; Smith, 2000; Ram, 2000; Grugulis and Bevitt, 2002; Smith et al., 2002; Hoque, 2003; Robson et al., 2005; Higgins and Cohen, 2006).
The new framework clearly and visually reduces the perceived value and relevance of the standard compared to the original framework proposed by Tickle and McLean (2004: p.10). The rhetoric surrounding the standard, like Table 1, often insinuates a greater deal of involvement and collaboration throughout the IIP assessment and recognition process (including Smith, 2000; Lentell and Morris, 2001; Taylor and Thackwray, 2001a, 2001b; Bell et al., 2002a; Lloyd and Payne, 2002; Tickle and McLean, 2004). The in-depth case studies researched, however, uncover a reality that simplifies the involvement – especially the assessment process – of IIP. Instead, many of the benefits claimed by IIP UK (2008a, 2008e) are achieved independently of IIP involvement. The benefits associated with IIP recognition are revisited below (IIP UK, 2008a):
Improved earnings, profitability and productivity Customer satisfaction
Improved motivation Reduced costs and wastage Enhanced quality
Competitive advantage through improved performance Public recognition
Additional benefits include:
The opportunity to review current policies and practices against a recognized benchmark
A framework for planning future strategy and action
A structured way to improve the effectiveness of training and development activities
Only the benefits surrounding an opportunity to review current policies and practices against a recognized benchmark, and the development of a framework for planning future strategy and action appear to maintain merit for the organizations studied. The majority of other benefits can be directly associated with the changes organizations made prior to IIP recognition. This is reflected by these quotations from interviewees:
―We got a gong for something we‘re already doing.‖ Defence respondent – senior manager;
―It just rubberstamps a lot of the things we‘re doing already.‖ High School respondent – line manager;
―We used it [IIP] because of all the training we were doing and we thought we need to get some sort of recognition here.‖ Catering respondent – senior manager.
―I think that the ethos of valuing training, learning and development was already within the organization and within its members [prior to IIP involvement].‖ Third sector respondent – senior manager.
This research contributes a framework to the field surrounding IIP that reflects a pragmatic view of the standard within a qualitative perspective. This is in contrast to the reliance on generalized assumptions that have been raised and discussed within the literature review. A fitting example of this is with the assumed causal link between IIP recognition and increases in business performance (Tamkin et al., 2008; Cowling, 2008; IIP UK, 2008e; Bourne et al., 2008; Martin and Elwes, 2008) challenged within the first theme of this analysis. HR practitioners, managers, stakeholders and even staff can now visualize the pragmatic implications of IIP, dependent on which journey the organization desires to take in the quest for business performance improvement.
The developed framework challenges the very definition of IIP introduced at the beginning of the literature review, whereby the standard is defined as a ‗quality improvement initiative‘. The connotations of such a definition relates to the asserted and implied effects on business performance. If an organization desires to utilize the IIP
journey proposed by Tickle and McLean (2004: p.10), the definition that associates the
standard with the potential benefits of being a quality improvement initiative may hold firm. For the organizations studied here under the new framework, however, IIP could simply be defined as a badge/ plaque of external recognition. This would certainly reflect previous studies conducted by Douglas et al. (1999) and Ram (2000), where perhaps the new framework is more fitting within particular organizations. Yet, it is important to remember that the perceptual value of the standard as a badge/ plaque for recognition is found to be limited within the sample organizations studied. This can