ICAEW to carry out another survey about HMRC's service standards with members who work in small practices. Tax News http://t.co/mOzRsCmc5Y
— ICAEW Tax Faculty (@ICAEW_Tax) October 5, 2015
Showing posts with label survey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label survey. Show all posts
Monday, October 05, 2015
ICAEW HMRC Survey
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Average Salaries £82,400?
According to the survey carried out by the ICAEW and Robert Half, the average salary of an ACA is £82,400 and the average bonus is £17,400.
Am I alone in thinking that these numbers seem to be on the high side?
Who actually has time to complete these surveys?
Am I alone in thinking that these numbers seem to be on the high side?
Who actually has time to complete these surveys?
Thursday, April 03, 2008
ICAEW Member Communications Survey II
I have just completed my twenty minute telephone interview with ReputationInc, as part of the ICAEW Member Communications Survey.
They are conducting in depth interviews with 50 members, who have been selected at random from those members who completed the online questionnaire (skewed in favour of those who who criticised or praised ICAEW communications).
A detailed report of the findings will be presented to the ICAEW Board in due course.
They are conducting in depth interviews with 50 members, who have been selected at random from those members who completed the online questionnaire (skewed in favour of those who who criticised or praised ICAEW communications).
A detailed report of the findings will be presented to the ICAEW Board in due course.
Monday, March 31, 2008
ICAEW Member Communications Survey
The other week I completed the online ICAEW Member Communications Survey.
On Friday, ReputationInc (which is conducting the survey on behalf of the ICAEW) emailed me to let me know that I was in a randomly selected sample of members to be interviewed in more depth about member communications.
I have a telephone interview with them booked for this Thursday.
On Friday, ReputationInc (which is conducting the survey on behalf of the ICAEW) emailed me to let me know that I was in a randomly selected sample of members to be interviewed in more depth about member communications.
I have a telephone interview with them booked for this Thursday.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Consultation
As some of you may be aware, the ICAEW has been conducting a consultation exercise whereby Gracechurch Consulting conduct an hour long telephone interview with selected members of the ICAEW in order to determine the attitudes and requirements of the membership.
I have not been contacted, I am guessing that the ICAEW know my views already:)
However, there is a good summary of the process on "The Small Practice Accountant".
It seems that this is just the start of the process.
Quote from the Small Practice Accountant:
"One of the questions I asked was how many people had been contacted and how many were participating in the initial study. The consultant I spoke too said she would find out and email me. Her reply though said the following:
'With regard to the number of participants in this stage of the study the Institute has asked me to provide you with the following information:
This is an initial stage of exploratory research which will cover members from a range of different segments. We need to review the findings of the exploratory work before a larger scale survey which will cover all segments of the membership can be designed. This will be designed to ensure that accurately reflects the views of all segments of ICAEW membership and it is statistically valid.'"
It seems that the ICAEW has finally started to realise that the membership is not that happy with how things have been run and are being run.
The question is, will the ICAEW have the courage to address the key issues such as; the size of council, the absurd council election process, the fees/costs of the institute etc?
I have not been contacted, I am guessing that the ICAEW know my views already:)
However, there is a good summary of the process on "The Small Practice Accountant".
It seems that this is just the start of the process.
Quote from the Small Practice Accountant:
"One of the questions I asked was how many people had been contacted and how many were participating in the initial study. The consultant I spoke too said she would find out and email me. Her reply though said the following:
'With regard to the number of participants in this stage of the study the Institute has asked me to provide you with the following information:
This is an initial stage of exploratory research which will cover members from a range of different segments. We need to review the findings of the exploratory work before a larger scale survey which will cover all segments of the membership can be designed. This will be designed to ensure that accurately reflects the views of all segments of ICAEW membership and it is statistically valid.'"
It seems that the ICAEW has finally started to realise that the membership is not that happy with how things have been run and are being run.
The question is, will the ICAEW have the courage to address the key issues such as; the size of council, the absurd council election process, the fees/costs of the institute etc?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A Penny Saved
The ICAEW has reportedly recruited researchers to ask selected members about their current sentiment wrt the institute and its strategy.
I can save the ICAEW a few pennies on this exercise, by suggesting that the researchers do not waste ICAEW time and money on sending me their survey.
I will be having lunch with Michael Izza on the 20th of this month, in my club (The East India), and will be happy to let him know personally what I think of the ICAEW.
I can save the ICAEW a few pennies on this exercise, by suggesting that the researchers do not waste ICAEW time and money on sending me their survey.
I will be having lunch with Michael Izza on the 20th of this month, in my club (The East India), and will be happy to let him know personally what I think of the ICAEW.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The Numbers Game
It was reported last week that domestic ICAEW member numbers have all but stood still over the last year.
The Professional Oversight Board's recent survey, Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession, shows that domestic member numbers for the ICAEW grew by a mere 350 over the last 12 months or 0.3%.
However, ACCA membership rose from 56,837 to 59,059 over the same period, and CIMA grew from 51,386 to 53,697; growth rates of 3.9% and 4.4% respectively.
ACCA also trounces the ICAEW in terms of its age profile, with 70% of members under 45 years old, whilst the ICAEW and ICAS both have around 50% over 45 years old.
As we know, the ICAEW preferred method of addressing this stagnation in membership has been that of merging with other bodies. This method, because it dilutes the brand value of the qualification, was rejected by the membership last year.
However, I have been discussing with Dr Jeff Wooller (founder of the Ginger Group - not ICAEW approved) another solution.
We believe that we need to offer a solution which addresses both the needs of the market, and maintains the brand image of the ACA and FCA qualifications.
The ICAEW needs to offer the market what it wants, namely a tiered membership pitched at different levels. We should offer two additional qualifications, each with its own set of designatory letters:
However, we would first need to find out from leading ICAEW members, in business rather than in practice, what they would want from such qualifications. We believe that the ICAEW Faculties would be ideal vehicles for such research.
It will be interesting to see the reactions from the ICAEW competitors to our proposal, an attack would indicate that we have a winning proposal.
The Professional Oversight Board's recent survey, Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession, shows that domestic member numbers for the ICAEW grew by a mere 350 over the last 12 months or 0.3%.
However, ACCA membership rose from 56,837 to 59,059 over the same period, and CIMA grew from 51,386 to 53,697; growth rates of 3.9% and 4.4% respectively.
ACCA also trounces the ICAEW in terms of its age profile, with 70% of members under 45 years old, whilst the ICAEW and ICAS both have around 50% over 45 years old.
As we know, the ICAEW preferred method of addressing this stagnation in membership has been that of merging with other bodies. This method, because it dilutes the brand value of the qualification, was rejected by the membership last year.
However, I have been discussing with Dr Jeff Wooller (founder of the Ginger Group - not ICAEW approved) another solution.
We believe that we need to offer a solution which addresses both the needs of the market, and maintains the brand image of the ACA and FCA qualifications.
The ICAEW needs to offer the market what it wants, namely a tiered membership pitched at different levels. We should offer two additional qualifications, each with its own set of designatory letters:
- An accounting technician qualification, which would be very popular overseas and rival the CAT qualification of ACCA.
- A non practising qualification, at a higher level than technician, for those who do not wish to endure a training contract. This again would be very popular overseas, and would compete directly with the CAT of the ACCA. It would also be a cheaper and more practical alternative than MBA courses.
However, we would first need to find out from leading ICAEW members, in business rather than in practice, what they would want from such qualifications. We believe that the ICAEW Faculties would be ideal vehicles for such research.
It will be interesting to see the reactions from the ICAEW competitors to our proposal, an attack would indicate that we have a winning proposal.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Business Confidence Monitor
A week or so ago I received an email from the ICAEW inviting me to complete their business confidence monitor.
Given the chance to win a case of booze, I gave them the benefit of my opinion.
A few days later I received another email from the ICAEW, asking me to fill in the survey; it said:
Please ignore if you have completed this survey already.
The Institute invites you to participate in the ICAEW/Orange - UK Business Confidence Monitor survey for Quarter 2 2006.
Today I received my third invitation from the ICAEW to complete their business confidence monitor, again asking me to ignore it if I have already completed the survey.
- How many more of these emails am I to receive?
- I assume that all other members are also receiving them?
In the great scheme of things, this is not a major issue.
However, it is indicative of the lack of attention to detail and the inability of the ICAEW to effectively communicate/manage its communications with its own membership.
Message to the ICAEW:
I know that the you read this site, so would you kindly stop sending me this particular email!
Given the chance to win a case of booze, I gave them the benefit of my opinion.
A few days later I received another email from the ICAEW, asking me to fill in the survey; it said:
Please ignore if you have completed this survey already.
The Institute invites you to participate in the ICAEW/Orange - UK Business Confidence Monitor survey for Quarter 2 2006.
Today I received my third invitation from the ICAEW to complete their business confidence monitor, again asking me to ignore it if I have already completed the survey.
- How many more of these emails am I to receive?
- I assume that all other members are also receiving them?
In the great scheme of things, this is not a major issue.
However, it is indicative of the lack of attention to detail and the inability of the ICAEW to effectively communicate/manage its communications with its own membership.
Message to the ICAEW:
I know that the you read this site, so would you kindly stop sending me this particular email!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
The Anstee Interview
Accounting Web has published an interesting "post merger" interview with Eric Anstee the CEO of the ICAEW.
It seems that, judging by the article, the ICAEW have succumbed to "Ivory Tower Syndrome".
I have a number of comments relating to the points the he makes, and have countered extracts of his comments (in italics) with my own thoughts:
"I personally am at a loss to understand why those 19,000 people voted the way that they did and we need to find that out."
If he had bothered to visit this site, at any time over the past year, he might have had a few clues as to why people voted down the merger proposal.
"We will undertake specific survey work using independent surveyors - probably MORI who we used back in June."
More expense for us the membership, yet for what purpose?
"I believe that what you have to do is look at what the vote itself tells you, and that is that nearly two thirds want to go forward and one third don't and therefore two thirds are the majority."
Which part of the word "No" don't the ICAEW understand? A mere 29% of the membership voted in favour, the pro merger lobby lost...PERIOD!
"We responded to all queries that were anti the integration proposal."
Bullshit!
I wrote at least 6 emails, and used the special feedback box on the ICAEW website to send them. I even have a receipt for at least one of them.
Yet I received no response.
"My problem here is that the minority of 19,000 are dictating to the majority, so we will have to look at that constitutional impact."
If you lose, then change the rules!
"However, we would keep ourselves informed as to what the market place wants. We would have to adjust the qualification to meet the market needs."
It seems that I was right, the ICAEW would have abandoned the dual qualification for ICAEW and CIPFA members had the merger vote gone through.
"That is my big disappointment that a lot of what we are doing has not been understood."
The fault for that lies with the ICAEW.
Accept the fact that you lost, and move on.
It seems that, judging by the article, the ICAEW have succumbed to "Ivory Tower Syndrome".
I have a number of comments relating to the points the he makes, and have countered extracts of his comments (in italics) with my own thoughts:
"I personally am at a loss to understand why those 19,000 people voted the way that they did and we need to find that out."
If he had bothered to visit this site, at any time over the past year, he might have had a few clues as to why people voted down the merger proposal.
"We will undertake specific survey work using independent surveyors - probably MORI who we used back in June."
More expense for us the membership, yet for what purpose?
"I believe that what you have to do is look at what the vote itself tells you, and that is that nearly two thirds want to go forward and one third don't and therefore two thirds are the majority."
Which part of the word "No" don't the ICAEW understand? A mere 29% of the membership voted in favour, the pro merger lobby lost...PERIOD!
"We responded to all queries that were anti the integration proposal."
Bullshit!
I wrote at least 6 emails, and used the special feedback box on the ICAEW website to send them. I even have a receipt for at least one of them.
Yet I received no response.
"My problem here is that the minority of 19,000 are dictating to the majority, so we will have to look at that constitutional impact."
If you lose, then change the rules!
"However, we would keep ourselves informed as to what the market place wants. We would have to adjust the qualification to meet the market needs."
It seems that I was right, the ICAEW would have abandoned the dual qualification for ICAEW and CIPFA members had the merger vote gone through.
"That is my big disappointment that a lot of what we are doing has not been understood."
The fault for that lies with the ICAEW.
Accept the fact that you lost, and move on.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Members Oppose Merger
Accountancy Age conducted survey, during the second half of 2004, in which it asked if people were in favour of the merger.
Over 70% of those ICAEW members who took part were against the merger.
Eric Anstee, ICAEW chief executive, rather bizarrely stated that the results were "encouraging".
I wonder what he would consider to be discouraging?
He noted that the question was not fair, as the there had been no strategic business case put forward at the time.
He reportedly told Accountancy Age:
"If and when we put a proposition to our members, we will only do so if we believe a compelling strategic and business case supports the rationale for consolidation."
Over 70% of those ICAEW members who took part were against the merger.
Eric Anstee, ICAEW chief executive, rather bizarrely stated that the results were "encouraging".
I wonder what he would consider to be discouraging?
He noted that the question was not fair, as the there had been no strategic business case put forward at the time.
He reportedly told Accountancy Age:
"If and when we put a proposition to our members, we will only do so if we believe a compelling strategic and business case supports the rationale for consolidation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)