This is a look at some of the recent changes & challenges facing BPI I originally posted on my site:http://blog.sls-construction.com/2012/bpi-at-the-crossroads-exams-n...
Lately BPI (aka Building Performance Institute, Inc.) has been growing exponentially and making plenty of waves in the certification field. Just this last July they had 25,000 “active” certifications and closed out 2011 with 31,662. Originally there growth while slow was also pretty steady as shown on this chart of BPI accredited contractors. Enter in the HPwES program, Home Star, etc… and an organization that only processed 350 certifications in 2005 processed over 13,000 last year. Needless to say, this has brought them some growing pains, raised some concerns, and dare I say brought them to an interesting set of crossroads.
As an organization that has taken a few pages from the USGBC playbook, this growth might just appear to be the start of a great pattern. On the other hand, paying attention to how many individuals have fallen off the train (HomeStar, Recovery WAP, etc…), and by listening to &/or talking to those certified, the picture starts looking a little different. In many respects the growth & statements by many are eerily similar to the commercial, tech, oil, housing & banking bubble collapses that many of us have lived through.
In my opinion BPI is pretty close to hitting a plateau as any growth will be equal to or outweighed by those that are no longer in the field or those of us choosing not to renew our certifications. Whether they continue to learn, grow, and adapt like USGBC did or implode is completely dependent on BPI looking at some issues, seeing how quickly they can adapt, and dare I say listen to those of us in the field.
In many ways, this path has already been decided when they instituted some new testing protocols like videotaping, requiring someone beside the teacher to do the field testing and raising their fees. While I am generally not one to tell someone they are charging too much, $250 for a 50 or 100 question test taken via the computer is high. For example:
I don’t think $500 for a field test is unreasonable (or is this just the fee charged to the testers?), nor is having a different instructor do it. What is pushing it though is the cameras and the differences that the instructors bring. If you are worried about the testers, have someone be “tested” by a “tester” and grade or QC them once a year anonymously. Along those lines I hope the training instructors are more up to snuff than I have seen – if my second one would have judged me on what the first one taught, I probably would have failed as he left out a few important steps. Along those lines, for an organization dedicated to health & safety… letting a student walk away without knowing what they need to improve on or they failed on is not only irresponsible.
I guess congrats are in order for being chosen to do the pilot program for four new certifications tied into the Recovery thru Retrofit & National Workforce Retrofit Guidelines. I do have to give you some props for having an experience requirement now being there, especially compared to your other certs.
With that said, I do plan on digging into the full specs later but the initial impressions are not good. Seriously you are going to grade one on “penmanship,” “dedication to the cause”, and sales abilities – sorry but you really need to rethink what some of these positions really do & how they are done.
Along the lines of adding in more certifications you might take this opportunity to start thinking about streamlining & improving your existing certifications. For example this was recently posted on the Home Energy Pro’s site; “The Energy Auditor certification is not replacing the Building Analyst certification. Rather, it will be the next step in the career ladder from Building Analyst. The BA certification verifies that the worker has a foundation in diagnostic and analytical building science needed for a variety of career paths in the home performance industry.” While this might be technically correct, the way it has been marketed isn’t and there is a huge inconsistency in the training & standards in this regards.
Speaking of “next steps”, you might take a page from Cisco’s playbook which has a progressive level of testing. Once a person passes the first level they have three years to re-certify (hmmm that sounds familiar), however if during that three years they take a higher level test, that lower level cert is automatically updated for the next three years. Assuming they decide not to pursue the next higher level (thus automatically extending everything for another three years), all that is required is for them to complete one re-certification test which covers all the certs. If they let everything lapse, well then they get to start the process all over again but at no time do they actually lose the fact that they held the certification.
I really would love to know this – who is responsible for you still using & listing the 1989 standard for ventilation? Is it the same person that says that someone with just a “foundation” in diagnostic testing should be drilling holes into exhaust pipes? For the first item, let me just give you a hint – drop the 89 moniker and list the newest ASHRAE standard. If you still feel strongly about .35 simply state – the house must meet the higher of ASHRAE standard, the local AHJ code or our .35 standard. No one cares if you take a harder or better stance on a standard (just look at the spillage one, you guys say one minute max while the industry was still stuck at 5 minutes) simply adopt it as your own while still paying head to all the changes & developments in the industry. Right now you remind me of, and give the appearance of some building departments that don’t want to change or adopt to the newer codes.
Moving onto the second question, for a standard that you built your entire reputation on; why is there still so much confusion on which vents can or can’t be drilled? Why is there no standard method for plugging them if this is required? Shoot, why are you pushing for an untrained & unqualified individuals (as defined by at least 32 states *or was that 40* and numerous local jurisdictions) to work on, test, or diagnose equipment that is beyond their abilities &/or in some cases illegal to do? Why do require testing that is contrary to not only the vent manufacturer’s directions but even the few appliance manufacturers testing procedures I have seen? Shoot while we are at it (as I just saw this one on the Linked In board from yesterday), why is there so much confusion on if the CAZ door should be opened or closed?
For more on my thoughts & the answer to the B-Vent question, I hope you will check out the rest of the article & leave your thoughts