Skip to main content

ICAEW in a hierarchy row

Documents accidentally published on the ICAEW website this week revealed what appeared to be an attempt to rank Britain’s accounting bodies. The paper was a draft submission to the Privy Council, and shows four tiers in descending order. They were:
  • The six members of CCAB

  • Financial accountants

  • Technicians

  • Bookkeepers

The document, dated January 2008, is titled "Report on IFA Activities" and said such a hierarchy was necessary “if the registration of accountants had any chance of being accepted”. The Institute’s chief executive Michael Izza had previously blogged that achieving legal protection for the title of accountant was one of his two key goals for 2008.


The Association of International Accountants (AIA) said the proposals risked fragmenting the profession.


“The structure outlined by the ICAEW is confusing, it’s as simple as that,” said Philip Turnbull, the AIA’s chief executive. “An accountant should be recognised as an accountant.”


Responding in a recent AccountingWEB member's blog, Turnbull outlined his belief that the Institute were putting their own commercial interest before that of the industry and the public large.


Meanwhile, the Institute has refused to comment.


“It was a private note for members of council, and we do not comment on confidential papers,” a spokesperson said.


However, a source close to the ICAEW said the published report referred to a strategy that was set in 2005, and has been subject to strategic review since.


“The model we took forward was the one where we worked with people and groups on a strategic partnership basis, as we’ve done with CIPFA,” said the source. “There is an argument to say that maybe there should be some sort of structure to the profession, but if you are going to create one then all parties need to be involved. It’s not something that any one organisation or any group of organisations can do on their own.”

Source : Accounting Web, UK

Do you like to be updated in Accountancy ?
Subscribe to Management Accountant by Email
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Learning Curve Theory

Learning Curve Theory is concerned with the idea that when a new job, process or activity commences for the first time it is likely that the workforce involved will not achieve maximum efficiency immediately. Repetition of the task is likely to make the people more confident and knowledgeable and will eventually result in a more efficient and rapid operation. Eventually the learning process will stop after continually repeating the job. As a consequence the time to complete a task will initially decline and then stabilise once efficient working is achieved. The cumulative average time per unit is assumed to decrease by a constant percentage every time that output doubles. Cumulative average time refers to the average time per unit for all units produced so far, from and including the first one made.

Major areas within management accounting where learning curve theory is likely to have consequences and suggest potential limitations of this theory.


Areas of consequence:
A Standard Costing

Throughput Accounting

Throughput accounting (TA) is an alternative to cost accounting proposed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. It is not based on Standard Costing or Activity Based Costing (ABC). Throughput Accounting is not costing and it does not allocate costs to products and services. It can be viewed as business intelligence for profit maximization. Conceptually throughput accounting seeks to increase the velocity at which products move through an organization by eliminiating bottlenecks within the organization.


Cost (or Management) accounting is an organization's internal method used to measure efficiency. Since no one outside the organization uses such internal accounts for investment or other decisions, any methods that an organization finds helpful can be used.


Throughput accounting improves profit performance with better management decisions by using measurements that more closely reflect the effect of decisions on three critical monetary variables (throughput, inventory, and operating expense — defin…

Resistence to Change - Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger

The Six (6) Change Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger is a model to prevent, decrease or minimize resistance to change in organizations.
According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four reasons that certain people are resisting change: Parochial self-interest (some people are concerned with the implication of the change for themselves ad how it may effect their own interests, rather than considering the effects for the success of the business)Misunderstanding(communication problems; inadequate information)Low tolerance to change (certain people are very keen on security and stability in their work)Different assessments of the situation (some employees may disagree on the reasons for the change and on the advantages and disadvantages of the change process) Kotter and Schlesinger set out the following six (6) change approaches to deal with this resistance to change: Education and Communication - Where there is a lack…