No Image Available

Richard Sergeant


Client Relationships Manager

Read more from Richard Sergeant

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1705321608055-0’); });

IIP Named as “Useless Quango”


Did anyone notice that Investors In People was named as one of the nine most useless Qungo's in the Dan Lewis report today.

You know when you've been Quango'd, discuss?

Richard Sergeant

4 Responses

  1. Been through the mill

    Having been through the IIP advisor assessment process, I was double quangoed, as Education and Learning Wales (ELWa) were the local providers. Look what has happened to that (ELWa) quango.

    That said, the people involved were great, but were given the task of a 100 meter sprint, whilst wearing lead boots; possible but not particularly effective.

    I no longer advise, couldn’t handle the bureaucracy.


  2. A Balanced View?
    In the report, Dan Lewis says:

    “Investors in People UK (IIP)
    This body, with a budget of £5.2 million and 40 employees, gives a clear indication of the producer bias of the existing government. Investors in Customers would be far more appealing. No matter, both private companies and publicly funded outfits – even schools are persuaded that they need the approval of the Investors in People, so that they can then put the stamp of IIP on their letterhead. It is of dubious benefit to the private sector, although it has slowly become more of a criterion for big companies to demand of their small company suppliers. It requires an annual inspection and is now even expected of time-pressed headmasters in schools. IIP is devaluing quickly as more and more sign up to it. It would be better to scrap it altogether.”

    The right-wing bias here is quite transparent, and readers will form their own conclusions.

  3. Don’t believe the inaccurate

    Well done for posting an extract, expecially one that devalues the report because of blatent inaccuracies. Unless it has changed in the last year, you are not inspected but assessed (I believe there is a difference) and it’s not anually but within 3 years.

    A thought; where is the percieved value in IIP, is it the improvement in staff practices as a result of working towards the standard or the resulting perception by others once you have met the standard and been awarded the plaque?

    One organisation I met gained little or nothing from being recognised because they invested in their people before starting the process and needed little improvement to meet the evidence requirements. It was for them a requirement of the marketplace they were in. Had they not been recognised, they may have lost out on contracts for the sake of a plaque; and this was a grip for them.

    Other organisations have gained hugely because their people process were dire, and the indicators and evidence required for recognition, gave them a framework to work towards to implement what is seen as good practice.

    Could go on but I won’t 🙂


No Image Available
Richard Sergeant

Client Relationships Manager

Read more from Richard Sergeant

Get the latest from TrainingZone.

Elevate your L&D expertise by subscribing to TrainingZone’s newsletter! Get curated insights, premium reports, and event updates from industry leaders.


Thank you!