Determination of a business rescue practitioners’ professional accreditation framework

Abstract

The business rescue occupation operates in a multi-professional body landscape and traces its origin to the Companies Act (Act No. 71 of 2008) promulgated in 2009. In this dissertation, Determination of a Business Rescue Practitioner Professional Accreditation Framework, the candidate investigated how business rescue practitioners (BRPs) should be accredited to practice as experts in the multi-professional body occupation setting. The PhD candidate studied the BRP professional accreditation framework at the policy and practitioner levels to reveal the ontology of ingredients of a BRP professional accreditation framework that responds to regulated practices. The study revealed a unique value selling proposition in the business rescue occupation that uses professionalism as an organising framework. The organising framework was premised on an occupation-specific qualification informed by regulated practices. The 10 ingredients of the professional accreditation framework are professional identity and service context; learning and development areas; accreditation process activities; work-integrated learning; BRP profile; practical and knowledge skills training; assessment strategies; code of professional conduct; and mutually beneficial partnerships. The key ingredients of the BRP professional accreditation framework emanated from themes developed from multi-party integrated data collection and analysis(MIDCA) procedures. The MIDCA procedures included purposive interpretation of legal prescripts, analysis of proceedings of the portfolio committee on trade and industry, and interviews-to-the-double. The MIDCA procedures addressed the restrictions of single-party data-gathering procedures within the practice theory. The research improves understanding of how occupational practices can be documented to craft a professional accreditation framework using practice theory lenses. Before concluding how BRPs’ accreditation and licensing should be carried out, an empirical investigation was needed to advance a BRP professional accreditation framework based on the unique service packs associated with BRPs tasks. Research evidence shows that multiple competency frameworks and practices limit BRPs’ professional learning and development. The multi-professional body landscape gives the impression of dispersed BRP practices. The literature survey results confirmed the efforts to delineate and develop BRPs competencies premised on goal-structured business rescue practices. Previous studies on BRP competencies were based on research techniques that cannot lead to proper accreditation and licensing frameworks. Thus, the following question guided this study: How should BRPs be accredited as professionals by their relevant South African Qualifications Authority-recognised professional bodies within a multi-professional body landscape? The following sub-questions were derived from the central question to help answer this guiding question through multi-party integrated data collection and analytical procedures: (i) What are the business rescue domain and the state of the BRP professional accreditation? (ii) How can competency and professionalism constructs be integrated into the current BRP licensing regime? (iii) How is professionalism constructed among the BRP-supplying professional bodies? (iv) Which conceptual framework should inform the future development of a BRP professional accreditation framework? Therefore, the guiding thesis statement maintained that the BRP professional accreditation framework effectively addresses BRPs’ learning and development requirements. The study used multi-party integrated data collection and analytical procedures exercised within the lenses of the practice theory. The data collection and synthesis spanned over 18 months. The multi-party integrated data collection and analytical procedures required (i) mapping the academic literature (90) and policy documents of four professional bodies; (ii) interviews with representatives of professional bodies (4); (iii) the purposive interpretation of promulgated company law; (iv) qualitative document analysis of concluded business rescues cases (30); (v) interview to the double with BRPs (12); and (vi) interviews with programme managers of short learning programmes (SLPs) on offer. The fieldwork resulted in four peer-refereed papers. The abstracts of the three journal articles published appear in Appendix H. The fourth peer-refereed paper is with the editors for publication. The study results confirmed the BRP occupation as a regulated practice area that has not been filtered through the competency frameworks used by the South African Qualifications Authority-recognised professional bodies. Tracking skills development efforts under the SLPs is not feasible without an occupation-specific qualification. Professionalism is constructed differently within the multi-professional body occupation setting, although it serves as an organising framework for the regulated occupation. The study endeavoured to define BRP learning and development areas regarding document practices (services, tasks, and activities). Upon completing the interview-to-the-double process, BRPs recognised that licensees should be competent when joining the profession but should work toward expert proficiency levels that respect the regulated tasks and business rescue service packs. The BRP legislated obligations are generated from the rights of affected parties in the business rescue process and not from corporate renewal engagement letters. The legal aspects of business rescue practices are a small component of the practices that can be sourced from registered attorneys. As a result, a BRP professional accreditation framework addresses the identified learning and development areas. Learning and development areas are a key pillar of the inclusive evolution of the BRP occupation to an occupation worthy of academic and professional pursuit. The framework covers key components, including professional identity and context; licensing and continuing professional development policy; learning and development programme and methods delivery; mutually beneficial partnerships; accreditation process activities; and accreditation outcomes specifying licensing conditions. The study ended with recommendations on BRP professional accreditation ingredients and delineating the occupational-specific development process. A structured way of linking novices to experienced BRPs is needed to eliminate barriers to entry and develop pipeline talent in the field.