We are well aware of the challenge in attempting to describe SF adequately
and to assess it. Steve de Shazer refused to do it. However, many of our
clients want us to and so we have spent some time trying to tackle this in
an SF way. We have some tentative ideas, which we will try out on ourselves
to start with.
We will not attempt to certify practitioners or trainers, but instead will
certify "pieces of work". In considering "pieces of work", the reviewer
will be aided by a list of observable clues to look for when thinking about
whether something has been done in an SF way. In submitting work for
certification, candidates will provide a commentary describing their
thinking and what makes the work qualify as SF. Their clients will be asked
to answer questions about how helpful the "piece of work" was for them.
Guidance about "Clues" will be produced to help candidates and reviewers -
"Cluefinders" - and summaries of successful submissions will be available on the web site.
Main clues could be the use of solution focused tools and principles, the extent of how much work is centred around the goal of the client or how much it did follow the client.
We invite the community to gather and share ideas on concrete descriptions of sf clues - what worked already in describing sf in your own work or in the work of others, that impressed you?
Peter Röhrig for the Association for the Quality
Development of SF Consulting & Training (SFCT)