Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Steve
Could anyone please offer me an effective argument for accredited health and safety training as opposed to in house training?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert M Edwards
We recommend to our clients a mixture of accredited and in house training, but for Health and Safety training the recommendation is always for accredited.
The reason for this is the standard for the external accreditation provides a benchmark for quality and content. As such the accreditation can then be used in the event of the employee disputing the skills trained or there being a performance issue. No matter how good the in house training facility without external accreditation it will not be viewed in the same class.
In some areas in house training works well (providing it is resourced properly) but we find more and more training in house is being done last minute. With no or free resources by people who have never been taught to train themselves the results are variable. It is often false economy. The time it takes to write a course, taking into account in house trainer time, research and resources often exceeds the cost of the external delivery. The majority of in house trainers are over stretched with mutiple conflicting roles. Very often on this site requests are made for a variety of resources because there is no training budget available.
The return on investment for most of the in house training is not calculated and a lot of the problems we resolve are caused by training missing the mark. In our view it is a job like most, best left to the professionals. Excellent training relevant to the job role actually improves profit for the business, reduces error and accidents, and aids self development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gavin Gibson
Steve
Depending upon the size of your organisation, you could justify having some of your courses accredited so that you could then run in-house accredited training. it depends upon the range and quantity of training and the number of organisations required to acredit the courses. For example, at a previuos employer we had our MEWPS instructors and their courses accredited - they each trained on up to 6 pieces of equipment.
However if all you require is the odd course every few months then it would probably not be effective. The key issue is one of qulity control and planning. Start of with a training needs analysis and look at your company workload. You could have then negotiate a rate for the complete package, rather than on a one-off basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
I'd like to join in this discussion but first would someone please define 'accredited training'.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Geoff.
I would interpret the term 'Accredited Training' at training that has been accredited by a recognised body (sich as IOSH, CITB or any number of professional bodies) as meeting the requirements fully in respect of content etc, for which the training is provided/intended. This of course could apply equally well to basically any type of training, in any field, 'accredited' by a respective relevant body or organisation.... Presentation of course is a different matter, although the methods used and professionalism of the trainer often goes hand in glove with the outcome of the training. It;s very easy to be boring and bland and send all your delegates to sleep within 5 minutes.
making boring subjects intersting is the real art!!
I do of course realise that I stand a fair chance of being challenged and/or corrected on this and welcome other interpretations too....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
That's my understanding as well Stuart.
Which is where the problem begins.
We have a contributor to this thread saying that all H&S training should be delivered by accredited organisations/trainers.
The direct cost of accreditation is substantially over £1000 and if you add the time to be spent in gaining that accreditation the cost is very much more. Add the need to pay the accreditation body for delegate certificates and ongoing fees and you put it out of reach of the smaller consultancies and more importantly you take it out of reach of the smaller companies.
And in the real world it is the smaller companies who provide the most employment.
So what are the advantages/disadvantages to be accredited or providing accredited training.
Training to a standard - we were accredited to a well known plant scheme and I can tell you the standards are not that exacting. We left because we had no faith in either the accrediting body or the lecturers they employed.
In another case we were called in to undo the problems caused by the lecturer of a very well known accredited training body - not IOSH but a very similar organisation.
My personal experience is that some (not all) of the accredited companies employ consultants at the lowest daily rate they can get them for, provide them with a set of ready made up slides and let them loose - the only criteria being they must be IOSH members or a similar qualification. Quality of lecturing does not come into it as long as the documentation is seen to meet the requirements.
As Stuart said it is the quality of lecturing that is important and too often accreditation organisations forget that single important simple principle.
So, back to the point, it is not necessarily the case that accredited training is better than in-house training. You know your own H&S issues far better than an outsider.
If outside training is required don't assume the larger organisations can do it better. Get someone in with a good track record who can provide details of satisfied clients.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Sweetman
An interesting thread! A good point by Geoff as regards definitions.
Let me put another parameter in the field - 'suitable' training. The various legislation requires training, but only asks for it to be suitable, comprehensive, relevant etc.
One major failing of training is that a lot of it is 'off the shelf'and does not address specifics of the organisation/client. I work for MOD - try giving them an 'off the shelf' package!
This tends to favour in-house training - after all, how is the effectiveness of the training to be monitored? However, outsourced 'accredited' training can be a favourite for professional delivery.
To sum up, for 'in-house' or 'accredited', read 'suitable'. After all, the end result is for management/persons to be able to meet their H&S responsibilities.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony Overbury
Steve
One argument would be the case in which a recognised training standard had to be achieved. By this I am thinking of the following examples:
* First aid at work;
* DGSA qualification;
* ADR Vocational Certificate.
There will obviously be many other examples.
Hope this helps.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
I too am in favour of in-house as opposed to external training - as said above, you can tailor in-house training to the needs of your organisation.
The arguments for external training are the gaining of certificates - first aid, fork lift truck, abrasive wheels to name but three. Then of course we have the ECITB Safety Passport Scheme which site engineers need to have - this should be accredited externally.
For most things though, I do my own training - the course is then tailored to the needs and, more importantly, the understanding of your workforce - written in language that you know they will understand and take on board as opposed to some external courses which are highly technical or use hundreds of acronyms of which we are all familiar but mean nothing to someone not "in the business" as it were.
Hilary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ethne D'Arcy
Obviously I have to say that accredited training is the best but I also agree that in-house training has its place. However why not contact Linda Stanley, Course Approval Officer at IOSH, and talk about having your in-house courses accredited? That is possibly the best of both worlds?
Ethne
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Street MIOSH,RSP
What about trainers... its true that many H&S consultants are good at what they do, also, the same can be said of many safety staff employed directly. My concern is the standard of delivery, we could all put together a health and safety course but who has the qualification to deliver?. I have just completed a C&G 7307 teaching course and feel very confident that the courses I deliver are planned, delivered and evaluated with aims and objectives being met regardless
of being accredited or in-house. As an aside
I find it interesting that IOSH do not require a teaching qualification for the
delivery of their courses, but NEBOSH do for the teaching of their general certificate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert M Edwards
Some of the answers above indicate the troubled profile presently 'enjoyed' in training. We have found that all occupational areas require a different approach and generally those at board and senior management level require training to be linked in to their own business objectives.
The idea of training being delivered by in house professionals in Health and Safety but who may happen to have training skills but might not is potentially damaging to their own professional credibility.
Our involvement in training is focused on the reduction in risk at all levels within the business. We use accredited courses and professional experienced trainers who have walked the walk as well as taught. They have a variety of qualifications to train but also have a real understanding how people learn and how best to embed the learning in the workplace.
They resource the training properly and use state of the art technology tools. We pay for the best so our clients are better prepared to control the risks in their own business and to forward plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ethne D'Arcy
At the moment it is true that IOSH do not require tutors to have had training in delivering material. This is a matter we are trying to address. When looking at CVs for prospective tutors we do check that they have a knowledge of Health & Safety and if they do not have any 'teacher' training we do recommend that they undertake at the very least a Train the Trainer type course.
Ethne
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Good thread!!
Safety professionals and teaching, Some are great, some are not so great some are awful.
Some organisations accredit courses because it gets thenm inbcome, interesting in that IOSH dont require a formal teaching qualification. Suppose a lot of H&S teaching consultants would be out of a job if this happened.
Would be interesting to compare what the pass rates are for organisations who teach NEBOSH etc and you would then know which organisation was good.
That said if you go to the more reputable organisations then this will cost more! but at least you are guaranteed some level of success.
Ask what the pass rate is and the level of experience and qualifications that they have, remember not what the level is in the organisation but the ACTUAL person who will deliver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.