Posted By Sean Fraser
Wow! Some question!
There is no right answer to this one (haven't we heard all that before) but it does add to the debate of to what extent a Safe System of Work provides to the employee and to what extent competence plays its part.
The term competence has been debated numerous times on this forum and we have all contributed towards it at some point, but I would say that there is agreement that qualification, knowledge and experience forms the basis of a competent person. Unfortunately there is no fixed criterion that one can apply that satisfies everyone at every stage - the level of competence is balanced by the level of risk and specialist function. My personal definition is "knowing when to ask".
When I did my initial foray into this field I was told to dumb it down - aim for the lowest common denominator and you can't go wrong. As a general philosophy this is OK, but there is the danger of patronising the workforce by pitching it too low, while there remains the danger that one cannot assume prior knowledge either and giving incomplete instructions and advice as a result. Again, it depends on the message and more importantly, the intended recipients. At all times the KISS principle should be applied though, so the crux of the matter is at the forefront and not obscured by screeds of relevant but inappropriate information.
There is an additional point here - standardisation of information. In the example quoted I would expect that the harmonisation of labelling and safety data sheets across Europe goes a long way towards helping make use of chemicals safer. If everyone recognises the symbology used, if everyone can read a MSDS without worrying that information might be missing or is presented in a different and hence confusing manner, then we have general recognition as the central plank to our training programme. This helps in teaching people how to read the info, as there is a basic assurance that they aren't going to have to interpret the way it was presented before they ever get around to interpreting the information contained within!
The question lies in how much of the information is a record, and how much is an instruction. I would suggest that any information that is pre-filled is not a record - it is an instruction. Only the bits that are variables (i.e. location, date, time, quantities, personnel names etc.) are the actual records. The issue of competence is not on the completion of the record, but in correctly interpreting / following the instructions and performing the work to the required standard. The record only notes that the work was done.
Obviously this is different if the personnel are being required to make comments, recommendations or assessments as a result of the work performed. Now the competence lies not only in performing the work, but in correctly reporting it in an adequate manner that ensures that the critical points are covered effectively. Now the individuals need to be good report writers as well.
The issue of competence is complicated, but my opinion would be to start with what you expect of people. If they are practical people doing a practical job, then spending a significant period of time writing reports that essentially provides the same information time after time is a waste of resources - they are paid to do, not to write. The more you can reduce this requirement and then assist with what remains the better (i.e. do we need the report? If so, what do we need to record? How can we reduce the completion time to ensure only the pertinent facts are recorded?). On the other hand, if you are requiring written opinions and judgements then the form cannot be pre-filled - that is what the personnel are there to do.
But in both cases, you will be using their individual competencies to their best effect.