Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jennifer Kelly
I was wondering what the consensus was amongst forum members on the status of Construction Site Inductions.
Is an induction a training session?
I personally believe that they are not training sessions, but I have just been involved in an interesting discussion with a manager who believes that they are.
What do the members think?
I await with interest!
Jennifer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter MacDonald
Absolutely agree with you Jennifer.
An induction rarely provides adequate instruction to be training or produce competent people.
I would expect training to be accredited and audited and inductions are certainly not.
Inductions do have some role in setting the initial tone of the site or company and provide a basic level of behavioural expectation. It's also a sheep dipping excercise or ar*e covering by the client or main contractor in many cases.
I doubt induction would be considered training in the courts.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Before coming up with a blanket answer though, it is worth considering what is covered at one of these events.
After all, you may each have a different experiences of site inductions.
They are likely to vary from company to company & even between sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By fats van den raad
I would have to disagree here. Maybe in a construction context the induction on some sites have become so superficial that it is difficult to see it as training. On my site, induction is certainly part of the health and safety training package. I see induction for new employees as the very first health and safety training session, laying the groundwork for further H&S training. For contractors, the induction training do communicate the expected behaviour, but also explains the procedures etc that would be relevant to their job. It may be a slightly different type of training, but then are all training the same, I think not. It depends on the situation and desired outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark R. Devlin
Does it not come down to what defines information, instruction or training
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter MacDonald
Fats
Induction does have an important role but I would argue still it is not training. Among others I've sat through intel, Motorola, Skanska, BP, Corus, Diageo and numerous others inductions and all follow the same form:
Various engineers, managers, cleaners, delivery people, labourers gather together for an intro to the company business, a statement of zero accidents/ harm to the environment targets. A half hour video with the various alarms/muster points and emergency numbers. A list of all the site/ company specific based hazards. A questions and answer session (where questions are rare) and then a test that no-one fails (mmmh, just like the safety passport and that's actuall government endorsed training!!). Then off they go....
It's all valid stuff and in most cases useful (you do want to know what'll harm you, where to go for help etc) but it's not training. I concede that your companies induction may be excellent but the vast majority (in my experience) are not.
Can you tell me who you work for?
Best Regards
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Fair point, Peter.
Based on what you have just posted, I would be inclined to agree that what you describe is not training - more a sort of safety pep talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alec Wood
Surely the differences between companies and circumstances mean a blanket answer here is impossible, I couldn't even give one for my own site
Is the induction I give contractors who are coming on site for the day training or not? I would say not, it's more of a safety briefing, lasts about twenty minutes.
On the other hand, what about new employees? Well their induction, which lasts three days, certainly is training. It is set up so that everyone on our site knows, as well as the usual induction stuff, a bit about a whole range of H&S issues.
I've seen quite a few building and heavy engineering contractors who operate similar systems, particularly for large projects.
My summary answer to the initial question would be "That depends on the content"
Alec Wood
Samsung Electronics
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
I would have to say this varies from site to site and company to company.
Some are very good and some are very bad.
From being shown the kettle and toilet to given site rules and escape procedures and even having a photo taken etc.
Most Inductions should be merited as only as awareness rather than training.
Just because you are aware of a risk etc does not mean you have the skills or knowledge on the best methods to avoid it. Of course there are simple things a reasonable person would be expected to understand i.e. report all accidents etc. But what about on chemical sites, contractors are given inductions about permit to works; hot works alarm procedures, chemical venting info etc. Some of these inductions do come in the form of training.
Interesting it is to see this subject put up for debate. I know I will learn some things here.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JAMES MM
Jennifer,
I have read with interest the answers to your thread. I am on a site at the moment where we have induction training. The induction trains site personnel in the legislation in relation to the work, method of work and company best practice. At the end of the induction a test is undertaken by all personnel.
So far, 1 director, 6 managers and 10 site workers have failed and have not been allowed on site until they have proved they have had additional training and been able to pass a 2nd test.
To summarise, I believe it is down to the standards that are set, the validity of the training and test and the personal management competence of the site personnel.
regards
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian mcnally
Couldn’t resist chipping in. I have been working in the construction sector for some years. I often hear that some induction “training” is just lip service and a complete waste of time. This may well be the case in some quarters but isn’t “training” simply about passing on knowledge to others?
Perhaps short sharp and punchy training sessions may be more useful than a 3hour ordeal which may run the risk of missing its objectives. There could be problems with assessing whether the training is suitable for the recipient or if it’s being monitored to see it it’s been effectively delivered or not. I do feel that the principle of making others aware of issues which affect them would, in most cases be considered as training.
I will always question the read ere and sign ere sort, but surely if a suitably trained individual spends time on delivering basic information such as; Site rules – welfare/emergency procedures – do’s and don’ts and even a bit on manual handling – work at heights –etc etc could be useful. Perhaps if the understanding by the recipient was assessed along the way, it might even constitute as good training, perhaps I’ve overstepped it here! (Could be just 15/20mins tool box talk style?)
Of course it doesn’t mean the recipient is necessarily competent to carry out a particular work activity and nor does the fact that just because an individual is in possession of an induction card from one site it automatically should entitle them to gain access to another. I will stop here before I go off at a tangent.
From an employers point of view, it may help to be able to demonstrate compliance with some of ; HASWA – C(HSW)R – CDM – MHSWR to mention just a few, after all nothing wrong in pushing – information- instruction – training- and supervision I’m sure most safety people do!
I would be interested to hear other viewpoints.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By fats van den raad
Peter
I work for an SME involved in chemical/pharmaceutical manufacturing and wholesale. I agree to point with what you are saying, because as a consultant in a previous life I too have sat through those kind of inductions. I would still define them as training though, albeit bad training.
To coach in or accustom to a mode of behavior or performance.
To make proficient with specialized instruction and practice.
I dont see training as exclusively one or the other of these definitions, but rather as either of the two. That is why I define most of my interaction with staff in my organisation as training
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jennifer Kelly
Well forum you never fail to disappoint on the range of opinions on offer!
As I said before, I believe, quite strongly in fact, that an induction cannot ever be described as training. I would even go so far as to say that describing an induction as training is potentially risky in itself as quite simply you cannot 'train' someone to be safe. You can of course reduce risk through a number of means, the induction of course being one of them, but induction does not magically turn someone into a 'safe' person onsite.
This is what I said to the manager. Manager still disagreed. Oh well.
Regards
Jennifer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi1
In my view, Site inductions can be in three categories, i.e, training, instruction or information.
Information can be given by various means, but it can be either verbal or written. It can be also generic or specific
Instructions tend to be specific, but no attempt has been made to ensure that the receiver has understood it.
Training will generally include both of the above, i.e Information & Instructions, but the difference is that the trainer has by some means assessed that the trainee has comprehended and understood the training. This can be by means of a test or other practical assessments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alex mccreadie
Like others who have took the time to post a reply I have been on many site inductions.
These have been in places like T5, Wembley, Corus, BP, ESSO, SHELL and many more construction sites. In my opinion no they are not in any way training.
They are used to inform people mainly of the hazards and emergency numbers and procedures on site.
Where confusion can arise is that you can claim a CITB Training Grant for any employee attending Site Induction Training.
Some of the Inductions I have taken have been interesting and informative and some have been a waste of time.
I find that major sites carrying out inductions daily are stale and un-interesting as the INDUCTOR gets bored.
These inductions are needed mainly as already stated for their informative nature, but no I have never felt as if I have been trained on any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By fats van den raad
If you had to rely on the attendee's opinion of whether they feel they have been trained or not in order to define a particular course of information and instruction as "training", then all BAD training will fail to be training.
The experiences that people had with stale and uninteresting induction does not in itself disqualify it as training. It just means that it was ineffective and bad training.
I fail to see what the issue is regarding induction being training or not. Please explain in short single sylable terms so I can understand.
My induction is the first part of my health and safety training package. It is a sort of a "foundation"course, that lets people know what h&s is about in general terms. Further training expands on this foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian mcnally
Jennifer,
What about another looking at it from a different perspective!
Perhaps if you ask yourself; does the induction session have a purpose/objective?
If the answer is no, then why bother doing it. If the answer it yes, then perhaps you could define the purpose/objective. Even if it is to convey to the inductee the most basic of information that they didn’t know before they received induction or dare I say training. It could be simple stuff such as who the first Aider is or what the evacuation procedures are and where and who to report too, where the bogs are etc .. Whatever!!
Asses if the information has been received and understood by the inductee by asking a question or two along the way and “voila” or bobs your aunt! Yes I agree that on this basis the inductee will not be able to cut and pitch a roof or design a steel structure, but can you really say it isn’t training?.......think this may run for a bit yet but don’t you enjoy a healthy debate.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Moran
As far as I am concerned the ultimate test of this question is the value of any such inductions when having to deal with the HSE after a serious accident.
In such a scenario any evidence of any catergory of 'training'immediately carries value and credibility.
Inductions within the Construction Industry are one of the only ways of ensuring that site-specific risks are communicated to the people most likely to either cause or be injured in an incident.
The fact that the CITB consider such transmission of information to fall under the 'training' remit is encouragement enough to undertake an induction programme and has the clear benefit of being able to recover some of the annual levy paid.
I am in full agreement however that induction information given should have confirmation of understanding carried out by a test. No doubt many of us have sat through inductions prior to a contract having been carried out with scant regard for whether recipients have understanding of the risks they face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Marc
Hi Jennifer,
Talking from my own experience as an induction trainer I would have to say what we do here for an induction is training,
We run an initial 5 day induction plan for new starters that includes,
day 1, introduction to what we do and why we do it, including terms and conditions,
day 2, health and safety training including, Manual handling, Roll cage and pallet safety, and fire training (spotting hazards, evacuation procedures ect) Training in the use of a safety cutter, accident and investigation proceedures (the need to report)
day 3, MHE training ( low level order pickers)
day 4, trainee shadows existing operative to learn the job
Day 5, review of the week
For the next three months the new starter is reguarly supervised and assessed,
this is our induction process, and I would consider that days 2 and 3 definately constitute as training.
Marc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George Wedgwood
It's all about competence! Anything that helps improve an employee's competence has to be considered as part of their development and Induction is the very start of that - and probably very important in setting the standard for what is to come. We monitor all events like this but don't call it 'training' as such, but that is just being pedantic! Any thing that imparts knowledge, experience or ability is a part of competence building and Induction certainly, if done properly, provides some knowledge and perhaps a little experience if some practice is included - like a site walkaround or filling in some company H&S forms etc. Ability may not be improved greatly here but the session can let the leader know where they may need ability reinforcement by general questioning in the session or by questionnaire filling etc. Also very useful here, is to let the new inductee be exposed to company systems, managers and purpose, as this is very important to give them security and a feeling that the compoany 'cares' for them and their H&S. Some Safety Rep experience is also a good thing as they often remember more from a peer than a manager!
So in a nutshell, I think I have made the case for it being called 'training' - at least in its basic form - if you indeed want to give it a label!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Jennifer,
In answering this question it is first necessary to define 'training'. Training is defined in SOED as the act or process of providing or receiving instruction in or for a particular skill, profession, occupation. As such site inductions would rarely constitute training.
In most cases site inductions are the passage of information and instructions as to what are the specific risks and measures that have taken, on site.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.J
A large petrochemical company's site induction is merely a lone person watching a twenty minute video followed by a touch screen "exam", the security "guard" issues a site pass to confirm that the iductee is "trained".
Well, at least trained to use a touch screen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gavin
It does not matter what you call it - training, induction, briefing, toolbox talk, etc, as long as you record taht it has happened.
Don't worry about the sumantics, focus on the practicalities.
Gavin
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.