Posted By Ian Bruce Situation 1 - managers attend a risk assessment course that lasts approximately 2 and a half hours and covers all the usual things, hazard, risk, control measures etc. At the end of the 2 hours they perform a risk assessment of a real situation, this assessment and group exercises during the course is validated by the trainer. Situation 2 - managers attend a risk assessment course covering the same kind of content as the above course, except this provides more detail on the theory of risk assessment. This course lasts about 7 hours. Validation is by same method. In both situations, the suitability and sufficiency of subsequent risk assessments is examined during routine audits of the managers work areas by the company H&S Manager. My question is: Are attendees of the shorter course as competent in preparing risk assessments as those who attended the longer course ? I'm interested in colleagues opinions on this as this is brewing into an argument where I work and your opinions may help to settle it!

Posted By Bev Ian I see your dilemma! One way of looking at it is the confidence of your personnel to actually carry out risk assessments on their own for real. On this basis, I would imagine that the longer course, being more in depth would give them a greater understanding and therefore they are more likely to be confident at doing it themselves afterwards. Totally agree with the previous response with regard to personal attitude, and again, you are more likely to be successful with a more in depth course at really hammering the point home. Having said that, I would not necessarily deem that all those who attended the shorter course would need more training - as said before, it depends on their abilities and experience etc as to what they got out of it. All you can do is look at what they are coming up with and assess the need for further training in each case.

Posted By steven bentham Questions to ask yourself: (1) Are you working in high or low risk environments? (2) What is the accident experience of your industry or company? (3) Are you working to established standards for your industry? (4) How well do you comply with any HSE Guidance Documents for your industry? (5) Do you have established safety management systems and audit results? (6) How motivated and experienced are your managers? (7) Do your workforce generally follow the 'rules'? Short courses generally do not cover what's wanted but a long course will only paper over cracks if the above are not fully covered. I would suggest you focus wider on the safety management aspects rather than the length of the training course. Acid test question: How safe is it in the workplace??

Posted By Philip McAleenan Ian, Competency is judged on the ability of the competent person to skillfully and consistenty apply his/her skills and knowledge to any specified work situation regardless of how long or short a course they have attended, or indeed whether they have ever attended a course. In this regard the audits being carried out will answer your question. I would note that those who have progressed by whatever route to becoming managers will, assuming they are competent managers, bring with they skills in assessing the operation of their department, division etc., determining the requirements for successful outcomes and, presuming they have the authority, be able to resource their activities so as to obtain that outcome. In this regard they are already competent to conduct risk assessments, because that is part of being a competent manager, and something that they have already demonstrated in order to get to their current position. Furthermore, people who work at management level should be regarded as competent in self directed learning in order to maintain their competency. They would therefore be able to keep abreast of developments through reading, research, attendance at meetings and conferences of their professional bodies, etc. Very comepetent managers will be able to assimilate new developments and ideas in short briefing sessions as readily as on day-long courses, which may not be the most effective use of their time. Recognise too what you have stated in your posting, that managers who attend these courses are being assessed as competent by the trainer. If you are not satisfied with the competence of the trainer to do that, why use them in the first place? Also you state the the H&S Manager assesses the suitability and sufficiency of RAs via the audit process. It seems that there are sufficient checks and balances in place. Conflict can be avoided on this matter if your managers are given due respect. The role of the H&S Manager is not to neuter his/her colleagues elsewhere in the company but to assist them in the carrying out of their functions. Regards, Philip

Posted By Mark Talbot I agree with most of what has been said - the courses are providing a competency in the technique of completing of a risk assessment, not [in my estimation] a competency in a thorough risk assessment process. However - if they are competent people in the type of activities / locations they are assessing, and have a sensible approach to safe working, technique training might be the only thing needed. The selection of the right people will be the key... unless you provide thorough training and coaching.

Posted By Ian Bruce Many thanks to those who have responded, all of the comments have been useful as I ponder the way forward. For the record, we have a very sound H&S Management system in place, with some very good managers. In balance, I shall recommend that we adopt the shorter course, so long as we continue to validate the quality of the assessments generated by the managers during and immediately post the training event. Thanks again for your assistance.

Posted By stephen J Smith Ian, Look to the original definition of competency as described in the electricty at works regs 1989. there are five areas to look at in reg 16 including experience, knowledge, ability to identify danger and appropriate supervision. Factor this into your arguement and do a gap analysis on the respective managers to find out who has ticks in the respective areas. Those without experience inthose areas are deficient inthose areas and need supervison and guidance in those areas. good luck Stephen

Posted By J Knight Why not consider the definition of competency given in the guidance to the MHSW Regs? i) know the job ii) know what the limits of your knowledge are and iii) know where to look for information to supplement the shortfalls in your knowledge. Having delivered a level 2 accredited Risk Assessment training course to about 150 people in my previous employment I can say I have absolutely no faith in RA training as such. Either people already have the knowledge and capacity to carry out RAs to a suitable standard and just need to understand the process, or they need more training than can be given in anything short of Managing Safely. I found that people's performance in the assessment was related to the quality of the training; i.e. nearly everybody passed, but people's performance as Risk Assessors was only peripherally related to their performance on the assessment; in other words there was poor demonstration of training into practice. There is more mystification of RA than almost any other topic; to my way of thinking what matters in RA is technical knowledge about the activity or process being assessed; the rest is just a formality, John