Posted By Paul Hay A good point well made. There have been many debates on this forum about competency with many points of views expressed. However, I do get a little fed up of people claiming you can't be competent or shouldn't be working as a consultant with 'only' a general certificate. I feel that competency is more about the job you do rather than the qualifications you hold. I have a colleague with 'only' a cert and many years of experience who is excellent at his job and held in very high regard by his clients - I would challenge anyone to show he isn't competent. H&S is such a broad subject, can any practitioner honestly say they are competent in all areas? I suspect there may be a few who think they are, but maybe these are the same ones who are so quick to put down other people!

Posted By Tony Brunskill Karen, I think this supports the point I am trying to get across. My guess is the situation warranted a technical knowledge of an engineering issue. Thaks Tony

Posted By Brett Day One thing that my course tutor drummed in was a very competant person knows the limitations of his/her knowledge and experience. I have spent most of my H&S career in construction/CDM. whilst not degree/diploma qualified I consider myself more competant in this field than the safety advisor working in a construction company who had spent 15 years in chemicals and 6 months in construction, incidently he was far more qualified than I holding several degrees. His advice regarding excavations and confined spaces was nothing short of criminal, he didn't have the knowledge or experience of this industry and worse still he did not know or acknowledge this.

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, What will a Chartered Engineer/Lawyer say to a H&S pro with a BSc and maybe a PgC or MSc; by my reckoning they will have done five years' study plus two year's CPD to gain CMIOSH? Don't get me wrong, I too think that competence has to be based on a mix of experience and formal learning (whatever the form of the latter). And letters after ones name do not confer competence, in the same way a lack of titles doesn't equate to incompetence, but there is snobbery among professions, and its one of the things IOSH has to tackle, and so do we as the constituent parts of the Institution, John

Posted By gham ???? i though this thread was about competancy rather than membership....... again

Posted By J Knight Dave, You misunderstood my post; there is snobbery among professions. It runs something like this: Architects think they're gods Lawyers can prove they're gods Medical Consultants are gods I was just pointing out a possible reason for a lawyer rating en engineering degree (and why not?) but not a safety qual (and why not?). John

Posted By Karen Todd John - I don't know the answer, but it was certainly an eye opener to see how people outside our profession view us / our qualifications. All I have seen recently is how we view ourselves. KT

Posted By Richard Spencer So we are trotting this blood stained issue again are we? I have this to say. I am a engineer and a safety practitioner as well as an expert witness of many years standing. The issue of a lawyer asking for engineering qualifications is often, to ensure that the case when under prosecution can be won. The fact of the matter is that when one stands in the witness box to give evidence the first thing that is done is to have all or part of the expert report accepted into evidence. If this is done and the Judge decides with the other sides barrister to accept what ever percentage the next step is to try and discredit the expert. This is a rather unpleasant experience I am sure those that have been through it will agree, but it part of the established system. Very often a person may purport to be a safety professional, however, I have found in my experience that many safety professionals are not numerate or have poor numerate skills. Sure they have the interpersonal skills otherwise they would not survive as consultants or safety advisors. In providing expert opinion on behalf of the plaintiff or the defendant, I have consistently had my reports conjectured by the other side’s expert witness and I have been asked to do the same critical analysis on reports I received in matters to be brought before the court. In all cases the expert opinion was given in one form or another by an engineer, often specialising in a particular facet of applied engineering. I think it is the case that lawyers take advice from “other subject matter experts”, by example, forensic scientists, medical scientists, metallurgist etc... The use of engineers is most probably from the requirement to be able to produce a structured report where numerate skills are central to the case. Richard

Posted By Descarte "I have spent years learning & plotting my career with experience of over 20 years in the 'trade' crossing all sectors of industry both private and public (even consultancy at one time) and have held lofty positions however with a just a NEBOSH Cert you will not get there so you people out there stop it and tell them as it is" I disagree, wink wink

Posted By gham John Sorry I was being general, it was to try and get a point across though Des I agree with you on that ;-) I do alright, no CMIOSH and no Diploma just a humble Cert. and Alternative IOSH Accredited diploma (still to complete)

Posted By J Knight Hi Bob, That's my point really, solicitors do specialise, and I certainly wouldn't pick an argument on H&S with a specialist H&S lawyer; we just shouldn't assume that a lawyer will know the answer to any and every legal question we put to them. The law is far too big a field for that. It's not about who is better in general terms, its just about recognition for a particular expertise. Too many people (and that includes members of other professions) think health and safety is 'just common sense really', and we all have particular views on that perspective. But back to the original point of the thread; competence is a blend of experience and knowledge. Both those are acquired by learning. Insofar as the Diploma builds on the Certificate, it does imply more classroom-acquired knowledge. What neither qualification can do is confer experience; and really that has to be the bit that matters most in the day job, John

Posted By Tony Brunskill I think with limited exception we are agreed that competence is based around the knowledge, experience and understanding of the advisor combined with the issues on which he/she advises. To this end competence is a moveable feast. It therefore follows that in certain circumstances a certificate holder can be a competent person. Thanks for your contributions. Perhaps there is an answer after all, or perhaps not!!

Posted By Philip McAleenan I think that maybe it is time that a lot of misconceptions about competence are laid to rest. In the first instance, competence cannot be defined by reference to knowledge, experience and understanding. Knowledge is some thing that you have, an intellectual warehouse of facts known to be true. How you acquire that knowledge is immaterial, there are many different routes, study, experience, even the ability to objectively observe the world around you. Nor is understanding competence. Rather it is a stage beyond knowledge, beyond knowing mere facts. It is the intellectual capacity to conceptualise the world, to appreciate what is behind the facts and to hypothesise abstract scenarios based on the knowledge held to determine what is possible and what is not. And experience? It is but a collection of events in a life that may or may not lead to the individual gaining knowledge and understanding. All these are useful in assisting in the development of competence, but in themselves they are not competence. Competence is the ability to consistently act in a skilful manner. The test is in the act, not on what led to the ability to act. You can have all the knowledge and experience in the world and still not be able to act skilfully. Knowledge, understanding, experience and awareness of self-limitations assist in making up competence but are in themselves not sufficient to be competence itself. As for paper certificates, diplomas, and degrees, do not get too hung up on them. They merely record a moment in time when the holder was able to answer a question in an examination. With few exceptions, they do not record an assessment of competence, and those that do; it is simply record of what is now past, useful but not the be all and end all of things. And to those who would attach too vigorously their colleagues with seemingly lesser qualifications, let me finish with a reference to Shakespeare’s “lady [that] doth protest too much”. Rest well with what you have got and leave others whose full background you do not know alone. Philip

Posted By Tony Brunskill Philip, I agree, I think. Regards Tony