Posted By Homer
Firstly please no bun fights based on what I'm going to ask.

I have noticed many of the CDM co-ordinators and consultants I come across love tabling letters after their names. I recognise all the IOSH ones and IIRSM and understand where it all fits in by grade etc., however most of them don't have any IOSH membership and quote Dip SM and MIIRSM. As some of them are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard, not all just some, what standng does Dip SM have with IOSH and for that matter NEBOSH? Also what is MaPS, I've come across ILM bt not MaPS

Posted By Robert K Lewis
The new Dip SM is one of the IOSH accepted qualifications - Not the old one however.

You should also have seen MICS - Institute of Construction Safety around.

Both ICS and APS seem to have sorted CSCS and obviously do the TST which means a great deal I am told !!!!!!

Bob

Posted By Andrew Brown
I'm not sure safety qualification is the big issue for CDM Cs under CDM 2007. If you look at CDM 2007 ACOP you will see that the competency requirements for CDM Co-ordinators on 'larger or more complex projects' leans heavily towards design qualifications and not H&S.

Design side typically requires chartered engineer or architect e.g. 7 years of training etc to achieve, whilst H&S part is NEBOSH construction cert e.g. one term part time.

I would therefore suggest that when assessing your CDM C for competency you concentrate on his design qualifications with his Dip SM being both adequate and secondary (provided he has 'validated CPD').

I personally do some CDM-C combined with Clients safety advisor on large projects and we have split the role to meet the competency requirements. The chartered engineer deals with the design review and I advise on CDM legal compliance and safety in construction.

I also have MaPS. APS provide useful support and training for CDM Cs.

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan
Bob

Coordination is neither a organisation or a profession rather it is a function.

During the protracted consultation phase of CDM 2007 I argued to do away with planning supervisors/ coordinators because, as you rightly suggest the focus comes around to the person not the function at hand.

When it comes to coordinating the H&S of the construction part of the process the Principle Contractor has this function integrated into his role and that is correct because who better to ensure H&S is properly addressed and coordinated during construction than the competent contractor you engage.

Why is it so difficult to see that a competent Lead Designer has coordination of H&S within the design process as an integral function of their commission?

Would this not have been a clearer result?

Best wishes

Ciaran