Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Sarah Sahc
I have just been approached by a potential client who has failed a Designers Competence Assessment by a well-known assessment scheme. Having followed the assessment scheme thread earlier this week can concur with a lot that has been said.
I have seen the assessor's failure report and the Designer has been failed on some petty items such as not specifying what his welfare arrangements are, as a sole trader working from home! Whilst he has been passed on items such as his provision of competent Health & safety advice by simply giving a website address of a well-known health & safety training/consultancy provider. He has told me that he has no connection or contract with this company!
He also passed as being a construction Designer yet he has NO qualifications or training in the field of construction or construction design. He is effectively operating as an architectural consultancy providing services to domestic and local authority clients yet his background is in mechanical engineering and so is his historic employment experience.
I sat here thinking how to close this with my head in my hands and all I could say under my breath is "What is going on!" Something is not right and I am concerned about the approach and common-sense of those carrying out the assessments and those instructing them, but more importantly those taking on these assessments at face-value. Lets hope that the contractor building one of this guys designs, wears a hard-hat and carefully checks the Designers calculations and risk assessments before building it!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Sarah, UK Assessment Schemes I work with do not "fail" applicants in the way you suggest. Applicants are given every opportunity to resubmit. I am sure the somewhat spurious welfare issue could have been explained and resolved.
Outright deceit (as discussed in a previous thread, and as described here w.r.t access to competent H&S Advice)is not something readily captured by any first stage assessment scheme, or indeed any Client or Employer initial Tender Evaluation Process, but should become evident at a Stage 2 evaluation by the Client.
To engage a Designer (or indeed any professional/consultant without first checking he has the requisite qualifications is again a failure by the Client/Employer, and not the third party assessment scheme.
Third Party Assessment Schemes can surely only serve to complement the Employer's/Client's due diligence requirements, not replace them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sarah Sahc
Ron
There are some assessment schemes run by private organisations that are excellent.
My concern is that this guy did not actually "Fail", but was referred on irrelevant points, and then "passed" on crucial items where he demonstrated no competence at all. It serves no purpose to go on about assessments of this nature as being Stage 1 or primarily assessments as the client is not usually clear about his specific roles and responsibilities and no further checks are generally done to carry out stage 2 assessments.
Whilst competence assessments are titled as such, they will be perceived as exactly that, they are not called Stage 1 or Preliminary Assessments and therefore do not indicate a further assessment is required.
With this level of assessment being undertaken, any general administrator would be able to 'Tick' the right boxes and there would be no need for a specific health and safety assessor. Therefore there is no point to these initial assessment schemes unless they are consistent, informative and have a minimum level of due diligence applied to the assessment and review process.
A further issue is that many organisations who gain third party H&S Accreditation will use the badge to reinforce their credentials. This designer also works for private domestic clients which raises further issues about the public understanding of the extent of assessment undertaken by such third party accreditation schemes.
Sarah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I cant agree more.
You can get Nat Brit and CHAS etc purely from a form filling exercise.
You can sit behind a PC and produce what you want and submit it, how are they to know?
They never visit the Head office or Site and check that what you say you are doing you actually do!
One of the main issues is that they use 'Generic' H&S Consultants some with very little experience and qualifications who have little or no knowledge of 'Specialist' industries and they ask really stupid questions and for info which is not relevant to what you actually do.
Jump through the hoops and hey presto certificate, I sympathise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Sarah, rather than knock Stage 1 Assessment Schemes, which are generally transparent as to their expected outcomes and limitations (some even have a complaints mechanism!),perhaps the efforts of our profession would be better focussed on addressing statements you make such as:
"It serves no purpose to go on about assessments of this nature as being Stage 1 or primarily assessments as the client is not usually clear about his specific roles and responsibilities and no further checks are generally done to carry out stage 2 assessments."
A somewhat defeatist statement surely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sarah Sahc
Hi Ron,
My intention is not to knock any 3rd party accreditation scheme as I think the principle is good. What I want to do is look at the development of these schemes and initiate a discussion about improving features of them - after all surely the end-user should contribute to the process so it does not exist as a dictatorial structure - but as always, those involved are trying to be over-protective of their schemes and close down discussions before they start.
In your position as an assessor you obviously have a vested interest as you derive part of your income from carrying out assessments on these schemes. It is interesting however, that part of my income also comes from assessment schemes but I see the process as organic and not a static entity.
I'm not knocking stage 1 assessments - if only they were perceived as such, which does not make me a defeatist more a realist understanding more the pitfalls in such schemes but also how they are portrayed to the wider public. Simple changes is all that is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Sarah, I wouldn't count 3rd party assessments as a significant part of my job, and I have no allegiance or vested interest in any particular scheme, I'm only trying to express a balanced viewpoint.
These systems aren't perfect and people will, despite best efforts, "slip through the net".
It is the Client/employer who is required (by law where the 3rd party is engaged as part of his undertaking) to be vigilant in further evaluating and monitoring performance at Stages 2, 3 and even Stage 4 (post-contract) review.
The bottom line - to appoint anyone to do anything for you and not to keep tabs on how well they do it is not good business!
Some systems (e.g. CHAS) allow Clients to post comment on performance - this is transparency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.