Hi all,

I wonder if someone can settle a debate ive been having with a friend today.

By definition, an advisor is someone whom can advise/identify issues. A
Consultant being a person whom helps to complete/eliminate said issue.

Consultants are regulated by OSHCR - but what about advisors?

So, the actual question I ask is, can a person with a Gen Cert act/advertise themselves as/work as - a freelance H&S advisor, advising on issues and ways to avoid/highlight issues? writting RA's etc.

Eventually becomming a Consultant by following the correct methods and paths etc to then advertise themselves as a freelance Consultant?

Im sure there is something written on this, but ive not managed to locate it as of yet.

Thanks.

Rob278

'The Trusted Advisor', by D Maister, C Green, R Galsford, The Free Press, 2000 explains vividly what consultancy is about.

The authors graduated in statistics, philosophy and law at the start of their careers before learning the ropes of consulting and getting to the stage of teaching others to do so.

Don't know where you got your definitions from but they are not correct. As a Consultant I certainly don't help to complete or eliminate issues. I advise on what's wrong and what should be done to put it right. I also help with completing paperwork, though not all consultants do. I also train, although not all consultants do.

Consultants are certainly not regulated by OSCHR. OSCHR is just a voluntary membership scheme.

I'm not sure that there is a technical difference between a consultant and an adviser. However, I think you will find that adviser's are generally in-house and consultants generally an external paid professional service.

There are no absolute requirements for experience or qualifications to become a consultant. Anyone can call themselves a consultant. However, in my opinion you would be skating on thin ice to advertise as a consultant without both. A fast way to ending up in court. With limited qualifications and limited experience it is better to get experience as part of a team, either as an in-house advisor or if a consultancy is willing to take you on a train you up (but most require CMIOSH as a pre-requisite)

Consultants charge higher fees. Advisors are often ignored. And the world is perfect!

ROB, as suggested in the previous posts the two terms are readily interchangeable. I call myself a consultant and I advise my clients, in what I believe is a professional manner, for a fee. However they often refer to me as their external advisor. I was until this year listed on OHSCR but instead decided to spend the fee on a good bottle of single malt - I got more out of it that way.

What I very strongly believe is that consultancy skills have to be learned and acquired through experience and some education & training. A Masters degree or Doctorate in OHS on its own is little use in being able to effectively communicate with clients or customers and influence their thinking and actions.

I think they are one and the same.

Using the only bit of legislation, that I am aware of, the IRR1999

Reg 13 says and I paraphrase “Required to Consult with a Radiation Protection Advisor”

John

You can call yourself what you like, it doesn't matter. If you are being paid for your knowledge & skills as a safety person then you are a professional.

People, I've noticed don't want to be called officers and this title seems to be dying out. I still hear it from time to time but normall it comes from the older generations who grew up with this as the dominant title. As the safety profession has matured the titles have changed too. There seems to be a heirarchy, consultant over advisor, indicating (without stipulating) greater knowledge, expertise, specialism and/or experience.

By observation only I would say there are those who would be highly insulted to be called a mere advisor. Others, for sure, couldn't care less either way.

Qualifications are everything and nothing, depending on where you are and where you want to go. The only real question is whether or not our profession will be regulated in the future, requiring minimum qualifications (like IOSH) and providing us with a unifying identity (advisor/officer/technologist).

They can call themselves what they like, but on a General Cert with no other qualification, I'd tend to prefix any title with Trainee.

Just to throw some metaphorical fuel on the fire as an aside to this thread, can anyone suggest why the apparently Trans-Atlantic spelling 'advisor' has increasingly tended to supplant 'adviser' in recent years?!! :-)

On a more serious note, as others, including David B at #7 and Mick N at #11, have rightly pointed out, experience, knowledge and ability are the important factors for OS&H professionals (irrespective of role title) and their organisations/clients.

Totally agree Graham, but additional to all those factors that in my experience clients require is attitude.

I keep going back to my CV, I'm a occupational safety professional but have never held a job title with "Health" or "Safety" in it.

I've never line managed anyone but have had a job title Manager.

I moved from "Manager" to "Advisor" and my accountability / level within the org / salary went up 30%.

It really, really, really doesn't matter!!!!

Nice 1 Jake - what's in a name/title?

kevkel - Your reference to Gillian McKeith at #16 didn't ring any bells with me so I did some internet delving. For others who like me didn't know, it transpires that one or more complaints were made in 2007 to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that her use of the prefix "doctor" was misleading because it related to a qualification gained by correspondence course and fee from a non-accredited American college. The outcome was that she agreed to desist from styling herself "doctor" in subsequent advertising, etc.

This prompts a wry comment that the only people with qualifications which include the word "doctor" are those awarded doctorates, most commonly Doctor of Philosophy degrees, after substantial and original postgraduate research, especially in English-speaking universities. They could be described as 'real' doctors and can either prefix their names with "Doctor" (or its abbreviation "Dr") or put PhD (or D.Phil) after their names (i.e. a post-nomial). By contrast, the term "doctor" for a medical practitioner is based purely on very long-established custom and practice. Their basic qualifications are Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery - respectively Medicinae Baccalaureus and Baccalaureus Chirurgiae in Latin, hence their usual post-nomial abbreviations of MB, ChB.

Sometimes when I've just met someone with the prefix doctor and don't know their occupation, I've jestingly asked "real doctor or medical doctor?" The replies elicited by this question can be quite interesting and sometimes indicate just how important or otherwise some doctors tend to regard themselves! Usually the responders are either medical practitioners or doctorate holders and, thankfully, I've not knowingly encountered anyone with a bogus qualification. However, a few years ago one person answered "both!" He explained that after working for some time as a medical doctor he'd done research and gained a PhD before progressing to become a consultant physician. He added with some amusement that his consultant status plus his PhD perhaps entitled him to use the confusing double prefix "Mister Doctor"! Even so, he just preferred "Doctor" to avoid confusion, especially for patients unacquainted with the subtleties of titles in hospital medicine!