Rank: Forum user 
|
Who regulates the consultants. I was e-mailed a flyer last week from a consultancy that quoted a piece of legislation, and got it horribly wrong. I challenged them and their response was " We are trying to put more emphasis on the NEED to comply."
What they wrote was a complete and utter nonsense aimed at frightening people into submission.
This sets us back years, particularly as they may actually be a good organisation offering a good service, but frightening people into parting with money does nobody any good.
I feel the Consultants register may be flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tony Maybe they need to read this book http://trustedadvisor.co...ooks/the-trusted-advisorIt has some thought provoking messages for all who aspire to providing professional advice. Personally I feel the fear weapon is so blunt it never actualy gets the result you want. Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
TonyMurphy wrote:Who regulates the consultants. I was e-mailed a flyer last week from a consultancy that quoted a piece of legislation, and got it horribly wrong. I challenged them and their response was " We are trying to put more emphasis on the NEED to comply."
What they wrote was a complete and utter nonsense aimed at frightening people into submission.
This sets us back years, particularly as they may actually be a good organisation offering a good service, but frightening people into parting with money does nobody any good.
I feel the Consultants register may be flawed. If these consultants are IOSH members - report them to IOSH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
TonyMurphy wrote:Who regulates the consultants. I was e-mailed a flyer last week from a consultancy that quoted a piece of legislation, and got it horribly wrong. I challenged them and their response was " We are trying to put more emphasis on the NEED to comply."
What they wrote was a complete and utter nonsense aimed at frightening people into submission.
This sets us back years, particularly as they may actually be a good organisation offering a good service, but frightening people into parting with money does nobody any good.
I feel the Consultants register may be flawed. a) There is no requirement to be on the consultants register (I couldn't be bothered with it myself) and anyway the consultants register does nothing to vet the activities of those on it. b) It is not necessarily the 'consultants' who are sending out this flyer - more likely the sales team and in my experience the consultants get just as fed up with the sales teams nonsense as anyone else does (not in my current employer I hasten to add!!!) Having just seen an outrageous quote on one of the other threads (which I very sensibly haven't risen to)are we getting into another round of consultant bashing????? If so I'll get out my hard hat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tony
Good question and some pertinent replies.
While the title Bob recommends is inspirational, there are two critical shortcomings about it. One is that the model has never actually been validated, i.e. there's no evidence that it actually delivers the results the authors suggest, as confirmed either statistically or by third parties. The other is that there are no examples offered of occupational safety/health consulting.
An alternative approach is actually practised by the authors of this title and by leading pratitioners in the UK: coach clients about how to use consultants effectively. Many consulting projects fail to deliver as expected either because the brief is seriously flawed and/or the fee the client is willing to pay is far below what can be reasonably expected to deliver good results.
Part of the reason 'The Trusted Advisor' is an inadequate guide is that, although they're undoubtedly good practitioners two of the three authors are not well read about the psychology of consulting. This is actually well treated by the Nobel Prize winning psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, in 'Thinking, Fast and Slow', published by Allen Lane, 2011. For he explains how people (including those who sell and buy consulting) are biased in many of the decisions they make. Every day.
OSH is by no means the only area where selling and buying consultancy is fraught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Tony,
Not sure what you mean by 'the consultants register is flawed'? If you are referring to OSHCR, one of the commitments those of us on it make is that our advice is proportionate. So, if you are referring to someone on OSHCR, definitely report them to their professional body if you judge their advice to be 'scaremongering'.
If it's not OSHCR, what register do you mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
imwaldra wrote: Not sure what you mean by 'the consultants register is flawed'?
I actually said that the Consultants Register may be flawed, which I accept is a generalisation.
The main theme revolves around Consultants who give advice which suits their business needs, as many of us will know when we take calls offering PAT testing " to comply with current legislation".
There are scaremongering activities throughout the business world so its not new but I would like to see a proper check system for people offering H&S advice or guidance.
The other point is that a consultant can use as many techniques as he/she likes to get a point across but when it is purely commercial it loses its potency. Mind you, solicitors are excellent at it so maybe I am naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tony - how on earth would you put in a "proper check system" that would cover anyone who might ring you up and offer portable appliance testing?
I would venture to suggest that most of these people aren't actually H&S Consultants and I very much doubt that many people on OSHCR would behave that way. As Ian says if you have evidence to the contrary then please report the people concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Good question, how do you stop people from selling you something you dont need, the answer bprobably is that you can never stop it.
Slight difference is when a bona fide Consultant tells you, for example, that all tools at height must be tethered and he has just the solution. And trust me this happened to me recently.
But you raise a good point about proper check systems, probably never work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kieran
A good consultant needs inspiration and to be totally honest I've seen inspired people make better consultants than those who are using validated models. Most consultancy work, if you are a good consultant, comes from the existing client base. It is these people that need to be cultivated and understood but it is an art to be learned through practice and mentoring by others it cannot be gained from the use of models.
Every consulting practice has unique features and it these that sell services not misleading and wrong statements designed to induce fear. The real problem is that H&S has relied far to long on the fear factor and thus many H&S services sales person or consultant see it as an easy route to gain custom. Experience tells me this is not the case, we should treat people as independent adults not children to be bullied into submission.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
OSHCR only takes consultants that have been approved - in our case by the IOSH CPD and status process. Therefore they have competence checked the consultants on the register.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ChrisBurns wrote:OSHCR only takes consultants that have been approved - in our case by the IOSH CPD and status process. Therefore they have competence checked the consultants on the register. This "competence check" has salience only in the broadest and most basic sense. It does nothing for, or about, those with specialisms outside the basics of slips and trips, DSE, a touch of fire, and a variety of engineering- and construction-related matters. But then again, they're all experts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am not on the register, and never will be, as I am not a general health and safety consultant (and therefore are not 'qualified') but operate in only one small area of health and safety. Does that make me less competent in my particular area than a generalist on the register, who perhaps knows little about my area?
As I understand it, it is still incumbent on the person engaging the consultant on the register to ensure that they are competent to do the work for which they are being engaged. If this is the case, what does the register achieve?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
boblewis wrote:
A good consultant needs inspiration and to be totally honest I've seen inspired people make better consultants than those who are using validated models. Most consultancy work, if you are a good consultant, comes from the existing client base. It is these people that need to be cultivated and understood but it is an art to be learned through practice and mentoring by others it cannot be gained from the use of models.
Every consulting practice has unique features and it these that sell services not misleading and wrong statements designed to induce fear. The real problem is that H&S has relied far to long on the fear factor and thus many H&S services sales person or consultant see it as an easy route to gain custom. Experience tells me this is not the case, we should treat people as independent adults not children to be bullied into submission.
Bob
Totally agree with Bob's thoughts here. Unfortunately the register or other forums does not measure CPD for consultancy. I joined the Institute of Consultants (part of the CMI) a while ago and I have always been keen to develop consultancy skills in our business. An example of this is that only about 20% of our competency model for consultants focuses on 'technical skills', which must be exemplary. The other skills are planning, report writing, communication, project management, customer service etc. None of which are measured by the OSHCR. The OHSCR has been useful for me when I have needed to find associates to work with, but that's all. No clients know anything about it, apart from us promoting it to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ian
The unfortunate thing is that many H&S consultants see the balance of technical v other skills as the opposite way round. At £20-50 per hour only advice is often regarded by Directors as cheap and thus not of the best quality. Unfortunately many are unable to justify higher charges to their clients and thus the whole sector suffers as the good practices stay with a small group of "knowledgeable" clients who are looking for that additional something.
At the figures quoted above we are really only offering rule followers to the client NOT rule makers. Somebody who only charges £50 per hour obviously, in a directors mind, cannot have the skills to make organisational changes. At £150 per hour the perspective for the director is different.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In relation to the comments by Ian and Bob, the situation is likely to change over the next year, according as members of the Division of Occupational Psychology of the BPS are admitted to the OSHCR, as chartered and HPC-registered occupational psychologists become eligible.
Along with the publication of the Loftstedt report, this will change both sides of the OSH consultancy market:
- on the supply side, entrants to OSH consultancy will have postgraduate education in organisational change and skills based on several years' professional supervision. - on the demand side, post-Loftstedt, a greater proportion of employers will be comparing 'traditional' OSH interventions with those informed by the kinds of psychological knowhow practised by the 'Big 4' accountancy/tax management practices and accustomed to paying for different kinds of outcomes than in OSH up to now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kieran
do not think psychological know how is necessarily the answer for consulting skills - I have seen some major failures by the Big4 etc as you put them. But I do take the point that H&S consultants cannot in future merely claim to be consultants on the basis of technical knowledge alone which is how it appears to be currently
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob
I don't recall stating that 'psychological knowhow is necessarily the answer for consulting skills' (whatever that may mean in practice). I wonder why you attribute it to me.
The point I made about 'the big 4' is simply that ££ levels is not the barrier to payment for consultancy as they show. In fact, the limited amount of available evidence indicates how they vary enormously in their levels of psychological understanding.
What I am drawing attention to about the psychological basis of consulting is central to Loftstedt's argument that it is the 'interpretation' of H & S regulations that is at the root of OSH problems.
As 'interpretation' is a psychological process, scientific (i.e. empirically validated) application of psychology is implied in his argument.
Failures in 'the Big 4' are, like any other failures', products of decisions (psychological events) which might have been prevented or reduced through more skilful application of psychological research.
More broadly, the OSH community as represented by the IOSH is failing to respond to the Loftstedt challenge by failing to recognise the depth of the processual approach central to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
'I don't recall stating that 'psychological knowhow is necessarily the answer for consulting skills' (whatever that may mean in practice). I wonder why you attribute it to me.'
Kieran, I suspect Bob is alluding to the comment you made about 'Division of Occupational Psychology of the BPS' being admitted to the OSCHR.
Meanwhile, I find it strange that you interpret Loftsedt's arguments with regards to psychology. Whilst it may be a cognitive process, surely, the misunderstanding and poorly interpreted h&s laws are more to do with a lack of knowledge, training, poorly drafted regulations, overly prescriptive and complex ACoPs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray
Your last paragraph is very pertinent as it can easily create the ability to formulate scare narratives as the OP states. At the very root is the quality of consultancy being offered and I think the poster has a real point in questioning the current consultants register. CPD alone does not make a good consultant BUT this is a real belief in OHS circles. The more technical skills you have the better the consultant you are seems to be the normal view. They are not however causally linked and we need to get this clearly planted in our minds.
KieranD makes some pertinent points and to a great extent I understand that he has a very valid stance. Our approach to consulting work has to change if H&S is to truly take a leading role in business management practices.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't know about anyone else but I am very intrigued to hear about what the consultancy got wrong and how it set you back so far.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I thought long and hard about this response, lets just say that I am not prepared to name and shame but I will give you an example.
If I contacted your Company and told them that, under current legislation, your request for Asbestos Awareness Training can only be provided by a suitably and adequately trained accredited instructor to an accredited standard, you would probably believe it.
This is blatant scaremongering. The reason I believe it sets us back is because there are no set rules on this type of awareness and people will soon catch us out and lose faith.
I do think Consultants should be checked out. I once met a consultant who told me that First Aid was a legal requirement?? I aasked him what he meant and he said, " I dont know that is what the boss told us to say"
I do hope we have moved on from that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tony are these really "consultants" in the true meaning of the word or are they "sales consultants" trying to give people the hard sell on the phone? Because clearly there is nothing much you can do to regulate or control the latter!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Heather - the way to regulate or control "sales consultants" is to keep saying no. In the end they should give up.
They only get business from those people (I hate to say Health and Safety Professionals) who don't know their onions.
I keep getting with regular monotony, literature telling me it is the law to have all your electrical items annually PAT. The literature goes straight into the bin.
Perhaps I should waste a couple of minutes, ring them up and tell them so - perhaps then they would stop and save the trees
Rich 777
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Tony are these really "consultants" in the true meaning of the word or are they "sales consultants" trying to give people the hard sell on the phone? Because clearly there is nothing much you can do to regulate or control the latter!
HENCE WHY WE NEED TO REGULATE AND CHECK!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was recently invited by another part of my organisation who had used the services of a large national company last year and was due for renewal.
The director was disappointed having had 2 visits with no feedback as to what was found or feedback.
He received a renewal offer of up to 8 visits that would be expected to bring required improvements.
When the consultant came for the renewal meeting to discuss this he wasn't prepared as not having a clue regarding previous visits, didn't know anything about the company and the nature of business and operations and ended up offering my director a 'free' consultation in order to advise as to what would be required.
Money well spent? Hmmmm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
boblewis wrote:Ian
The unfortunate thing is that many H&S consultants see the balance of technical v other skills as the opposite way round. At £20-50 per hour only advice is often regarded by Directors as cheap and thus not of the best quality. Unfortunately many are unable to justify higher charges to their clients and thus the whole sector suffers as the good practices stay with a small group of "knowledgeable" clients who are looking for that additional something.
At the figures quoted above we are really only offering rule followers to the client NOT rule makers. Somebody who only charges £50 per hour obviously, in a directors mind, cannot have the skills to make organisational changes. At £150 per hour the perspective for the director is different.
Bob Bob I think we need another discussion re fees if this is what you really believe? The client circle I operate in wish to pay as little as possible the get what they need. There are H&S self employed that charge £150 a day to get work. Others have a day rate of £200 or more. I know fire risk assessors that charge a standard £400 for a fire risk assessment. While that is occasionally reasonable if more than low risk premises the fra will take two days so at least double that is reasonable. So you believe the more you charge means more respect? I would like to see that confirmed by a company director who is prepared to pay the extra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
tonymurphy wrote:Heather Collins wrote:Tony are these really "consultants" in the true meaning of the word or are they "sales consultants" trying to give people the hard sell on the phone? Because clearly there is nothing much you can do to regulate or control the latter! HENCE WHY WE NEED TO REGULATE AND CHECK!! No need to SHOUT Tony, I'm only just here... ;) You're missing my point I think? You keep talking about regulating and checking, but I'm not sure what you really think can be done. No amount of regulation is going to cover the person trying to flog you First Aid kits who rings you up and tells you they are a legal requirement. They probably have no H&S qualification whatsoever and are simply following a script. Rich777 is right of course that the only answer to have some element of control is to say no or chuck their stuff in the (recycling) bin. I used to do that all the time when I was a H&S Manager in industry. However it's not the H&S professionals (I hope!) who are taken in by these people. It's the small companies who don't have anyone who knows any better, in fact just the people who can't afford to waste their money. No consultancy register is going to answer this issue I'm afraid!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Firesafety
We are talking appples and oranges - A person can do a FRA for say £400 in a few hours, an experienced person may take even less time and charge less - This ultimately is rule following as we must follow the guidance offered and directors understand this. They would not use this person at £50 per hour to advise them on development of internal policies and procedural changes. Consultants employed to do this are expected to have something more hence they are likely to charge more. The single major exception is often the SME section of construction where price alone is the key. Here directors have been convinced by "consultants" that H&S is primarily about site inspections at a price per 2 hr visit of £50 all in inc travel.
Who is to blame - the Safety Sector or the directors? We have sold ourselves short and many continue to promote this idea. Regardless whether tony's people were consultants or sales consultants it is the Consulting Practice itself that has set the hare running with scare stories. We have to raise our game if we are to be seen as an equal to other business consultants - being in H&S gives no divine right to succeed or gather work.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Part of the problem is that in most fields, not just OS&H, anyone can describe themselves as a consultant, irrespective of their level or lack of relevant skill, knowledge and experience.
For example, some years ago, a relative of mine answered an advert by an insurance company and went on a week's training course designed mainly to cajole people into buying the company's products. After that he was a financial consultant (self-employed) and had fancy cards printed with his new title, etc. After that he tried to persuade friends and relatives (having been trained to start with easy targets) to buy some policies. When he tried to persuade me to buy a policy or two it was soon evident that the brief training he received included very little about insurance or finance matters. The policies he suggested were inappropriate for me so I declined to buy any from him.
The above experience certainly helped to reinforce my scepticism about the word "consultant". Surely anyone thinking about responding to or engaging any consultant who is unknown to them should first politely probe beneath the veneer/facade to ascertain their knowledge, experience and competence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Boblewis - yes I do know what you mean, but there again I frequently visit construction sites, approx 1-2 hours at a time but charge much more than your £50 all in.
Just shows the vast range of fees in our line of work.
Should consultant's fees be regulated I wonder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mmm and interesting turn to the original thread regarding consultant's charges - an emotive subject. I think there is some truth in the fact the more you charge the more you are respected. Just as people who believe they are getting something at a discount are more inclined to buy. That said, there are market rates which h&s consultants can charge or end up out pricing themselves.
Slight deviation, I often notice from a well known online jobs board the rates for h&s people. Adviser normally commands something between £150 - 250 per day, manager £200-300, whereas a project manager £400-600 per day, QS 300-400, Engineer £300-400, etc. Not sure if we are not highly thought of or just a glut of h&s people looking for work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray
With some organisations the £250 day rate quoted was my hourly rate. As they say Horses for Courses and one has to look carefully at the client need before setting a suitable rate. Undercharging is an emotive issue but is also closely linked to reliability of advice. In Tony's case he sees the unamed consultancy as not reliable and one well understands why. Does this make the register invalid - perhaps not - as long as one does many other things to assess competence for the intended role.
We sell ourselves short because we are not confident of our abilities to provide solid consulting advice - a matter that Chartered Surveyors and Project Managers have long ago addressed. There is a case for some cheaper services but not at the expense of undervaluing high quality business advice.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How effective is the Consultants Register? Any measurable index of service satisfaction?
Was it not supposed to the all singing all dancing register where only the best and competent "consultants" were eligible to join?
It is clear from this thread, supporting a long held belief, that not all consultants are what they are cracked up to be.
Finally - how can one identify a "good" consultant?
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Finally - how can one identify a "good" consultant?'
You can't, no more than you can identify a 'bad' consultant and certainly not by being on the OHSCR...but don't start me on that subject. The field and variety of health and safety does not lend itself to a 'one size fits all' qualification. We all have specialised fields or areas of knowledge, even those who operate as general practitioners like myself.
For the record, this poor consultant thing has been perpetuated by those in high office in order to explain away the so-called burden of health and safety or risk averse attitudes. There is no evidence, save for a few rare exceptions, that consultants in our industry are not the equal to others who are not regulated either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Nonsense.
I can give you a list of consultants who are clueless, in fact I met one last night who actually said that all you need to start up is " Google".
He has a great client base too and he is a half decent lad but he genuinely hasnt got a clue. He asked me what the six pack regs were because he thought his client was winding him up.
I agree with most of the comments that it is near impossible to decide good/bad consultancy. Some of my clients think I am the best thing since sliced bread, others have sacked me after 3 months because they didnt rate me. Both cant be right
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tony, with respect, that is just your opinion. These 'clueless' consultants might have a different opinion of themselves...and you. There will always be extreme cases, it's strange how often they find their way on to these forums.
We are very good at knocking our own profession and colleagues, not that the media or Government need any assistance; but sometimes we should stand up for ourselves and praise the virtues of our industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
That raises another interesting point too Ray. I dont think we criticise each other enough, not in a disrespectful way but in a way that challenges our understanding.
I will give you an example. Part of my work involves a monthly business partner forum with approx 25 Safety reps,Directors etc. The Forum leader has introduced a 1.8m WAH rule. Some of the partners love it, some hate it. For what its worth I think it is great, even though it contravenes what the regulation in the UK actually states.
I think I should be allowed to take a critical look at the implications before I decide whether to support it or not, and so should you. We should be able to debate the topic until we are blue in the face but we both have to understand that it is OK to be different and we eventually agree to disagree.
This is a very important part of H&S Law (Consultation) and isnt it refreshing that somebody has the cahoonas to introduce a contravertial issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Tony
Please explain 1.8m Rule. I guess it will start a lively debate!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.