IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Consultants who know nothing about the industry...
Rank: Super forum user 
|
merv #30
I worked in ladies underwear once, on a Friday, didn't half pinch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
decimomal wrote:JohnW wrote: I'll do a talk on section 37 of HaSaWetc Act just to frighten them into compliance Frighten then into complaince - really? No, frighten THEM into compliance. But that doesn't always work, they get complacent, lazy, get sloppy and cut corners to meet production targets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Some interesting observations, and in particular Ian makes a valid point between 'needs' and 'wants'. On a number of occasions I have referred much the same to my management team i.e. that I sometimes have to tell them what they NEED to know not what they WANT to know.
But leaving H&S aside, hands up everyone whose employer has hired in a 'consultant' often at significant cost to do a job who doesn't necessarily have sufficient knowledge of the industry, the employer, the culture etc that is necessary for them to do a 'rounded' job. Similarly how many times do employers hire a consultant to do something that could be done 'in house' or might have already been done 'in house' but they believe that the fact that a consultant has done it gives it more credence.
And before I am accused of consultant bashing, I am not. I have worked with and have experience of some excellent consultants. I also have experience of consultants who have been paid an absolute fortune and have added little or no value to the organisation, and some who have done little but cause 'damage'.
But to go back to the original point, any organisation needs to ensure that anyone who works for them whether as an employee or as a consultant has the necessary competence and a suitable brief including the parameters and resources available to enable them to carry out their work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
My immediately previous comment, on another thread, highlights the 'experts' who know little about the subject on which they will make ex-cathdra comment, and those who uncritically hang on their every word!
That aside, I am flying out this week to deal with an issue that could be dealt with in-house. The expertise and understanding is there - its not a complex task - and it would not be difficult to find the time. But it has never happened, at least so far.
What is missing is an understanding that the investment in time is not onerous, and that the consequential savings can more than pay for it. Moreover, there would be advantages in training and staff development/retention. The work overlaps with statutory requirements for audit and assessment, and compliance with prevailing regulatory requirements for patient and staff safety.
So the task was changed from the initial request. With much cajoling and gentle persuasion, the task has evolved to a one-off visit to put in place systems that will form the foundation for future in-house work. After that, they are on their own, but hopefully well prepared to carry on.
Perhaps I have talked myself out of future work. That is not my concern. But to have done the right thing, combining what they want with a careful explanation of what they need, and how the latter will be advantageous, is simply the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
roshqse wrote:Just need to have a moan..
H + S Consultants, who know lots of regs and rules but know nothing about the actual industry they are advising!
Risk assessments , to be suitable and sufficient, should be carried out by someone with the knowledge, training AND EXPERIENCE. Am I right or wrong?
Where do 'consultants' get the belief that, because they have lots of letters after their name, but NO practical experience of operations, they can advise businesses that OUR Risk assessments, method statements, practices are unsuitable?
WE do this EVERY day , WE have the experience and knowledge of what is safe and what is not, but some suited 'consultant' who wouldn't know what end of a hammer to hold scribbles all over my RAMS making sweeping statements that are nonsense and impractical in the REAL world.!!
Come on you Independent Safety Consultants.... defend yourselves!!
AAARRGGHH!!!
[ I have been a OHSAS 18001 Specialist for BSI and although not a consultant (our remit was to assess effectiveness of the SMS) I was expected to assess many different sectors. Never at any point did I try and know everything about the business under assessment (quite impossible, for me at any rate), rather I always tried to apply the general principles of H&S Law, practicality and of course the requirements of 18001:2007. The role of 'Specialist' was and still is to carry out 'higher lever' assessments on the effectiveness of RA methodology and compliance with legislation and other 'stuff' blah blah. I enjoyed the role very much and generally had a very good relationship with clients, many in the O&G Sectors, however I did from time to time come across people who just could not (or would not) consider some very basic legislative requirements, unfortunately experience in industry does not always lead to a safe (and compliant) workplace. Its a fine balance. As in all industries its very important to choose your 'contractors' wisely. Most consultants will listen as well as provide guidance - every day is a school day, after all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
canopener wrote:
But leaving H&S aside, hands up everyone whose employer has hired in a 'consultant' often at significant cost to do a job who doesn't necessarily have sufficient knowledge of the industry, the employer, the culture etc that is necessary for them to do a 'rounded' job.
For balance. Hands up how many consultants have gone to a business and come across the in-house person who thinks they know it all and in fact knows very little but takes it very personally that someone has been brought in from outside and is questioning what they have done!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am definitely with you on that one Clairel.
One experience sticks with me. I was given the job of advising on a project. At the first meeting the in-house guy spent most of the time trying to belittle my advice. However, towards the end he realised people were actually expecting an outcome from the project. By the second meeting I was the person stood at the front leading the discussion and the in-house guy was very quiet.
The reality is poor consultants are found out pretty quickly - they just don't get asked back and quickly their work runs out. On the other hand, I think the suggestion that in-house people end up in that position due to side-ways 'promotion' is not just a myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think we are all inclined to think that we do a fabulous job and when it is criticised for insufficiency or any other reason, we become very protective of it - I know I do - it's one of my main faults.
As an outsider I can see your point roshqse, but also, if we are going for the belt and braces approach, perhaps some of the stuff the consultant said might make sense? That particular example sounds like a one liner on the method statement and if he has misunderstood the scenario, then perhaps someone else might misunderstand as well? Maybe even someone who will be working to the method statement and will "assume" that ALL valves are safe.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, Yes, not all consultants are good, but then not all health and safety people are good and not all engineers are good and not all firemen are good - there are good and bad in all sectors but better to be too thorough than not thorough enough I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have to say that I need less than two hands to count the number of times a submitted SMW is totally correct first time of asking. I guess even mine could be questioned. Consultants provide a very valuable service and on the whole many provide good service. I thus have to ask why so many construction people think they know better than anybody else on methods of work??
Too often I have seen unsupported clients befuddled by contractors - so they do need protection and assistance. Outside of construction consultants exist to bring supplementary expertise to organisations that cannot be maintained full time as the need for such advice is relatively rare.
Yes we should knock incompetent consultants but not all are so. In fat H&S generally is all too often the lower for the lack of solid experienced and competent input from outside an organisation. Even the bean counters know this.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
For balance.
Hands up how many consultants have gone to a business and come across the in-house person who thinks they know it all and in fact knows very little but takes it very personally that someone has been brought in from outside and is questioning what they have done! Oh so true - Wish I had a £1 for every time clairel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
More often though is a consultant producing a report for say 2k and then giving the MD the 'guilty knowledge' that the in-house person had already told them for nothing more than their wages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DameLCFC wrote:More often though is a consultant producing a report for say 2k and then giving the MD the 'guilty knowledge' that the in-house person had already told them for nothing more than their wages. No. I disagree. You're tarring the majority with the brush of the few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not had a great deal of exposure to consultants. The one we used at my last employer for help with projects was very good and I learned quite a lot from him.
Like every profession and walk of life; there are good and bad. You live and learn!
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There are lots of reasons why paying 2k to a consultant to say what in-house people already know is actually very good value. One of the main problems is that the MD will be told lots of things, some of which may be contradictory, and so needs reassurance from a 3rd party that he/she is getting the correct message. Also, whilst in-house people are happy to say what a problem is they are often not so good at writing it down in a clear and concise manner in a way that the MD can understand how an action will address a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel wrote:DameLCFC wrote:More often though is a consultant producing a report for say 2k and then giving the MD the 'guilty knowledge' that the in-house person had already told them for nothing more than their wages. No. I disagree. You're tarring the majority with the brush of the few. You miss my point Clairel - this happens all the time particularly when requesting CapEx, it seems that an outsiders report that has cost money has more credence than the in-house specialist that is employed to advise on HSE issues - it may be a Capital Committee thing / a 2nd opinion thing - dunno. I have worked on both sides and see the for's and against's for both
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I can honestly say that I have never been to a company where I have just been reiterating what their in-house person has been saying. Without exception if there has been an in-house person they seem to have missed many of the important issues whilst concentrating heavily on the not so important issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel
Precisely it is the ability to think strategically and sort the grain from the dross that seems to be so lacking in house. Consultants ultimately can only survive if they add value to their clients.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
So now it is OK to bash in-house staff when it was not acceptable to bash consultants?
Why don't we just get on with working together and improve workplace H&S?
Confusing a difference of opinion with competence isn't going to help anyone, is it?
p48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
pete48 wrote:So now it is OK to bash in-house staff when it was not acceptable to bash consultants?
No bashing Pete, just a bit of banter. There is a place for all of us, hopefully we are all just doing what we preach - going home at the end of the day in the same condition that we came - just a little richer. Quite often its just that at Board level they prefer an external 'opinion' - whatever you want to call it - in order to make an informed decision rather than the in-house view. Another example is when the in-house person maybe snowed under with something else and monies become available that need to be spent quickly. A third would be a particular skill set or area of expertise lacking in the current in-house persons development. etc etc etc I personally used an excellent DSEAR/Fire consultant earlier this year at my request as I was tied up with our environmental permit and just wanted it boxed off ASAP. We worked together great and now I will just manage the actions to completion. Money well spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
pete48 wrote:So now it is OK to bash in-house staff when it was not acceptable to bash consultants?
Actually if you read what I said earlier I said I was trying to offer some balance. Another side to the 'whole consultants are bad and in-house staff are good' stance that seems to have been taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Having worked in health and soft for 25 years I have seen many in house staff, consultants, inspectors from the HSE and LA and I have see the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in all. I am sure many of us can recount horror stories at the hands of each of these groups, but likewise we have all seen excellent practice in each group. None of us are purfect not even me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Are they really bad or just the way they interrupt the regulations. I have had consultants on site and visitors, I have had auditors from external agencies i.e. BSC, they have raised things like the format of the risk assessment and have tried to mark us down and I have argued that the format has nothing to do with it, it should be the content that they look at. I have also auditored sites were they appear to have lost their way (in my opinion), I audited one place were they had 10 pages of risk assessment for using a micro wave, I don't even agree that we should R/A that particular activity, because I believe that when you get to that stage not only is there a chance that as a practitioner you are missing bigger risks, employees stop reading them because they are often fed up with being told how to use such equipment that they use at home. I think when it comes to someone telling us what we are doing is not correct (in their opinion) we can become defensive particularly if you feel you then have to justify your own existance to your own company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
With regard to the "bashing of in-house" people, occupational health and safety is a very broad field. Many consultants will have specialised in just one aspect in which they will have a level of knowledge and expertise that the 'generalist' could never aspire to. They can contribute to a specific issue within a workplace. I liken this to the GP ( the generalist ) who, hopefully, when he recognises a condition in a patient where he does not have the expertise (or equipment) to resolve properly, refers his patient to a consultant with the specialist knowledge. The problem, in my experience, is often that the generalist does not always recognise when his expertise in not adequate and takes action that can be counterproductive. I see this quite often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the words of the immortal Harry Hill....
So Who's better, a Consultant or an inhouse H&S bod?
There's only one way to find out ....
FIIIIIIIIIGHT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My comment was derived from reading the whole topic. At the start accusations were levelled that it was consultant bashing and in my opinion some of the later posts resulted in bashing of in-house staff. My question was how does that sort of negative exchange help anyone?
The frustration evident in the OP could have been caused equally by a staffer or a consultant. It just happened to be a consultant. I think that frustration expressed by the OP is rooted in the belief that only those who know and/or do the work can ever be adequately competent to review or challenge documents such as risk assessments. Anyone else just adds to the workload and usually brings no benefit. A belief that I do not share.
Is it a matter of who is best or how bad we all are or is it a matter of how to gain the best result amongst those who share a common purpose?
P48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
hilary wrote:In the words of the immortal Harry Hill....
So Who's better, a Consultant or an inhouse H&S bod?
There's only one way to find out ....
FIIIIIIIIIGHT! Nothing immortal about Harry Hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hilary and ClaireL - I agree with you, the Harry Hill way would be the most entertaining but can I suggest another option? On Wednesday 5 December at 1pm SHP is hosting an online round-table discussion (webinar) on the subject of general versus specialist practitioners (in the H&S sense, not medical - of course!) and whether it's better to be a jack-of-all-trades or a master of one (or maybe a few). It's likely that we'll touch on many of the points raised here so it would be great if some of you could 'attend' on the day (it's free, lasts around 45 minutes, and you can send us questions for the panel to discuss - panel members are: Hazel Harvey from IOSH, Steve Perrin from SMTS, Tom Primrose from recruitment firm Macdonald and Company, and Chris Packham of Enviroderm Services, and regular commentator on these pages). There is more information on the SHP website - http://www.shponline.co.uk/shp-round-tables - so please do come along and help us make it a lively and informative debate. SHPeditor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
shpeditor wrote:Hilary and ClaireL - I agree with you, the Harry Hill way would be the most entertaining but can I suggest another option?
Hey don't tarnish my name with Harry Hill. I hate Harry Hill. Don't find him funny at all. I was pointing out that he is not and will not go down as an immortal in terms of comedy. As to the webinar. Thanks but no thanks. Over to everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks so much for the invite. I have registered for this event and added it to my diary. Hopefully nothing will transpire to knock it off in the interim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Having been a full time H&S professional and also an interim H&S professional for a few companies with a consultant type role (if that makes sense).
I have seen evidence of poor consultancy work, one company had paid a very large sum for a 'Safety consultant' to tell them what they needed and then provide the necessary documentation etc....which in reality was a massive cut and paste excercise ( and not a very good one) from the HSE website and others. When I asked the person who had commissioned this work his response was this guy was the first to get back to me so I thought he was okay....
On the other hand, where I have had an area where I was not competent or had the time to put the research in I have gone to a consultant for expertise. The consultants I have used for this purpose have all been very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As another way of debating the issue of roving consultants versus in-house advisers in OS&H perhaps an event could be staged in the style of the Monty Python sketch on TV which purportedly featured members of the Batley Townswomen’s Guild re-enacting The Battle of Pearl Harbor. Those familiar with the sketch itself will recall that it involved various well-dressed women wrestling on a very muddy sports field and reaching no evident conclusion. Though this suggestion is somewhat frivolous, such an event would be more visual and possibly more fun than the forthcoming webinar. Does anyone wish to participate? Also, can anyone suggest what participants should wear to represent consultants or in-house advisers? However, if nobody can offer a sufficiently muddy venue, this suggestion is already doomed to fail. Oh well, if nothing else, the thought of it might amuse and cheer up some forum users. There’s no good reason why humour on this forum should be restricted to Fridays! :-) :-) :-) :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
tsk - humour and only Wednesday? When will all this bonhomie and conviviality end I ask?
I am hoping to listen in to this webinar and get a serious viewpoint on it instead of everyone shouting louder than everyone else about how good they are. From a personal standpoint an inhouse employed generalist should be the desired option every time, they know their business, how it functions, who the employees are and all this goes into the risk assessment process, but that inhouse person needs to identify where their knowledge is not deep or specific enough and call in a specialist. This could be a different inhouse person who, when their knowledge of the function is combined with the H&S generalist knowledge, can produce a competent and well considered answer, or it could be an external consultant specifically trained for a task such as asbestos or fire systems, etc. In a small organisation it is not worth employing an inhouse person and so consultants come into their own.
I'm not into bashing anyone here, I think there is a place for all of us otherwise we wouldn't all be making a living at it would we?
And on a more serious note, I thought perhaps elf costumes given the time of year - something bright, seasonal and fitting for an "elf n safety" webinar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
hilary,
Just about making a living!
Also who'd have thought Harry Hill would be drawn into this debate. In pursuit of balance... Harry, I think you're great!
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Consultants who know nothing about the industry...
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.