Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Archibold  
#1 Posted : 21 September 2018 09:50:28(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Archibold

This week like every other week in recent memory I find myself ploughing through an increasingly large volume of pre-qualification questionnaires.  The documents are getting larger and the questions are becoming ridiculously complex and to be honest completely irrelevant. 

So I take a short break and decide to focus on my new accreditation submission that a client has mandated we pass before we are able to tender.  What catches my attention just beyond my screen on the wall? A bank of flashy wall mounted certificates containing our OHSAS18001, CHAS, Safety Contractor, Achilles FPAL and UVDB, RoSPA award and other specific industry accreditations that we maintain.   Before anyone asks yes I am aware of SSIP however clients more often than not aren't and have no interest when it is explained so we just keep going filling up wall space.  

What is happening?  How do these increasingly large documents make the workplace safer?  I understand that checks have to be completed to demonstrate competence, indeed I myself do this for those we use, however I struggle to understand why the need for so many questions not to mention the depth with which they go.  

In a number of cases our flashy wall mounted certificates account for nothing other than we must have them (and submit a copy of them).  Some questionnaires unashamedly then go on to ask questions which follow the exact layout of OHSAS 18001; “Do you have a H&S Policy Statement and if so please attach” ad infimum.

As a health and safety professional I find myself apologising to my colleagues on behalf of my profession who have to bundle these documents together.  Too many times they tut and walkaway with thoughts swirling around their head about “health and safety gone mad.” 

So what is my point? To steal a phrase you are either part of the problem or the solution.  I implore you, please review your pre-qualification questionnaires and ask honestly what is it I am trying to achieve? Are all of these questions and requests for information going to achieve my aim? Remember if they aren’t not only are you adding to the negative perceptions of health and safety you are potentially tying people up when they could be actually doing things that improve workplace safety!

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 21 September 2018 10:24:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I empathise and believe a more sensible approach is "Do you have? If so attach copy & ignore the next several pages"

Unfortunately we are in a more letigious and regulated world where the supply chain is under ever increasing scrutiny and companies seek their own evidence trail to demonstrate cradle to gate compliance.

These forms tend to evolve in pursuit of perceived "best practice" with every copy and paste adding to the tome without any review, consideration or deletion.

It is the major clients and contractors who drive this process (each with "their" document that must be completed and submitted) - what they should be doing is deriving a PAS (publicly available standard) and getting back to basics rather than this vicious cycle of administrative burden.

Unfortunately after certain reviews conclude we will likely to see a few more chapters added to PQQ's 

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 21 September 2018 10:24:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I empathise and believe a more sensible approach is "Do you have? If so attach copy & ignore the next several pages"

Unfortunately we are in a more letigious and regulated world where the supply chain is under ever increasing scrutiny and companies seek their own evidence trail to demonstrate cradle to gate compliance.

These forms tend to evolve in pursuit of perceived "best practice" with every copy and paste adding to the tome without any review, consideration or deletion.

It is the major clients and contractors who drive this process (each with "their" document that must be completed and submitted) - what they should be doing is deriving a PAS (publicly available standard) and getting back to basics rather than this vicious cycle of administrative burden.

Unfortunately after certain reviews conclude we will likely to see a few more chapters added to PQQ's 

kingofdarkness  
#4 Posted : 21 September 2018 10:28:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kingofdarkness

I totally agree, we jump through all the hoops to get acrediations to hopefully make life easier when comes to tenders, because we are in SSIP, only to then be told no you must complete the whole tender document, it just does not make sense, i've raised this many times with clients and the normal answer is Ok we take a look at this and maybe next time it will be different.  It just slows business down and sometime brings it to a stand still.

biker1  
#5 Posted : 21 September 2018 16:02:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Could it be the various accreditation bodies who are promoting this, or am I just being cynical? No major client will want to be seen to be ignoring these accreditations, so the cycle just goes on. Reams of paperwork do not guarantee a safer workplace, far from it, as the danger is that everyone loses sight of what it's all supposed to be about.

Zyggy  
#6 Posted : 21 September 2018 17:28:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

This is nothing new! Those of you who used to work in Public bodies may remember CCT, i..e. Compulsory Competitive Tendering. I was on one panel which was using a room in the Town Hall when one porter carried in the financial evidence; another the QA & then...I kid you not, another porter wheeled in a truck crammed high with the H&S bumph!
boblewis  
#7 Posted : 22 September 2018 12:57:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

I actually believe that the HSE has to bear a great responsibilityfor this current situation.  They supported a number of the schemes in the early days and the situation went out of control.  A good acop or similar on the matter of competency management and its assessment would have prevented, in my view, the growth of tick box systems that have grown like topsy and these are actually supplemented by every client so doubling or trebling the necessary paperwork.  There were also many cdmcs around who pushed the use extensively to clients and I have no doubt that principle designers are following this lead.  It is going to take a strong will by major players to break this loop.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.