Hi,

I am currently a warehouse and logistics manager in a growing company. I have taken on the responsibility for health and safety in the business. I am looking for some advice on which courses would be suitable/ideal for me to enrol on. I have a passion for health and safety and although I only have a minor qualification at present (LEVEL 2), it is something I would really like to grow into and something that I would say I have a fair amount of experience and knowledge in.

I was thinking of doing the NEBOSH general certificate, however before investing the money, I thought it might be good to ask on here and see if there are any recommendations of what to stay away from or what would be good to do.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks very much in advance....

I would suggest (not particularly bothered about level 1-2-3 etc. at present) starting with IOSH Managing Safely then progressing to NEBOSH NGC, appreciate that if you are self-funding it might be prudent to get straight to NGC but the NGC isn't easy by any stretch......

Can't you get some investment from your business if they are asking you to take on the lions-share of responsibilty?

Edited by user 26 March 2019 12:24:28(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

My route was IOSH managing safety, the NEBOSH general cert (both of which I persuaded my employer at the time to pay for, since it was their idea that I tackle the H&S in our workplace). It has stood me in good stead so far, I am a H&S co-ordinator for a manufacturing firm. Heading onwards I will be looking at the NVQ level 5 as it fits with my current role well, and then...who knows!

IOSH managing safety is easy, but great to cement ideas into your head, and also check it is what you want to do. The NGC was hard work, but very enjoyable. I did it at the age of 35 and it was very much like going back to school, it had been a long time since I'd had to study and revise.

I would not bother with IOSH MS - it is Mickey Mouse compared to NEBOSH NGC. I would go straight for the NEBOSH cert. Then JOIN IOSH and go for NEBOSH Dip or NCRQ route. 

I followed the path trodden by many others before me. Straight into NEBOSH Gen cert. I keep toying with the idea of either Diploma or NCRQ, but the NCRQ path doesn't yet qualify for my MOD training allowance. But appently later this year it will.

I passed the gen cert at the age of 41. I found it hard going back to school. I went for the 2 week intensive course. But after being an instructor in the Army I spent a lot of time judging/assessing the instructors that stood before me. Trying to pick up teaching techniques that I could use within my own company. I don't think I'd of had the commitment to do distance learning. But if I go the NCRQ route, it is something that I'm going to have to learn to do. I have no intention of doing another NEBOSH course as long as there is a breath in my body. I don't like the style of teaching/learning.

Hi MARASCILPRA

I wouldn't bother with Managing Safely if you already know you are going to continue with training. It won't give you anything you won't immediately cover in a Gen Cert course.

Please don't get side-shifted by the academic/non-academic arguments banded around between the options, the differences are more complex than that. I will only comment on NCRQ, which is self-studied (you can do NEBOSH as a crash course in a classroom or self study. Classroom is not an option with NCRQ)

The NCRQ Gen Cert course is about 140-160 hrs and you can take as long as you like within reason. Most finish it within 4-6 months, and will give you TechIOSH membership (if you choose). The course is hard, but it is very satisfying. Almost everyone who makes it says they really enjoyed the course. (I have not heard anyone say that about NEBOSH TBH). You can go on to complete the Diploma by two further modules which get harder and thicker as you go, but similar timescales, so the whole Dip (under 600 hrs) should take you 1-2 yrs (you are allowed 3 yrs) That will take you to GradIOSH if you desire it)

The NCRQ route requires no time off work. You must be very self-motivated and have nerves of steel as it is assessment based and each one is like waiting for an exam result. It also tests your stamina.

If you fail one assignment you must do it again until you pass it or give up. (I have only read a few cases of anyone giving up). There are ten assignments in the first two modules and one dissertation-style assignment in the final module. All the assignments test your hazard identification and application of control abilities as well as your knowledge of the legislation and law. There is as much tutor support as you need, whenever you need it. The NCRQ route is slightly cheaper (I think) because you are not paying staff to teach or invigilate exams.

Good luck whichever route you choose.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

Agree with others who say Nebosh Gen Cert first. IOSH is okay for other managers for whom H&S will be a small part, but if its your career focus then straight to Nebosh. THis is also the route I did.

After that if you want to go further consider the Nebosh diploma. NVQ is not training and you need a few years experience which to me is a backward way of getting a qualification - do the job unqualified first! - and the NCRQ is just an easy back-door qualification for those who cant do Nebosh

Coming from a military background, I know from experience that I was promoted and then was loaded onto the relevant courses to qualify me. There is a time limit that if you don't complete some courses within a set preiod of time then you revert to the previous rank held. So doing the job while not qualified is not a big issue for me.

To say that NCRQ is an easy back door qualification for those that can't do NEBOSH is a bit derogotory. I have done NEBOSH Gen and it didn't suit me. So I have looked elsewhere, for a course that compliments my learning style. 

I can't think of many that said they loved the NEBOSH style of learening. Some say its bearable, others like me don't like it. Does that make me a bad H&S consultant? I'm sure my clients would say not.

I'm sure that if you converted the NEBOSH sylabus into an NCRQ style course then the same could be said. Smashing it out in a couple of months doesn't make it a bad course. If the learner wants it bad enough to dedicate a huge amount of time to it and not have a social life or conduct it through working hours does that make it a bad course?

From my understanding there are modules, you read/research each module, when you feel you know enough you apply for the test/assignment. Complete it, get it marked, pass it you move on, fail it, you resit that module. 

Sound slike a good learning style for those that are dedicated and have true determination to get it done.

Just because you are allowed to take 3 yrs doesn't maen that you have to. If I gave up work for my clients and only worked towards NCRQ then I don't see the issue of gaining it 3 months.

As a side issue, when I was serving, my unit wrote a new NVQ. From the ground up we decided what was to be taught and what the pass/fail level was. We did it stop civvy companys writing the NVQ and making it easy. As part of the process the instructors had to pass D32/D33. Because of the job a lot of our work was conducted a SECRET level due to the equipments we used. I would say 75% of our portfolios was kept under lock and key and the assessor had to sign the OSA to see it. Couldn't take copies, couldn't remove it from the office. And I'm sure the time frame from zero to hero for us was 6 weeks. So from no NVQ experience to being assessors with 32/33 quals was 6 working weeks, and that was while teaching the course. 

At the time my wife was an NVQ assessor albeit in a different industry but the assessors who were conducting her training dragged it out to almost 2 yrs. Maybe there were grants and targets involved but I'm sure she could of completed it in a lot less time. if needed.

The 'ex-forces' point is very interesting. The senior SHE BP that works for me is ex-services (very senior NCO with 25 years services) he is fairly consistent in his scepticism of employing ex-forces guys (we have three out of 12 so that needs to be clarified at this point!)

Ex-services guys get training credits therefore the NCRQ V NEBOSH Dip is apt because the practical element, certainly the practical element in the outside world is missing. Qualifications don't equate to competence, they are simply a component part

I'l give you another tangible example of civilain v military attitude. I recently employed a guy who left service and then went on to work as a civilian contractor WITHIN a MOD environment. We had an issue where one of our AHU was unservicable in a large manufacturing area, we had various issues with reinstating the unit, later on when we where away from the working environment he stated, and I quote "What's the issue, when I instrcut somebody to fix something it has always been done straight away"

real world v MOD

I think that the idea is that the NEBOSH Diploma tells you what you need to KNOW to be Health and Safety professional but it does not demonstrate that you are capable of being an H&S professional; it’s the old competence vs training thing.

NCRQ is based on you doing a job already and then providing evidence that you are doing that job to a certain level of competence.

The amount of work you do varies. I remember when I did my degree in biological sciences I had  3 or 4 lectures every day and practical classes two or three times a week plus seminars/tutorials with essays submitted once a week.  So 5 or 6 hours contact time a day and 3 or 4 hours reading up every evening 5 days a week.  When I got down to the pub to discuss life etc I was underwhelmed when I found out that the people studying for their English degrees had 3 lectures a week and only had to submit one essay a month.  I had it easy compared to the Engineering students who even more work and the Dental students who never seemed to leave the university. Despite the differences in hours worked, we all got degrees at the end which were all supposedly of equal worth.

"The amount of work you do varies. I remember when I did my degree in biological sciences I had  3 or 4 lectures every day and practical classes two or three times a week plus seminars/tutorials with essays submitted once a week.  So 5 or 6 hours contact time a day and 3 or 4 hours reading up every evening 5 days a week.  When I got down to the pub to discuss life etc I was underwhelmed when I found out that the people studying for their English degrees had 3 lectures a week and only had to submit one essay a month.  I had it easy compared to the Engineering students who even more work and the Dental students who never seemed to leave the university. Despite the differences in hours worked, we all got degrees at the end which were all supposedly of equal worth. - Andy"

I agree, It's strange to me that when I did my engineering at college, I had 7 hrs contact time every day, 10 hrs on Thursdays, (so 38 hrs) plus three hours a night cramming and homework, for two years solid, and got my distinction... for a level 3 diploma! 

It is not about how long it takes you. It's about how much there is to learn. Levelling qualifications the old way included tests of memory (remember periodic tables?) now it is only understanding and application that is required (they give you a copy of the periodic table in the exam I believe). 

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14

In work learning like NVQ, NRCQ etc are great if you are a new learner in a big organisation with other H

Hi Helen. Hope you are well. I totally agree about NVQ's but must correct you on one point, though it seems to be a common misconception so I am happy to put the record straight. 

NCRQ is not work-based learning. Quite the opposite. It neither requires nor assumes any prior knowledge of H&S. It does require a sufficient level of academic ability, understanding and practical aptitude, but no knowledge of H&S. Of course, as you say, if you happen to have experience, are surrounded by a team of qualified H&S professionals from whom you are continually absorbing information and good practice, and have a mentor to help and guide you, it will be so much easier. But you can do it on your own and come out the other end qualified, and able to practice safely and professionally (understanding your own level of knowledge and working within it is a key part of the culture. The methodology does not numb you to learning, it nurtures a real desire to learn more and positively promotes CPD). I wouldn't want anyone being put off trying to better themselves by thinking they need the employers' involvement like an NVQ. Just wanted to clear that up.

Edited by user 29 March 2019 11:09:35(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Well thought out and well explained Dave.

I think it often gets problematic when people start comparing one qualification with another and I think in terms of 'differently qualified'. Each qualification and means of learning etc., has its place in the grand scheme of things.

I have my qualifications and I am happy and comfortable with them and I just say 'I have qualification x, y and z' as is appropriate. I do however appreciate that sometimes we need to understand what they are equivalent to in order to gain a membership; gain access to a course; etc.

Regards.

Dave 5705 - My post was written in a rush and looking back it comes across harsher than I had intended. So for clarification:

• NVQ is a qualification you can do if you are already doing the role and have been doing so for 5 years or so. To me that is a strange way of doing things, and not suitable for the OP. In addition to this I was a n NVQ assessor myself and have many other reasons that I am not able to discuss on here for not recommending this route.
• NCRQ has, since its very beginning, been offered up as an alternative to Nebosh. It has - rightly or wrongly - given it the reputation as the easy or back-door option as it bypasses all the requirements to complete exams. Whether it is or not is for other to judge, but the reality is how will employers view this comparably to Nebosh is one that requires serious consideration before embarking.
• Nebosh is established route. However, its emphasis on command words tends to obfuscate. Also, it to be very rigid in structure and the x3 hrs exams is not to everyone's liking.

Consistent to my previous statements here:

http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t128041-Which-qualification-would-be-best

http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t126956-Best-route-to-GradIOSH--NEBOSH-NVQ

However, some of your comments:

"It," (Nebosh diploma) "changed in early 2017, coincidentally following the introduction of NCRQ.  The new D/ID unit (assessment) now sits closely to where the NCRQ assessment was when it was first accredited by IOSH in Jan 2016. "  The current Nebosh specification was published in (November) 2015. Incidentally the assessment unit is not new. It was in previous incarnations, and has been revised with the emphasis you have stated. Similar to many qualifications in today's environment

Neuro diversion I confess you have me and google foxed on that one. I imagine this being similar to confirmation blindness? In which case please see your previous statement.

Learning styles Learning styles are based on how individuals assimilate information and have little to do with this argument. They may inform whether you learn in a classroom as opposed to e-learning. The reality is none of us sit in only one category. It is intended to aid you whatever course/ learning you embark on.

"...for you to then rubbish my qualifications on a public forum is at best rude and insensitive.." If anyone feels that way I apologise. However, you have short memory re: your previous comments on here for someone so quick on the attack: http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...7569-NCRQ-Diploma-Course

Good morning WatsonD.

Thank you for clarifying your intentions. I'm sure it was not your intention to insult anyone.

I have just re-read the thread you cited. From the beginning to post #10 it is full of praise for NCRQ, until BrainKane posted his experience and dislike for the Nebosh way.

I then made the mistake of posting: "I am not saying Nebosh doesn't teach you, of course, it does. Nebosh is great, and I'm sure if you cut through the best courtroom H&S lawyers they would have Nebosh written through them like a stick of rock. But I believe NCRQ will create professionals who are relevant, enquiring and practical-minded."

I didn't say that only NCRQ will do that, I was defending NCRQ and it's pedagogy not defaming Nebosh. You said I was constantly passing the comment that Nebosh requires you to recite regulations. I did extract and refer to that insinuation from Brain's post and countered it by saying the NCRQ did not require that, and you told me I was wrong to repeat it because I hadn't done Nebosh. That was quite correct and I publicly apologised: 

"You are right. I believed the tales of pedantry as they were presented and I shouldn't. The truth is I do not know if they are factual or disingenuous.

You have taken the NEBOSH route, and rightfully get upset when mendacious remarks are made about it. I took the NCRQ route and get just as upset when people make disparaging comments about it being of less academic value. Though I know the latter to be untrue, I foolishly did not dismiss the former with the same disdain and you were right to correct me. I apologise wholeheartedly."

It was never my intention to rubbish Nebosh, only to defend other ways of learning.

Neuro diversion simply means the differences between cognitive processes (learning styles) of the population. If you believe the research Honey and Mumford conducted after the work of Kolb, only one of the four distinct learning styles they identified preferred the teaching style of Nebosh you describe "its emphasis on command words tends to obfuscate. Also, it to be very rigid in structure and the x3 hrs exams is not to everyone's liking."

The other three prefer hands-on, observing, experiencing, role-play, coaching and feedback. (Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982) Manual of Learning Styles London). I belong firmly in that category, and so gravitated naturally towards NCRQ when given that option, and as I say because I could fit it into my working life. I believe learning styles are a very important part of a debate on whether a course has a place in the learning environment, though as you say, whether industry will accept it is another matter. I actually think Nebosh will become the generic name (like Hoover), go into anyone's house and ask to borrow the Hoover these days and you are likely to be given a Dyson without comment.

You know, actually, we have a lot in common. We are both passionate about this, are resolute in our beliefs (even though we don't always agree), and try our best to be helpful to others. I have apologised, you have apologised. I am offering an olive branch. We should be having this discussion over a pint (or an orange juice) but in the virtual world that is not possible. Can we put our misunderstanding behind us and move on?

Edited by user 02 April 2019 08:33:29(UTC)  | Reason: it didn't make sense!

Good morning Dave 5705

Truth be told I don't 'exam well'. I have construction background,not at all academic. I also worked in an FE college for many years and wasconstantly annoyed by the snobbery around A-levels, etc. above apprenticeships- most annoying when it was from colleagues who worked in the institution providing vocational training.

I took the Nebosh route, (I was tempted by NCRQ) exactly because it had the reputation of being tough. I felt I wanted to really challenge myself, and I am glad I did. Trust me when I say it doesn't mean I can recite legislation verbatim. It does, however, require you to take a lot of system knowledge into an exam room, but it is about applying that to scenarios given in exam, not just reciting MHSW Regulations. In fact if you were to look at example exam questions for Nebosh they are probably not too far dissimilar to the assignment questions for NCRQ.

I see your point on learning styles, but I believe they were designed to help us to reach our potential (regardless of what qualification we choose) rather than limit our choices. A driving test is the same for all regardless, but how you assimilate what you need to give you the best chance of success varies. Nebosh have literature on this for students on their website.

The command words issue annoys me too. These are common words in constant use in the English language whose meaning is readily understood, but there is almost a mythology around them for some reason.

There's no need for an olive branch. I come on here to sometimes advise, but always to learn. I have no problem with my comments being challenged - as long as it is done constructively and not maliciously - I can then either counter or concede. I helps us all to develop and strengthen our ideas I think. My first post was badly worded and unfinished and you were right to question my comments.

A pint over an orange juice for me!