Consistency in Competency

I was asked in 2016 to attend a board meeting, to give guidance on vetting and moderating of the companies global supply chain, the CEO opened the meeting by asking the members, “What was there understanding of competence.” We narrowed it down to four different variation, the CEO then read out the companies statement

To be competent an organisation or individual must have:

1. Sufficient knowledge of the tasks to be undertaken and the risks involved

The experience and ability to carry out their duties in relation to the project, to recognise their limitations and take appropriate action to prevent harm to those carrying out construction work, or those affected by the work

The CEO was trying to make a point to the board, they had very good Management Systems in place, but had lost sight of why they were there!

As a Global trading company, they were seeing a downward trend not only in their supply chain, but there own performance and an independent quality assurance provider had pointed out to them, there vetting and moderating of people and supply chain they relied upon was not robust enough and had no Key Indicators.

Competence develops over time:

Individuals develop their competence through a mix of initial training, on-the-job learning, instruction, assessment and formal qualification. In the early stages of training and experience, individuals should be closely supervised. As competence develops, the need for direct supervision should be reduced.

If you are engaging a person or organisation to carry out work for you, then you need to make a reasonable judgement of their competence based on evidence. The evidence will usually be supplied to you by the person or organisation quoting or bidding for the work. But is it valid?

There are many industry schemes which can help in judging competence is only one indication of competence. You are expected to make efforts to establish what qualifications and experience the company / person has match your own high standards and matrix plan?

Why is competence important?

This can be defined as the ability to undertake responsibilities and perform activities to a recognised standard on a regular basis. It is a combination of skills, experience and knowledge. The inadequate management of competence has not only contributed to disasters such as Esso Longford and BP Texas City, but also to fatalities, personal injuries and ill health.

Within the existing guidance a quality assurance system it states that it requires the person who will be identified as having responsibility in carrying out monitoring, and setting the frequency, and methods used for reviewing the skills of trainers and assessors.

10 Key principles in competence

1. Competence to be linked to key responsibilities, activities and tasks identified in risk assessments.
2. Assurance systems should aim to establish and maintain competency for all those involved in safety-related work, including managers. 
3. This is particularly important in the management and prevention of major accidents.
4. Training is an important component of establishing competency but is not sufficient on its own. 
5. What is foreseeable work and operating conditions – including infrequent and complex activities, emergency situations and upsets, maintenance etc.
6. Training and competence assessment methods should be appropriate to the hazard profile of the tasks being undertaken. 
7. ‘On-the-job’ training should be structured and linked to risk assessments and associated control measures including procedures. 
8. In safety critical environments, on-the-job training should be supported by other forms of training where appropriate e.g. classroom training, simulation.
9. Training should be validated (‘Did it deliver what it was supposed to?’), and evaluated (‘Is this the right kind of training for our needs?’) and recorded.
10. There should be refresher training for infrequent, complex or safety critical tasks and this may include appropriate reassessment – Aim to achieve a suitable balance between competence and supervision.

Careful consideration should be given to the potential consequences of outsourcing of safety-related work. 

Companies must take steps to ensure that contractors are competent to carry out health and safety-related work and should seek to retain intelligent customer capability to ensure that they can appropriately manage and oversee the work.

Quality assurance system requirements

1. It is expected that all trainers and assessors are monitored at least once a year.*
2. Monitoring assessments should be available to the visiting officer and a copy placed on the relevant trainer’s/assessor’s personal portfolio.
3. The complaints procedure should also be linked into the QA system
4. An appointed person to take responsibility for quality assurance and must be competent to assess and understand the principles and practices of internal/external quality assurance assessments.
5. They should not be directly involved in the delivery of training, but understand the basics
6. Ensure all persons employed directly or via a *third party are monitored on an annual basis.
7. Monitoring will include direct observations of trainers/assessors that are documented and placed on the portfolio of each individual trainer/assessor employed directly or working via a third party.
8. If as a result of quality assurance monitoring a deficiency is identified in the delivery of training then there needs to be put in place a plan of action. (This plan of action will identify what remedial action needs to be taken and timescales by which these deficiencies will be addressed)
9. Customer complaints and student feedback questionnaires are reviewed on a very regular basis and where there are concerns expressed, addressed and responded to promptly and a record retained of the response.
10. A system exists of communicating regular updates to trainers and assessors employed directly by the organisation or as *third parties to ensure that they are kept informed of changes in first aid practice and this is also fed into the revision of lesson plans as and when required.

Good practice

HSE likes to encourage good practice and with large companies or companies that have expanded due an increase in business there is always a need to review the competency of the individual administering the QA system to ensure its fit for purpose.

The reason for this advice is that it provides greater evidence of professionalism to potential clients and may well have read across to other types of training your company delivers.