Competency

[SparkySteve]

Dear all,

 

I am looking into the ‘catch 22’ situation which is competency.

 

To be competent at something you have to have at least done it, but to do something you have to be competent enough to do it.

 

As a professional in the industry, how do you judge or to phrase it better, what is the thought process behind assigning say a younger member of crew a task??

 

Let me explain a bit more...

 

I’m looking at competency, how people are deemed competent and how people come about deeming people competent. Although there are training courses and such like available, people still have to make day to day decisions by judging competency and in effect placing themselves on the line (H&S).

 

 

 

For example - John is 17, just finished school and a casual at your theatre (by your I suggest you are the chief or similar).

 

Before sending him up the 14 rung Zarge’s how do you assess John’s competency and frame of mind?

 

By sending or asking John to climb the ladder and focus the lamp are you (in your thought process) accepting responsibility for him and therefore deeming him competent in your eyes?

 

Does John’s age restrict your judgement?

 

Does John’s age restrict your judgement regardless of previous experience?

 

If John was a student would you assume he were less competent that a 17 year old who isn't a student, or visa versa?

 

What makes you competent to supervise someone you’ve never seen working at height before and how do you control the supervision?

 

What do you think the whole time he (or she) is up there?

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, put yourself in John’s shoes...

 

is ‘Pete’ competent enough at his job to send or ask you to climb that ladder and do you feel safe knowing that Pete has instructed you so?

 

What makes Pete competent to take a risk in the sense that he’s willing to supervise someone he may not be sure about? (after all, how do you know how competent someone will be working at height until you’ve seen them at it?)

 

Pete – the theatre chief electrician

John – 17 year old casual technician

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately the first part of this only applies to probably the older generation amongst us, but the latter part is open to all ages.

 

Thanks for your help in advance, please please share your views for others to see... at least it would be a discussion if nothing else!... and hopefully other people’s responses will maybe look at the way you or other people work.

 

Or, if you think I'm spouting absolute ballooks let me know.

 

As I'm sure you are aware this is one of a few thousand scenarios that could quite possibly fit this topic in this industry in this forum... please don't stick to it, if you want to use different and better examples then feel free... I want to hear your views and opinions

 

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

(P.S. – if you don’t want to talk about this publicly, please get in touch via the website – www.SparkySteve.com or email me at steve@sparkysteve.com)

[mac.calder]

<SNIP>

To be competent at something you have to have at least done it, but to do something you have to be competent enough to do it.

 

<SNIP>

 

I’m looking at competency, how people are deemed competent and how people come about deeming people competent. Although there are training courses and such like available, people still have to make day to day decisions by judging competency and in effect placing themselves on the line (H&S).

 

 

 

For example - John is 17, just finished school and a casual at your theatre (by your I suggest you are the chief or similar).

 

Before sending him up the 14 rung Zarge’s how do you assess John’s competency and frame of mind?

 

Usually, I will have seen him on the ground. If he acts responsibly, and is over all, sensible, frame of mind is established. If he mucks about, his frame of mind is of course in question.

 

Does John’s age restrict your judgement?

 

Does John’s age restrict your judgement regardless of previous experience?

 

If John was a student would you assume he were less competent that a 17 year old who isn't a student, or visa versa?

 

As John is not yet 18, I would not call him competent. For example - in AU certain areas (ie rigging) require you to be competent. Competence can only be proven by a certificate of competency from work cover. To be competent, the number one bullet point is that you are over the age of consent - 18. ANYONE under 18 should not be considered competent no matter how well trained they are. IMO, to be competent, they must be able to accept the burden of responsibility should something go wrong due to their actions - they cannot do that until they are over 18. I dont care if they are a student or not or have a piece of paper that says they spent 5 days at an intensive ladder climbing course.

 

What makes you competent to supervise someone you’ve never seen working at height before and how do you control the supervision?

 

Experience makes you competent. Experience in supervision, experience in the skill you are supervising. Control is based on the understanding that if you say don't, they don't.

On the other hand, put yourself in John’s shoes...

 

is ‘Pete’ competent enough at his job to send or ask you to climb that ladder and do you feel safe knowing that Pete has instructed you so?

 

What makes Pete competent to take a risk in the sense that he’s willing to supervise someone he may not be sure about? (after all, how do you know how competent someone will be working at height until you’ve seen them at it?)

 

Pete – the theatre chief electrician

John – 17 year old casual technician

 

I find that you can generally learn alot about people in the few seconds when you first meet. I believe that a lot of this 'competence' issue relies on trust. You trust the person who assures you of their competence, you trust the person you are training to be competent, and you trust the instructor training you to be competent.

[Ellis]

To be competent at something you have to have at least done it, but to do something you have to be competent enough to do it.

 

A slightly clearer way to put this is:

 

To be competent at something you have to have at least done it, but to do something without direct supervision you have to be competent enough to do it.

 

In other words, someone learns to do a task under supervision. When their supervisor is sure they can do the task properly and safely they are then in a position to judge competence. Eventually the 'trainee' is competent and may do the task un-supervised.

 

HTH

 

Ellis

[Captain]

Using the John the 17 year old example, age aside. ASKING (not sending) him to go up the 14 rung zarges would not be the first task you would have him complete. It should be the last on a list of tasks building up to it. You would firstly have him focusing floor level lanterns to learn how to focus, then maybe at a little bit of height e.g. a few rungs up a ladder. You would never really go straight into the "please can you go to the top of the ladder situation" (there's plenty of cables to be untangled/ coiled before they reach that point :) ). Whenever anyone new is introduced there will always need to be a period of training, learning and assessing of ability. Getting to know the person during the learning period will hopefully help you assess there frame of mind. Within the group of people I work with there are some I would never dream of asking to go up our zarges, and others to which I'll openly say "I'd rather you did it". As has been said its alot about trust, which only comes over time.

[Just Some Bloke]

As has been suggested earlier, there is a big difference between being competent to go up a ladder under supervision, and being competent to go up a ladder without supervision. Obviously, to use a ladder always requires at least two people (one to go up, the other to hold/foot the ladder).

 

Traditionally, the newbies start by being the gofer. That means watching someone else up the ladder and fetching things when they ask for them. By doing this they are learning what is OK up a lader and what is not. They learn not to reach out behind them up a ladder, not to drop anything without calling a warning first and not to try and take two steps at a time on the way down , for instance. This way they are learning the skill of working up a ladder without having to actually climb one themselves. The next stage is to set up the ladder for someone else. That someone else will then tell them if the ladder is in a suitable position and safely assembled. More skills learnt. Then they'll do some work off a short A-frame ladder (changing a backstage 60w BC, for instance). By now, you will have a pretty good idea of how they're doing. That's the time you may let them go up the short Zarges in order to change a gel, or something equally simple and quick. If all goes well then they should be OK to do some real work up there next time.

 

Obviously, that's they way it should work! :)

 

Of course, it's not always possible and sometimes that process has to be rushed through as someone has to go up a ladder and there's no-one else, but if the correct atmosphere exists in the workplace then, hopefully, the newbie will feel free to say they don't yet feel competent to go up, and could you do it instead with them watching. Even if they don't, you can normally see the hesitancy in the way they climb the ladder and can see when it's right to call them down again.

 

If you'll pardon the pun, it's all about small steps. Watch, assist, set-up, try small, try bigger, prove competent under supervision, prove competent without supervision, call yourself a Technician!

[Penny]

As John is not yet 18, I would not call him competent. For example - in AU certain areas (ie rigging) require you to be competent. Competence can only be proven by a certificate of competency from work cover. To be competent, the number one bullet point is that you are over the age of consent - 18. ANYONE under 18 should not be considered competent no matter how well trained they are. IMO, to be competent, they must be able to accept the burden of responsibility should something go wrong due to their actions - they cannot do that until they are over 18. I don't care if they are a student or not or have a piece of paper that says they spent 5 days at an intensive ladder climbing course.

 

 

Sorry but that's rubbish, and I'm fed up of the urban myth that overnght as you turn 18 you go from being a stupid, helpless kid to a fully intelligent and experienced adult (I'm referring to life in general, not just tech). There may be qualifications which you can only do over the age of 18, and legal/insurance issues restricting 17 year olds from doing some things, but that's totally different from competancy and what they actually know how to do. MOST under 18s who think they know stuff often don't, but there are exceptions and you do get teenagers who are intelligent and act resposibly. Saying that not even teenagers who have been on training courses cannot be competant is just silly.

 

You also get adults who are stupid and do irresponsible things. Surely it woul be better to let a 17 year old who you knew was competant do something difficult than a 25 year old who was known to do stupid and dangerous things, and I have seen adults (usually about 20, but according to your logic that's plenty old enough to be fully competant) do stupid and dangerous things. Saying that age is the most important aspect of competancy is just asking for an accident to happen by trusting an inexperienced, stupid or gerenally incompetant adult.

 

And since I'm over 18, I know everything, right? :)

 

Sorry, a pet hate there.

 

Anyway, I aree with what practically everybody else said about doing things under supervision first, and I don't really see why age comes into it except when there are legal issues. Someone should be deemed competant when they have proved themself by attitude and abilty, not date of birth.

[Bryson]

What does "magically" happen overnight, is that the law considers your situation very differently. Minors are subject to different rules and regs than adults. They have to draw a line somewhere.

[mac.calder]

<SNIP>

 

Sorry but that's rubbish, and I'm fed up of the urban myth that overnght as you turn 18 you go from being a stupid, helpless kid to a fully intelligent and experienced adult (I'm referring to life in general, not just tech).

 

I never said ANYTHING about being a stupid helpless kid. I said that they cannot take responsibility if things go wrong. I am not sure about UK law, but basically, until you are 18 in Australia you are considered a child, and your actions do not only reflect on you, but on whoever is supervising you. In a legal sense, no under 18 can be considered competent. Period. Now 'Competence' in the context of this thread is a LEGAL term, not the 'general run of the mill definition'.

 

There may be qualifications which you can only do over the age of 18, and legal/insurance issues restricting 17 year olds from doing some things, but that's totally different from competancy and what they actually know how to do. MOST under 18s who think they know stuff often don't, but there are exceptions and you do get teenagers who are intelligent and act resposibly. Saying that not even teenagers who have been on training courses cannot be competant is just silly.

 

No, LEGALY, they are not competent until they turn 18. The 5 day climbing a ladder course was of course an over the top example (as far as I know there is no such thing, and I hope there never is), designed merely to show that no matter how much training the person has, it cannot be assumed that they are competent enough to perform an action without direct supervision, and even then I would be loath to let them do it - because legaly, they are not competent to perform the job.

 

You also get adults who are stupid and do irresponsible things.

 

Of course. A vast load of adults I would not let anywhere near a domestic power socket let along 200A 3phase feeds.

 

And since I'm over 18, I know everything, right?

 

Me, yes... everyone else... not so sure about that :** laughs out loud **:

 

Anyway, I aree with what practically everybody else said about doing things under supervision first, and I don't really see why age comes into it except when there are legal issues. Someone should be deemed competant when they have proved themself by attitude and abilty, not date of birth.

 

Ah, but the legal issue is the whole crux of the argument. Face it, the DoB rules your life. Eg, even though I am over 18, I lost a job (traineeship to get actual qualifications) because I was younger than all the other applicants, because (this is a direct quote from the interviewer) "We needed to be able to cut one of you, and I am afraid we want people a bit older and more responsible, and so I am afraid your age worked against you."

[SparkySteve]

Thanks guys... some cracking responses so far!

 

As John is not yet 18, I would not call him competent. For example - in AU certain areas (ie rigging) require you to be competent. Competence can only be proven by a certificate of competency from work cover. To be competent, the number one bullet point is that you are over the age of consent - 18.

 

Hi mac, Would you say that this has come around to be like this because of the "lets sue everybody" culture?

I know things vary between the UK and AUS, personally I see the age of consent as being 16... at least for me it always was. Speaking from personal experience, insurance companies were happy to insure me as long as I was over 16 - of course I would say over the last five years the world has changed alot in the sense of proving competency and certainly H&S is stricter. Anyone else agree?

[mac.calder]

Hi mac, Would you say that this has come around to be like this because of the "lets sue everybody" culture?

 

You have good hand eye co-ordination - you hit the nail dead centre. Right on the head. And (at least here) the line is basically drawn at 18 (although 16 does have minor significance)

[No1_Moose]

I'm 18 so I can't really argue here but....

Ask him to make some tea, if he burns himself or moans then erm, the door. Ask him if he would like to go and climb up that ladder and do some work at the top of it, if he says yes then let him. Its his fault if he falls off.

Sod Health and Safety, you can't learn without doing.

[mac.calder]

Its his fault if he falls off.

Sod Health and Safety, you can't learn without doing.

 

And it is THAT train of thought that leads to overly constrictive laws. If people used common sense, and were responsible in teaching the younger generation etc, there would be no need to set guidelines on who is competent, it would be evaluated a case by case situation instead of blanket rules like age restrictions.

[dbuckley]

Another interesting thread.

 

As a lightist, I have a problem. I dont do heights. Thus if you want me to do your show, I need a rigger and focusser who can do the bits I dont. If the rigger is good, we can be a great team together. I'm also a bit of a safety stickler, which is in itself viewed negatively in NZ, where the "she'll be right" mentaility reigns supreme.

 

Anyway, about this time last year, I was about to do a show, and my PM said that he had a rigger for me who had actually rigged lights before. Excellent.

 

So my assigned co-lightist for a show turned up to the venue. Meet Ben.

 

http://www.davidbuckley.name/pix/ben.jpg

 

Ben was at the time nine years old, delivered to the venue by his mum. Apparently Ben likes to hang off mountains, and lets not forget we have proper mountains here (the hill I see out my kitchen window is taller than Ben Nevis)

 

Ben The Monkey did all the at height stuff, plus a lot more, and learned a bit more about lighting in general, and he ended up operating the show (under supervision, and on the evil showmaster "nearly" desk, from a six page operating manual) for the run.

 

So rather some some (mythical?) 18 year old John, we have a real lad who did a real job. Was he competent?

[Just Some Bloke]

Ben was at the time nine years old,

 

[sNIP]

 

we have a real lad who did a real job. Was he competent?

 

Very possibly, but was he insured?

 

... and does it matter if his Mum had promissed not to sue? :** laughs out loud **:

[Tomo]

So rather some some (mythical?) 18 year old John, we have a real lad who did a real job. Was he competent?

In the physical sense quite possibly, although I really hope he didn't lift anything over about 5kg.

 

In the legal sense - not at all.

If anything had gone wrong, somebody would have been in incredibly deep kaka for allowing a nine-year-old to work at a height.