Competence Schemes

Offshore: For a supposed paperless computerised industry too many pieces of paper are being bandied around in the guise of proving competence. This is most likely driven by the bureaucracy onshore in the misguided disbelief the scheme works, ergo it will make the job run better, and ultimately they will make more profit.

I’m all for people attending safety courses and having a cert to prove that, but the experience competence sheets proves very little.
No matter what pieces of paper a PT has, they will only be proven to be competent when they get to work and show what they can do… the competence sheets mean very little (if anything) when operating an ROV system on contract.

I can’t remember the last time a competence sheet was brought out for anything other than someone asking of they could have one signed off by a supervisor, who themselves more often that not, are not qualified to complete the forms under the competence scheme guidelines.

Who assess the supervisors?
The companies won’t pay for supervisors to go on assessors courses (somebody feel free to correct me) so what is to say that the supervisor has the competence or experience to sign off competence sheets?

I have no personal knowledge of anyone being asked to produce competence sheets to apply for a job and I have no knowledge of anyone being asked to produce them offshore.

So, what’s the point of having the scheme if it appears, on paper, to be nothing other than a form filling exercise?

So you think training courses are a scam to wrangle money out of the new and uninitiated? Beware of any business promoting any competence scheme, especially one which is not accepted as an industry wide standard. Be VERY wary of anyone promoting said scheme when the business has a vested financial interest in the profit from your purchase of said scheme.

When being sold an argument that this is “an issue that is being pushed by clients and IMCA” hit the “X” button.

Clients performing due diligence want to see a readable cv or synopsis of experience of potential crewmembers. Savvy customers have no use for another pseudo “industry standard” with enough potential for misuse and misrepresentation as to be valueless to the truly competent and informed Project Manager in the market for an experienced ROV crew.

Demand to see FULL details of any scheme/scam prior to purchase. Request list of “clients pushing” this requirement. Contact Project managers involved in ROV services procurement and find one that seriously considers this “competency” in the contract award process.

A true set of competency standards, ACCEPTED AS A WORLD WIDE STANDARD IN A WORLD WIDE INDUSTRY, that incorporates training, apprenticeship, Supervisory enrichment, ongoing career development and independent monitoring and enforcement would level the playing field for all. Anything less will simply lighten your wallet of a hefty portion of pounds/dollars/rupees/pesos and may detrimentally tie you to a single company/agency requiring their own “in house” certification as another gateway to be passed in order for your cv to be submitted to the client. I have no problem with an agency that makes money setting this hurdle for the guys in their database. I do have a problem when this is presented as a new "industry requirement".

………….

Ok enough ranting

But some salient points all the same.

Well according to the OPS manager it is looked at by companies for contracts….So the bits of paper are required by the company as well as the individual.

Open request to all–

If you are required to provide ANY documentation of professional competence/certification (other than the standard survival and medical certs) that is JOB TITLE SPECIFIC, in order to be considered for a posting through an agency, please note it here. Please provide as much detail as possible.

Thanks a lot. Any info should be helpful to all contractors and to those condidering agency work as a future option.

Turtle

When you start a competence scheme you are given a number of tasks to fulfill during it and provide evidence of this for assessment. Having completed this it is then sent off to the company running the scheme(3rd party ususally. Then if its accepted you wil then be issued a certificate from them saying that you are competent in this position!
As far as I know IMCA set a guideline for this and the 3rd party company then make the scheme according to this.

An offshore company can then say that xxx amount of staff are now competetent in their said postion as per IMCA guidlines blah blah blah.

Somebody correct me if i’m wrong please.

I have never heard of anybody having to supply this cert along with any other but I suppose if you claim to have it then somebody will then ask you to prove it!!!

Hope this helps

Kalbo

Kalbo

Before anyone tries to figure out where I am on this….. from an offshore perspective I am not for the scheme. It does nothing to improve offshore operations, creates more paperwork and unnecessarily uses up more valuable time of those running things offshore.

The system looks all well and good on paper but, as it is purely a voluntary scheme and not legislation, I am sceptical about the motives of the driving force behind it. It’s been around for years now. Some companies use it (to their commercial advantage) others simply can’t be bothered and probably never will be. It’s been spluttering along in fits and starts for many years.

As I said earlier I am all for safety related certs (Offshore survival, High Voltage, working at heights, rigging, etc.) with supporting documentation.

In my mind this competence scheme does not proves that people are competent at their job. It only proves that they have a piece of paper that says they are competent. Experience has proven to me that there is a very wide gap between the two.
Should I be working as an ROV supervisor I would only trust what I see and pick up about an individual in a couple of (operational shifts) and not be looking for any paperwork that says a person is competent.

For those of you that do have these bits of paper. Don’t produce them unless asked. I would be concerned if anyone voluntarily tried to indicate their competence by thrusting bits of paper under my nose.

These days there is too much reliance on form filling and the production of certificates in the hope that it will make things run more smoothly and safely when, at the end of the day, it is often common sense and experience that will make or break a job work, or injury, wise.

I can see an employment tribunal sitting and hearing how a person was fired because they were incompetent but as the employee then produces signed off/stamped paperwork to ‘prove’ that they are competent the case would go against the company trying to fire the competent person.

Common sense and experience
These traits are fast being eradicated from the offshore work place because many of the more recent starts feel that if all the paperwork is correct the job will do itself.

I say ditch the scheme as it’s just more paperwork being added to the pile.

Get back to basics…. a few PT grades, a ROV Sup, a three man team. Judge people by their on the job experience/safety and ditch them if they are consistently below par.
Build up a team of regulars and look after them. This way jobs might run far more smoothly than present where, it appears, they are currently supporting nothing other than a mass tree felling operation.

best regards
James Mc