23-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Ricky,
I agree partially with your answer but it deals with gaining accrediatation as being competent rather than assurance of per se.
Competence isn't a defacto state and needs to be reassessed regularly. People's ability to be able to make educated decisions decreases over time when not exposed to a specific skill. Re-training and re-validation is often necessary especially when the skill changes over time, e.g. standards, good-practice, equipment alterations.
From the management point of view, people need to assess individuals and be sufficiently skilled to be able to identify the requirements of the skill are met but also spot issues, i.e. negative behavioural traits.
I think what the question asks for is that people's competence is checked, they are re-trained where required and not asked to work outside of their skillset. Of course, you would expect there to be corporate support to a "refusal to work" policy.
Like you, I would avoid this as it is very easy to deivate away from an M1 answer.
I agree partially with your answer but it deals with gaining accrediatation as being competent rather than assurance of per se.
Competence isn't a defacto state and needs to be reassessed regularly. People's ability to be able to make educated decisions decreases over time when not exposed to a specific skill. Re-training and re-validation is often necessary especially when the skill changes over time, e.g. standards, good-practice, equipment alterations.
From the management point of view, people need to assess individuals and be sufficiently skilled to be able to identify the requirements of the skill are met but also spot issues, i.e. negative behavioural traits.
I think what the question asks for is that people's competence is checked, they are re-trained where required and not asked to work outside of their skillset. Of course, you would expect there to be corporate support to a "refusal to work" policy.
Like you, I would avoid this as it is very easy to deivate away from an M1 answer.
Le coureur