QTRA - I'm sorry i don't agree with it!

[scotspine1]

As a professional arborist working in the residential/private sector I deal with trees and risk on a daily basis.

 

But it's not a tangible risk you can quantify in any way shape or form, it has nothing to do with QTRA, Matheny/Clark or VTA. This particular notion of risk arises from the tree owner's imagination and their personal experience of their tree.

 

Lets say a tree is in a customer's garden. They live with this tree year in year out, one day during a storm they believe the tree has grown to a size where they believe it has now become an unacceptable risk to their property. They can't explain why they feel this way, not in any language we would recognise anyway, they've never heard of Claus Mattheck or David Lonsdale.

 

They then call in a professional, that's us.

 

On hearing their worries and concerns, do I then tell them they're wrong to feel this way about their tree? I dont believe I should.

 

It's not my job to decide what's an unacceptable risk for them, well, not in any definitive manner. It's my job to try and understand what they are trying to communicate about their tree and then try to get the tree within their perceived level of acceptable risk.

 

Removal? sometimes, preferably not.

 

Reduction? possibly.

 

When you are trying to meet a potential client's needs, you're providing them with options, guiding them with your knowledge, some theory, but mostly from the experience of dealing with trees day to day over a long period of time.

 

Take this Copper Beech reduction I did a couple of weeks back, the potential client was sitting on the fence between complete removal and reduction.

 

By understanding what was her acceptable level of risk I then explained how we could save the tree and manage it in the future. She accepted my ideas and a crown reduction was carried out.

 

Did the tree need a crown reduction? from my point of view - No

 

Did the tree need a crown reduction from the client's point of view? - Most definitely Yes

 

For me this is the most common type of risk we deal with.

Edited November 30, 2012 by scotspine1

[Le Sanglier]

As a professional arborist working in the residential/private sector I deal with trees and risk on a daily basis.

 

But it's not a tangible risk you can quantify in any way shape or form, it has nothing to do with QTRA, Matheny/Clark or VTA. This particular notion of risk arises from the tree owner's imagination and their personal experience of their tree.

 

Lets say a tree is in a customer's garden. They live with this tree year in year out, one day during a storm they believe the tree has grown to a size where they believe it has now become an unacceptable risk to their property. They can't explain why they feel this way, not in any language we would recognise anyway, they've never heard of Claus Mattheck or David Lonsdale.

 

They then call in a professional, that's us.

 

On hearing their worries and concerns, do I then tell them they're wrong to feel this way about their tree? I dont believe I should.

 

It's not my job to decide what's an unacceptable risk for them, well, not in any definitive manner. It's my job to try and understand what they are trying to communicate about their tree and then try to get the tree within their perceived level of acceptable risk.

 

Removal? sometimes, preferably not.

 

Reduction? possibly.

 

When you are trying to meet a potential client's needs, you're providing them with options, guiding them with your knowledge, some theory, but mostly from the experience of dealing with trees day to day over a long period of time.

 

Take this Copper Beech reduction I did a couple of weeks back, the potential client was sitting on the fence between complete removal and reduction.

 

By understanding what was her acceptable level of risk I then explained how we could save the tree and manage it in the future. She accepted my ideas and a crown reduction was carried out.

 

Did the tree need a crown reduction? from my point of view - No

 

Did the tree need a crown reduction from the client's point of view? - Most definitely Yes

 

For me this is the most common type of risk we deal with.

 

Good post. Listening to clients instead of "educating" them sometimes a novel approach on here:001_smile:

[oslac]

As a professional arborist working in the residential/private sector I deal with trees and risk on a daily basis.

 

But it's not a tangible risk you can quantify in any way shape or form, it has nothing to do with QTRA, Matheny/Clark or VTA. This particular notion of risk arises from the tree owner's imagination and their personal experience of their tree.

 

Lets say a tree is in a customer's garden. They live with this tree year in year out, one day during a storm they believe the tree has grown to a size where they believe it has now become an unacceptable risk to their property. They can't explain why they feel this way, not in any language we would recognise anyway, they've never heard of Claus Mattheck or David Lonsdale.

 

They then call in a professional, that's us.

 

On hearing their worries and concerns, do I then tell them they're wrong to feel this way about their tree? I dont believe I should.

It's not my job to decide what's an unacceptable risk for them, well, not in any definitive manner. It's my job to try and understand what they are trying to communicate about their tree and then try to get the tree within their perceived level of acceptable risk.

Removal? sometimes, preferably not.

 

Reduction? possibly.

 

When you are trying to meet a potential client's needs, you're providing them with options, guiding them with your knowledge, some theory, but mostly from the experience of dealing with trees day to day over a long period of time.

 

Take this Copper Beech reduction I did a couple of weeks back, the potential client was sitting on the fence between complete removal and reduction.

 

By understanding what was her acceptable level of risk I then explained how we could save the tree and manage it in the future. She accepted my ideas and a crown reduction was carried out.

 

Did the tree need a crown reduction? from my point of view - No

 

Did the tree need a crown reduction from the client's point of view? - Most definitely Yes

 

For me this is the most common type of risk we deal with.

 

I think you are wrong Scotspine1. Your job is to tell the client your conclusion as to the risk of failure. This is going to be based on evidence, knowledge, experenced, education etc. As a seperate issue, you may wish to discuss management options and even try to allay your clien't emotional state but as someone giving professional advice, you must say it as it is. Your Client's fear of the tree failing has no bearing on the actual potential of the tree failing and the two must not be confused.

[scotspine1]

Your job is to tell the client your conclusion as to the risk of failure. This is going to be based on evidence, knowledge, experenced, education etc. As a seperate issue, you may wish to discuss management options and even try to allay your clien't emotional state but as someone giving professional advice, you must say it as it is. Your Client's fear of the tree failing has no bearing on the actual potential of the tree failing and the two must not be confused.

 

I dont accept your notion that 'your job is to tell the client your conclusion as to the risk of failure'.

 

What if your professional conclusion is unacceptable to the client? Do you just walk away? You may if your a consultant who has charged for a report but I'm a self employed tree surgeon running my own business and the time I spend with a potential client discussing their tree is completely free of charge.

 

Am I looking for a solution that creates work for myself? of course I am because it's my job to find an answer to the client's tree problems, that's how I earn a living, the client calls me not only looking for work to be done but also for the best solution to their problem.

 

In the case of the Copper Beech the client was not prepared to live with the tree as it was, to her the tree posed an unacceptable level of risk, the reduction was best solution, this approach is not only professional but reasonable to any normal person.

 

.

[RobArb]

Good posts scotspine, but it does highlight each side of the spectrum and why I can't agree with a system that IMO is needless.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S2

[HCR]

Surely it's the client's decision, and the expert's role is to provide the information necessary to ensure that it is a fully informed decision.

[Le Sanglier]

Surely it's the client's decision, and the expert's role is to provide the information necessary to ensure that it is a fully informed decision.

 

Yeah yeah, fully inform the client so they can make a decision etc. However very often they want you to guide them, if you say "you can reduce, fell or thin....." they look at you and say "what would you do?" They don't want a list of options they want a decision. Using the phrase "If it was next to my house I would reduce, fell, thin....." This seems to satisfy them. Ps after you have listened attentively to their concerns.

[HCR]

Yeah yeah, fully inform the client so they can make a decision etc. However very often they want you to guide them, if you say "you can reduce, fell or thin....." they look at you and say "what would you do?" They don't want a list of options they want a decision. Using the phrase "If it was next to my house I would reduce, fell, thin....." This seems to satisfy them. Ps after you have listened attentively to their concerns.

 

...which is part of informing the client. Provide all the necessary information to allow a decision to be made. If the information is along the lines of 'this tree must be felled' and their only decision is whether to take your advice or not, then so be it.

[Le Sanglier]

...which is part of informing the client. Provide all the necessary information to allow a decision to be made. If the information is along the lines of 'this tree must be felled' and their only decision is whether to take your advice or not, then so be it.

 

Yes, cannot argue with that:deal:

[daltontrees]

This post has wandered off the QTRA/risk assessment theme into different territory.

 

To me a 'client' is someone who pays me to do a specific report or give specific advice, and commissions me before the advice is received rather than rewarding me with paid work if the advice is accepted. A 'customer' is someone who pays me for doing tree work. Indeed, in all cases I make it clear that in advising a 'client' on a course of action I consider it a potential conflict of interest if I was to be the one doing the resultant tree work. I would suggest that it is almost impossible to give objective advice to a client and give a price to a customer (i.e the same person regarding the same treee) simultaneously.

 

As a contractor I agree with ScotsPine1, but as a consultant I don't think this situation has much to do with objective risk assessment. If the client was worried about a tree and someone advised against touching it that would be unwise because whether you are there as consultant or contractor and whether you advise verbally or in writing and whther you are subsequently paid or not or do the work or not you have invited a liability on yourself inthe even tof the tree failing.

 

It's not that hard to explain to a potential customer that a tree is objectively fine on the balance of probabilities (which is about all a risk assessment says anyway) but that if they want to err on the safe side then get the tree reduced or removed. It's their tree andf their roof over the bed they have to sleep in at night worrying when a tree might land on them. Being able retrospctively to sue a consultant for negligently signing off a tree might be no comfort on a windy night.