AA cert question !

[defenderjack]

apoligies if this has been covered before but just been through another thread about getting aa approved as ive been toying with this for a while about the benifits etc etc ... very recently the council has updated their list of contractors and 2 new firms that have got on it which is all fine and dandy and both of these are aa approved . Now how does it work if the bigger companies have say 4 teams ? do each team get tested for this certificate ?.. The only reason i ask is that one of the companys work is SHOCKING , and the pruning standered is terrible (IMO)but on paper you wouldnt think twice about having them ! i mean good climbers come and go so if that company is tested while the good climber is working for them and then he leaves the next day and replaced by the newby out of college his work defo wont be to the same standered .. for the record im not a council contractor but im a subby climber for 2 of them not that thats got anything to do with it im just rambling now ..... sooo thoughts anyone ??

[born2trot]

I had a look at the list of Scottish contractors and have to say my feelings are exactly as you describe . How on earth the AA can keep up with monitoring them is beyond me or do they get monitored at all ?? This isnt a swipe at those on the list just an observation .

[Paul Jenks]

It's one of the challenges with the audit process. You make a some valid points. The manager is the key person, and that manager(who could be the owner) is the one who is supposed to have been deemed competent to monitor quality across the company, not just the tree work.

There will always be occassions where a good company produces some rubbish work or provides a poor service. Anyone who says otherwise is talking crap. What the company does about it is the difference.

The audit systems are there to pick up deficiences and allow the company to rectify them. A good company will always endeavour to rectify there shortcomings both internally and with their clients and will improve their systems to inhibit future similar occurences.

The AAAC scheme is there to give clients the confidence that the company has a recognised quality standard for all aspects of the business.

When an AAAC company doesn't consistently demonstrate this recognised quality standard it reflects poorly on the whole accreditation and by extension other AAAC companies as much as on themselves.

The way forward is not simple. There are many companies and businesses operating outside the AAAC scheme that are excellent at both customer relations and treework. The challenge is that the AAAC scheme is the one recognised and is therefore the one to adopt in most commercial and a growing number of private arenas.

For the AAAC scheme to continue to build its credibility with contractors and clients it will need to be more robust in it's own auditing and investigating proceedures and able to show to it's doubters that the type of issue you have raised is taken seriously and is addressed and seen to be addressed.

[defenderjack]

It's one of the challenges with the audit process. You make a some valid points. The manager is the key person, and that manager(who could be the owner) is the one who is supposed to have been deemed competent to monitor quality across the company, not just the tree work.

There will always be occassions where a good company produces some rubbish work or provides a poor service. Anyone who says otherwise is talking crap. What the company does about it is the difference.

The audit systems are there to pick up deficiences and allow the company to rectify them. A good company will always endeavour to rectify there shortcomings both internally and with their clients and will improve their systems to inhibit future similar occurences.

The AAAC scheme is there to give clients the confidence that the company has a recognised quality standard for all aspects of the business.

When an AAAC company doesn't consistently demonstrate this recognised quality standard it reflects poorly on the whole accreditation and by extension other AAAC companies as much as on themselves.

The way forward is not simple. There are many companies and businesses operating outside the AAAC scheme that are excellent at both customer relations and treework. The challenge is that the AAAC scheme is the one recognised and is therefore the one to adopt in most commercial and a growing number of private arenas.

For the AAAC scheme to continue to build its credibility with contractors and clients it will need to be more robust in it's own auditing and investigating proceedures and able to show to it's doubters that the type of issue you have raised is taken seriously and is addressed and seen to be addressed.

 

very good points there paul cheers , im all up for the idea but when you see companys who have it and still producing rubbish it makes you think twice !,

i realise that the scheme is based on the whole package of the buisness etc but because the tree work (reductions ,dismantles ) is what everybody sees then thats gota be the most important bit so i guess if your small company then its a lot easyer to make sure its up to scratch but i do struggle to see how it could all be monitered on a larger scale , thanks for the reply

[Paul Jenks]

On a larger scale, a person has to be assigned to auditing. All the systems have to be audited on a regular basis. There is an expectation that everything office based is reviewed 6-monthly or at least annually. Operationally, 10-15% of tasks should be audited for safety and quality.

Once a company/business has 2 or more teams going out the costs for monitoring start to add up.

There is also an expectation that the standards for review and documentation will be higher and so the qualifications attached to the position of auditor need to be higher. Thus the costs escalate more.

A challenge for any company/business is to target resources at compliance in such a way as to minimise costs whilst still remaining compliant.

If a manager is tasked with auditing and is not given enough time to do it and is still expected to carry out his/her normal daily duties on site or surveying, there are no prizes for guessing which aspect of their role will take the back seat.

Ultimately, it is the boss who is responsible.

Look at it like servicing a vehicle. Every year it has to pass the MOT. There are inevitably some bits to fix or advisories. Keep the vehicle serviced and there should be no issues. Have an accident with a good service record and you have done all that is reasonable. With a fleet vehicle there is more responsibility and the driver has to document daily checks and defects.

There is, of course, a cost to servicing.

To continue the vehicle analogy, it's disappointing to see other road users not keeping their vehicles in good order.

[defenderjack]

On a larger scale, a person has to be assigned to auditing. All the systems have to be audited on a regular basis. There is an expectation that everything office based is reviewed 6-monthly or at least annually. Operationally, 10-15% of tasks should be audited for safety and quality.

Once a company/business has 2 or more teams going out the costs for monitoring start to add up.

There is also an expectation that the standards for review and documentation will be higher and so the qualifications attached to the position of auditor need to be higher. Thus the costs escalate more.

A challenge for any company/business is to target resources at compliance in such a way as to minimise costs whilst still remaining compliant.

If a manager is tasked with auditing and is not given enough time to do it and is still expected to carry out his/her normal daily duties on site or surveying, there are no prizes for guessing which aspect of their role will take the back seat.

Ultimately, it is the boss who is responsible.

Look at it like servicing a vehicle. Every year it has to pass the MOT. There are inevitably some bits to fix or advisories. Keep the vehicle serviced and there should be no issues. Have an accident with a good service record and you have done all that is reasonable. With a fleet vehicle there is more responsibility and the driver has to document daily checks and defects.

There is, of course, a cost to servicing.

To continue the vehicle analogy, it's disappointing to see other road users not keeping their vehicles in good order.

 

So in short its a right ball ache for the boss lol .. no on a serious note youve explained it very well ,just out of interest whats your position? are you in the scheme

[Jake Andrews]

Do you think an approved arborist could be the way forward.at least 1 must be on site and he/she is in charge of work or audits. Approved arborist like the ISA but cheaper and not so demanding.i like the ISA system but if everyone needed it I doubt 50% will pass(based on knowledge not work).

 

To be a plumber I think you must be corgi registered so to work with trees you must be arb approved.what do ya think? Hopefully Paul will be along soon.

 

Jake:thumbup1:

[Le Sanglier]

Do you think an approved arborist could be the way forward.at least 1 must be on site and he/she is in charge of work or audits. Approved arborist like the ISA but cheaper and not so demanding.i like the ISA system but if everyone needed it I doubt 50% will pass(based on knowledge not work).

To be a plumber I think you must be corgi registered so to work with trees you must be arb approved.what do ya think? Hopefully Paul will be along soon.

 

Jake:thumbup1:

 

To quote Huck if you're a plumber and you do a bad job after you leave houses explode/flooded, people die from carbon monoxide etc. In our job the worst that could happen is a badly pruned tree.

[Jake Andrews]

Okay that is a very valid point I have not thought of.but then you could also argue putting lives and property at risk if the job is not done properly or safely.

Insurance premiums could be cut down and a blanket guide could be followed.i know that the b.s isin place but that doesn't cover other things.i.e yard storage blah blah blah.

 

You know what kinda talking us elf out of this argument:blushing:

 

Jake:thumbup1:

[Le Sanglier]

The damage to property would happen on the day as it were, the same as if a digger driver digging out a patio swung round and damaged a wall.

I don't doubt the sincerity or the hard work that the AA do but I think they are tilting at windmills. To second guess your (or anybody else's next question) "What should be done?" for me..nothing, some government bodies will want accreditation from their contractors. Fine if you want that work.