AA cert question !

[Jake Andrews]

That's cool.thanks for answering my questions,I'm not a boss just a climber so just giving my 2 cents(not that it's worth anything:biggrin:) I just know I would love to be accredited by a org(Australia doesn't have an isa chapter) for the work that I do.not the company taking credit for the work I do.i think it should be a two way street.

 

Jake:thumbup1:

[Le Sanglier]

Interesting idea! the climber not the firm.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Good morning all....(EVENTUALLY he puts in an appearance! Sorry but I did promise my wife n kids I'd take a full week off 'over Christmas' and that included letting the battery die on the Blackberry )

 

Firstly, and to Paul J. in particular, THANK YOU for your very detailed and accurate responses here. You explained and articulated far better than I could

 

I would further emphasise, at this stage (and to be honest for the forseeable future) it is and will remain the business itself which is accredited rather than any individual. That said, the responsibility for maintaining the standards across the business is the nominated manager as an individual (although it can be two people). These days this role has to show an ability to effectively and systematically audit both safety performance (on site) and work quality (across a range of completed works inc. pruning and planting) which are of paramount importance to the accreditation.

 

The scheme does include a formal complaints procedure, as part of the quality assurance process, and it is available principally for the appointing client in the event of dissatisfaction and/ or sub-standard work. The (common) exception to this is the Local Authority Tree Officer who can also complain, for instance, where TPO work is not to standard (although they should implement the TCPA here in the first instance.)

 

The other (uncommon) exception is where a group of contractors, and normally all or mainly ArbACs, as a collective make a complaint and again we will consider this altho mindful of 'sour-grapes' and victimisation claims.

 

Hence there is a mechanism in place, whihc I'm sure could be improved, but it has worked to date BUT it relies on customers / Tree Officers / groups of ArbACs bringing the matter to my attention (whihc happens infrequently.)

 

Occasionally I have been sent photo's of works (alledgedly) undertaken by an ArbAC and on veiwing them I've felt compelled to contact said contractor. The outcome is often "that is what the customer wanted" (despite advising them otherwise) and, more worryingly, "that is what the LA instructed" (often not the TO and usually based on cost.

 

Hence, when you see bad work undertaken by an ArbAC there is often, not always I know, a reason why...nonetheless it still frustrates the hell out of me

 

Nothin in life is perfect, the ArbAC scheme isn't BUT I firmly believe it remains the best and most effective opportunity for a business to demonstrate competence AND most of the time, most of the businesses approved do good stuff whihc is usually overlooked.

 

Sorry for the 'War n Peace' n thanks for asking.

Paul

[Paul Jenks]

Nice one Paul.

 

On the matter of 'approving', (for want of a better word), individual climbers, this something Lantra are developing. It starts with the apprenticeship scheme.

My views on certification testing versus commercial competency notwithstanding, the apprenticeship is a good start toward validating climber/groundie competency. One of my guys, Paul McBride, is developing the idea that accreditation/endorsement within the 'approved/apprenticeship' scheme should decay over time and should be online and peer reviewed. There should also be a health and safety awareness refresher. (We have spoken to HSE and Lantra and as they cannot commit to funding it we may develop it ourselves.)

 

FYI we are AAAC. Being AAAC was and continues to be a journey. The culture of all those within the business should be aligned to the ethos and this takes time and is a challenge to many.

 

The arb industry is changing and evolving even if the process of cutting bits off trees remains principally the same.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Nice one Paul.

 

On the matter of 'approving', (for want of a better word), individual climbers, this something Lantra are developing. It starts with the apprenticeship scheme.

My views on certification testing versus commercial competency notwithstanding, the apprenticeship is a good start toward validating climber/groundie competency. One of my guys, Paul McBride, is developing the idea that accreditation/endorsement within the 'approved/apprenticeship' scheme should decay over time and should be online and peer reviewed. There should also be a health and safety awareness refresher. (We have spoken to HSE and Lantra and as they cannot commit to funding it we may develop it ourselves.)

 

FYI we are AAAC. Being AAAC was and continues to be a journey. The culture of all those within the business should be aligned to the ethos and this takes time and is a challenge to many.

 

The arb industry is changing and evolving even if the process of cutting bits off trees remains principally the same.

 

Paul, thank you.

 

Lantra SSC (sector skills council, who receive funding from central government for training/learning etc. in the land-based sector) are looking at 'further' developing an initiative called the Professional Skills Framework (PSF, another 3 letter acronym...we just can't get away from them ) whihc kinda aligns with your proposal. Jaime Bray, the chair of AWG (the AA's Arborist Working Group) is heading up the working group looking at developing it further and getting industry 'buy-in'.

 

Essentially the framework recognises quals / skills / competencies / experience and currency, i.e. I'm not 'current' in climbing skills (some may argue I never was ) and grades operatives accordingly from trainee arborist, or grounder for those essential people who don't have a head for heights, to skilled to master...or similar.

 

So 'watch this space', as they say, and/or initiate a dialogue with Jaime.

 

Cheers Paul.

Paul

[Jake Andrews]

So if I was categorised as skilled or master,how would that affect the team and how will it affect the business.will it be another charge on top of the AA approved C scheme.thanks for your answers already Paul,very informative. I don't know why I'm too bothered about the subject but I just used to get so frustrated by approved contractors in my area.i personally do not feel they work was up to scratch but they had the money too make themselves look good whilst being assessed.then looked good too LA's blah blah blah.almost seemed as though throwing their weight and money around too get work.i understand this is business on their part but I thought the AA 'cared for trees'.

 

Please don't see this as a dig its me just giving my view of what I have seen and experienced.

 

Cheers

 

Jake:thumbup1:

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

So if I was categorised as skilled or master,how would that affect the team and how will it affect the business.will it be another charge on top of the AA approved C scheme.thanks for your answers already Paul,very informative. I don't know why I'm too bothered about the subject but I just used to get so frustrated by approved contractors in my area.i personally do not feel they work was up to scratch but they had the money too make themselves look good whilst being assessed.then looked good too LA's blah blah blah.almost seemed as though throwing their weight and money around too get work.i understand this is business on their part but I thought the AA 'cared for trees'.

 

Please don't see this as a dig its me just giving my view of what I have seen and experienced.

 

Cheers

 

Jake:thumbup1:

 

Hi Jake, thanks for your post and your comments therein...and I wholly share your sentiments and frustrations

 

I'm not naive to think ArbACs never do sub-standard work, if only, BUT I hope it is the minority of time and, as explained previoulsy, it's ofetn at someone elses instruction (yes, I'd love to think ArbACs would "walk away" but they have businesses to run and wages to pay like everyone else.) Not an excuse but an explanation. Also, as I mentioned, there is a complaints mechanism in place to help control standards.

 

In many respects it is unfortunate that the work of a tree contractor, and not just ArbACs, is ofetn left on display for everyone else to view and pass opinion on. The trouble is that often only presents half of the story, so to speak.

 

On approval I often use a phrase Kevin Moore often cited in that "You'll only ever be viewed as good as your worst job", much truth eh?

 

IN terms of the individual accreditation thing, whilst developed by the AA in conjucntion with Lantra SSC it will be an industry wide scheme, probably administered by Lantra SSC, available to all and whilst it will incur the individual a fee this will be an admin fee payable to whoever admins it (prob Lantra SSC.) It will have no direct bearing on ArbAC status but obviously it will be easier to demonstrate staff competence etc. if a business 'buys in'.

 

As I said this is very much at the development stage so I can't offer further info at this time.

 

Thanks again for your interest and please don't dismiss ArbAC based on what you've seen (the minority I'm sure). I know the process helps to improve businesses, all aspects, and at least it gives an industry bench-mark to measure from.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Paul Jenks]

This isn't an AA love-in, though I would wholly endorse what Paul has outlined. Going down the AAAC route definately improved our systems, procedures and quality standards consistently.

 

The idea behind an individual accreditation is that too often we see potential staff come to us with all the tickets and no ability, limited ability or positively dangerous. We now vet every qualification. If there was a verifiable accreditation system that was peer reviewed, immediatly available and national the industry would be significantly more advanced than other trades. It would save contractors and employees time and develop a career path in an industry where, up to now, it has been absent.

[Jake Andrews]

I wasn't trying to have a love-in,just trying to explain why I don't currently believe in the system but just think it's a weight to win jobs/contracts.not many company's I know that are AA approved but only have to show 'they care' just a ploy to make some dough.

Just an opinion as I said, I don't own a business I'm just a climber.

 

Jake:thumbup1:

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I wasn't trying to have a love-in,just trying to explain why I don't currently believe in the system but just think it's a weight to win jobs/contracts.not many company's I know that are AA approved but only have to show 'they care' just a ploy to make some dough.

Just an opinion as I said, I don't own a business I'm just a climber.

 

Jake:thumbup1:

 

Jake, climbers often develop into businesses (sorry din't reply sooner!)

 

IMHO opinions, particularly in this industry (altho I have no other to compare to), are often very hard to change unless you go thru the process and "feel the luuuuuvvvvvvvv", SORRY:biggrin:

 

Beleive me the ethos behind the accreditation is the right one and businesses do have to 'buy into' this, and indeed demonstrate tree work to a very good standard, but thereafter the responsibility for maintaining that involves several others and, inevitably, some won't.

 

Again, nothing in life is perfect, and the scheme isn't, as probably no otehr industry scheme is, but I strongly believe in it and will continue to promote it as much as I can.

 

Cheers for asking..

Paul