Register of Tree Work Operatives

[treequip]

I am interested to know what it is that you all think is broken and how this list will fix whatever it is?

 

 

Look at it the other way - is the industry as good as it can be?

 

Considering the amount of posts across these hallowed pages of Arbtalk that contain moans, gripes, grumbles etc about all the different facets of the industry, I'll galdly wager hard solid cash that the answer'll be "No".

 

And as long as that is the case, then there will always be room for change/improvement.

 

This is a GOOD thing, and if the chaps involved can pull it off and learn from the mistakes of those who came before, then it does have the facility to totally change the face of Uk Arb for the better.

 

 

 

Well there is a lot wrong with this and many other industries but this industry is what you make of it. Having a gripe on here is fine if it makes you feel better but the only way you are going to help your own situation is to get off yer arse and sort it out for yourself.

 

I strongly recommend anyone who wishes to gripe about the industry to time the gripe the put the same amount of time into fixing whatever it is they were complaining about.

 

I would still like an answer from the group to that question of what's broke and how's this scheme going to fix it.

 

Thus far all I can see is another talking shop that's going to want a subscription, I hope I am wrong.

[Andy Clark]

Hi Andy, are you talking about me being 'past my sell by date?'

 

I see the R2 / PSF being part of the 'nuts and bolts' contributing to AAAC/ArbAC. It will serve to formalise what we see on site, most of the time, and allow individuals to benchmark their position in the industry using a recognised, and accepted, framework.

 

I firmly believe this is all part of the industry moving forward and professionalising.

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

Don't worry, we all feel like that some days.

 

Regarding your comments of the R2 being "part of the 'nuts and bolts' contributing to AAAC/ArbAC" though, i've got to ask the question, "How?"

 

I mean there are surely going to be areas of crossovers/duplication with this scheme, as there are with any of the other accreditation based schemes out there, that could pose as competition to the AAAC.

 

I would imagine that in order to avoid this, then there must be a formal tie in between the two somewhere along the line?

 

Either that or the AA runs the risk that AC scheme becomes superseeded? or at the very least becomes surplus to requiremnts?

 

Lets not forget the recent update of the AAAC process. Surely there's no intention to go back to the drawing board again, so soon after the whole scheme got an upgrade?

[Yorkshireman]

Plenty of like company schemes

 

lets take Ukas Iso 9001 + Nhss 18 , this sector scheme doesnt work across the piece , because it is pre-exclusive...

 

As any company must first be Ukas iso 9001 accredited to go forward ,

 

then they pay an astronomic sum to be accredited + costs to infrastructure - implimentation & maintenance additionality

 

Why because Ukas charge a fortune to the Awarding bodies in order for them to able to award this ,, so they in turn charge like wise ..

 

even after all of this there is no clear benefit to the company other than they can bid for works on the Highway agency roads .. 80 / 20 award criteria that I mentioned is out there boy & girls

 

plus given the FACT that the vast majority of none HA roads are effectively managed on a daily bases are done so outside of the sector scheme ,, WHATS THE POINT >>?

 

this perhaps shows the appitite for the scheme itself

 

Bodies can make up as many quals & hurdles and badges & clubs as they like, for individuals and business alike ,, but if it does not make sense its not going to work

 

 

Please see my above post re ....... will it work > ?

 

as an individual Rolo Quality Assurance: ROLO

Edited January 22, 2013 by Yorkshireman

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Don't worry, we all feel like that some days.

 

Regarding your comments of the R2 being "part of the 'nuts and bolts' contributing to AAAC/ArbAC" though, i've got to ask the question, "How?"

 

I mean there are surely going to be areas of crossovers/duplication with this scheme, as there are with any of the other accreditation based schemes out there, that could pose as competition to the AAAC.

 

I would imagine that in order to avoid this, then there must be a formal tie in between the two somewhere along the line?

 

Either that or the AA runs the risk that AC scheme becomes superseeded? or at the very least becomes surplus to requiremnts?

 

Lets not forget the recent update of the AAAC process. Surely there's no intention to go back to the drawing board again, so soon after the whole scheme got an upgrade?

 

Hi Andy,

 

As I see it, and I feel it's important to recognise that R2 isn't an AA thing, the two things / scheme are completely different, albeit complimentary. R2 is for individuals and ArbAC is for businesses (taking account of individuals of course.)

 

Meaning that to be an ArbAC you need to demonstrate you have qualified, skilled, competent and expereinced staff as 'R2' will be a mechanism for so doing rather than prinicpally checking the 'tickets' opertaives have and their performance on the assessment day, still very importnat considerations though.

 

Also fo rthe individual it will act as a mechanisam to record their acheivements and, in turn, place them in the structure, i.e trainee arborist - arorist - skilled arborist - master arborist...or similar (interestingly, I believe it is alos proposed there will be a parallel structure for pople working on the ground rather than aerially.)

 

Hope this helps, if only a little, but perhaps it illustrates I am not wholly 'au fait' with R2 too

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Andy Clark]

 

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

 

 

As I see it, and I feel it's important to recognise that R2 isn't an AA thing, the two things / scheme are completely different, albeit complimentary. R2 is for individuals and ArbAC is for businesses (taking account of individuals of course.)

 

 

 

Meaning that to be an ArbAC you need to demonstrate you have qualified, skilled, competent and expereinced staff as 'R2' will be a mechanism for so doing rather than prinicpally checking the 'tickets' opertaives have and their performance on the assessment day, still very importnat considerations though.

 

 

 

Also fo rthe individual it will act as a mechanisam to record their acheivements and, in turn, place them in the structure, i.e trainee arborist - arorist - skilled arborist - master arborist...or similar (interestingly, I believe it is alos proposed there will be a parallel structure for pople working on the ground rather than aerially.)

 

 

 

Hope this helps, if only a little, but perhaps it illustrates I am not wholly 'au fait' with R2 too

 

 

 

Cheers..

 

Paul

 

 

Thanks Paul.

 

Yes, it does help, but regrettably not in a way that instills me with much hope of this ACTUALLY becoming "the next big thing" in the industry, as the headline on the paperwork suggests.......... To the point that I did actually sink my head into my hands and let out a small disappointed sigh.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just being a nay-sayer, trying to poo-poo and negate the scheme before it's up and running.. Those folk from out there in Arb land that know me proper will know how close this subject is to. my own heart, and will know of my own experience and work, along with others, into trying to get a scheme like this off the ground.

 

For me, what you just explained, highlights the same identical fatal flaw that all the accreditation/approval schemes hold. They're not BIG enough. They work within the confines of what's already in place, rather than being expansive or evolutionary enough to look outside the box and push the boundaries towards bigger and better things of what's already there. Anything less is totally pointless, IMHO, when considering the speed and momentum by which the uk industry continues to grow.

 

You say it's not an AA thing. In some ways, I wish it was! But hey, that's another story.

 

But let's not be coy here. The AA are going to have a vested interest in this. If not under the umberella of the organisations banner itself, then at least by the representation of it's members albeit under a different hat.

 

You say it will under pin the AAAC by way of working with the individuals, and re-inforceing the contractors own accreditation within the scheme. Two points come to mind from that. 1) why does the AAAC scheme not already have a mechanism within its criteria to ensure that individuals within an organisation are relevantly qualified, and 2) what about everyone else in the industry that either doesn't want to be, or isn't working for an AA approved contractor?

 

Scheme's like this NEED to have something that everyone NEEDS. Something that everyone believes in. Not something that a few hundred people WANT, just because those that can afford it will think it looks good on their CV.. Not if it's going to stand a chance of succeeding in improving the industry where others have failed.

 

I do truly believe in an improved and unified industry, but sadly, as it looks on face value, don't believe that "this", as it stands, is the answer.

 

And that's the voice of experience speaking.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Tony Lane]

It is interesting that the term 'needs' has been mentioned. When I was thinking about the idea of a grading scheme some 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that we all need to be recognised for the skills we have. I am not an academic and exams are a real struggle for me, that said I have managed to make it through several to now have a reasonable 'academic' CV but that does not in anyway reflect the level of 'experience' I have in the field. That said this is still and industry, at least at the practitioner level and also, but perhaps to a lesser degree at the professional level, (I use these terms loosely to differentiate those who do and those who talk about it) that respects experience over academic qualifications. The problem we have as practitioners is how we prove that experience and measure it. Even in the courts my practical experience carries as much weight as chartered status.

 

The more that I have helped tree businesses tackle the challenges of H&S compliance and third party accreditations over the past 10 years the more I realised that we really need some way of differentiating between the well qualified new entrant and the well qualified old hand. Equally we also need to find a way of recognising the 'soft' skills derived over the years such as customer liaison, supervision etc. Furthermore we needed to the attend to the motivational needs of practical arborists as they progress in the industry.

 

Hence the concept of a stepwise grading system that recognises specific task experience, time served and training/qualifications. Take this a step further we are a fragmented industry that struggles to be recognised professionally in many ways because we are an industry of individuals or micro businesses. Enter the concept of a national register of INDIVIDUAL operators that will at least help to recognise our skill levels as well as unify it under a single register (albeit that is perhaps like herding cats). We all suffer from the jobbing tree hacker but this will hopefully raise the bar and enable a more unified industry to promote itself more effectively.

 

Now here for me is the key, this is about meeting individual needs but in so doing meeting the needs of businesses, clients and other interested parties. Pie in the sky, perhaps but it is worth a try.....we just need industry backing a some money to roll it out.

 

I see the many posts about this topic and I know I have not answered all the questions but hopefully some. I will try to respond to other queries in a more concise manner.

[agrimog]

only one question about this, who is going to be financially better of from this idea, the guy cutting the timber, or the guy sitting in the office administating the paper work ?

[jaime bray]

only one question about this, who is going to be financially better of from this idea, the guy cutting the timber, or the guy sitting in the office administating the paper work ?

 

If you mean will somebody have to be employed to administer the scheme then yes admin staff will be required. If you mean will they be typing into a diamond encrusted keyboard then rest assured the timber cutter/arborist will be the benefactor, as the scheme is envisaged to benefit them and their industry, to professionalise it and establish recognition of the experience ,skills and quals and most importantly time served within the industry that they have.

 

There really is no alterior motive within the R2 scheme. I wouldnt be involved in this if it was about making a quick buck, I love arboriculture, i know nothing else, and since starting my educational 'journey' 7 years ago it has been made aware to me by numerous individuals within a complete variety of sectors within the industry how the industry is not seen by other industrys as professional.

 

Question to all, What in your opinion really makes a profession? what makes us professionals? do we tick the boxes of what professionalism really equates to in the real world? not a wikipedia search but the real world?

 

If we can start to establish some form of professional standards framework for arboriculture then we are heading in the right direction.

 

It is unfortuante that the software is not completly set up yet as I do believe that were you to 'trial' it and see how the scheme is intended to work then it may alter your opinion.

 

There will be a pilot scheme run over the next 6 months by the way.

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.

 

All the feedback is being fed back to the R2 team and is being considered daily.

[jaime bray]

Thanks Paul.

 

Yes, it does help, but regrettably not in a way that instills me with much hope of this ACTUALLY becoming "the next big thing" in the industry, as the headline on the paperwork suggests.......... To the point that I did actually sink my head into my hands and let out a small disappointed sigh.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just being a nay-sayer, trying to poo-poo and negate the scheme before it's up and running.. Those folk from out there in Arb land that know me proper will know how close this subject is to. my own heart, and will know of my own experience and work, along with others, into trying to get a scheme like this off the ground.

 

For me, what you just explained, highlights the same identical fatal flaw that all the accreditation/approval schemes hold. They're not BIG enough. They work within the confines of what's already in place, rather than being expansive or evolutionary enough to look outside the box and push the boundaries towards bigger and better things of what's already there. Anything less is totally pointless, IMHO, when considering the speed and momentum by which the uk industry continues to grow.

 

You say it's not an AA thing. In some ways, I wish it was! But hey, that's another story.

 

But let's not be coy here. The AA are going to have a vested interest in this. If not under the umberella of the organisations banner itself, then at least by the representation of it's members albeit under a different hat.

 

You say it will under pin the AAAC by way of working with the individuals, and re-inforceing the contractors own accreditation within the scheme. Two points come to mind from that. 1) why does the AAAC scheme not already have a mechanism within its criteria to ensure that individuals within an organisation are relevantly qualified, and 2) what about everyone else in the industry that either doesn't want to be, or isn't working for an AA approved contractor?

 

Scheme's like this NEED to have something that everyone NEEDS. Something that everyone believes in. Not something that a few hundred people WANT, just because those that can afford it will think it looks good on their CV.. Not if it's going to stand a chance of succeeding in improving the industry where others have failed.

 

I do truly believe in an improved and unified industry, but sadly, as it looks on face value, don't believe that "this", as it stands, is the answer.

 

And that's the voice of experience speaking.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

Andy,

 

You mention you were involved in setting up a similiar scheme, would you mind telling me in your opinion why the scheme never got going. You have my email address please do send it privately if you wish.

 

Many thanks

[Andy Collins]

I'd like to think that this is a step in the right direction for us as a trade.

But how many out there have any real interest? Of all those involved in the trade, how many are members of trade organisations? How many attend the Trade shows? How many read the trade magazines? Dare I say it, how many have never heard or used Arbtalk? Look at the number of responses to this thread, hardly inspiring is it?

I can't see many having the interest to pay for registration, most people moan enough when something is free. I think you've got a long climb to the top with this one.