According to the HSE: “Competence can be described as the combination of training, skills, experience and knowledge that a person has and their ability to apply them to perform a task safely. Other factors, such as attitude and physical ability, can also affect someone’s competence.”

It’s a blend of ingredients, if you do not have the correct ingredients in the correct amount, the recipe won’t work. When that happens everyone knows it (which suggests it’s far easier to recognise incompetency as opposed to competency).

Taking the attributes in isolation and, using a spanner analogy, let’s consider competence:

•  Training: A person may have been trained to use a spanner to tighten the bottom bolt on a widget; that’s all they can do, they don’t know the spanner is a versatile tool.

•  Skills: This is the ability to use the spanner in isolation, they may not know why they use a spanner.

•  Experience: As a toddler they had a spanner instead of a dummy – it’s second nature to them, but they don’t know when it’s the right tool to use.

•  Knowledge: A person has a Doctorate in Engineering, and can calculate the maximum torque that can be applied, but they may not know how to use a spanner.

•  Physical Ability: This person can use the spanner to loosen the nut that holds up the Forth Rail Bridge but, due to this muscle bulk, they can’t check the tightness on a retaining bolt in their Swiss watch.

•  Attitude: This person can do anything, and doesn’t need to ask anyone for help or advice. They know best and are clearly the person you want in your organisation. 

I’ve used extremes to make a point, but I believe competence to perform a task is a blend of all these attributes in the right quantities.

Who is competent?

So, who can decide who is competent? One could argue that the best judge of competence is the individual themselves. Recognition that you need development requires moral courage, and in my appointment letter to my engineers I emphasise this with the following phrase: 'A good engineer knows their limits, therefore you are to raise any queries relating to your duties to me in the first instance'.

I’m often asked whether our IOSH-accredited training course, in isolation, makes someone competent. The answer categorically is no. The reasons for this are two-fold;

• We only provide the training which is only one ingredient of competency.
• They are not my employees; the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires employers to appoint competent people and arrange for appropriate information and training.

In the PSSR (Pressure Systems Safety Regulations), the Competent Person draws up and/or certifies the WSE (Written Schemes of Examination). The Competent Examiner carries out an examination in accordance with the WSE. This may be (but does not have to be) the same person, and with PressureSafe, the service provider fulfils the role of Competent Examiner; Mandate Systems is the Competent Person.

This approach relies on the service provider having a robust approach to competency, however as PressureSafe carries out an independent verification check on every examination report, we identify where an ingredient of the competency has slipped.  When this occurs, we have a training and audit procedure, and work with the individual’s employer to manage and, hopefully, improve the standards.

Competence is a blend of personal attributes – take one away and competency cannot be fully justified. Competency is ongoing and can be threatened by complacency.