Fifteen years ago there would probably have been little disagreement on what one meant when talking about competence, whereas today this is not the case. Why? Because, like some other terms (e.g. method statement) it has been adopted by standard writers and legislators. It is also a difficult word to define.
Perhaps the problem is not so much what we mean by competence but more the factors that comprise it. For instance, if we define competence as “adequately capable”, in a miner we might look to see if he understands safety precautions, has a basic knowledge of ground conditions, or if he knows how to timber a face. If we were looking for a competent agent or project manager we would want to be assured that he understood what a programme was, but instead of his skills we would be looking more at his behavioural characteristics; does he react well under pressure, is his/her train of thought logical. What we can be sure of, is that all of us will have our competence assessed over the next few years. The quality standard calls for it; it is a requirement of health and safety legislation.
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The UK Government introduced National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) in 1986. Their object was to recognise “skills that were not otherwise recognised by existing available qualifications”. They are very industry-driven, but have a defined framework, which develop with usage. There are five levels of NVQ:
NVQs for tunnelling were first assessed about 15 years ago, under the auspices of the old Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors. A tunnelling sub-committee, along with the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), set up an Occupational Working Group on tunnelling to develop appropriate NVQs. The group concluded that:
The tunnelling NVQ was piloted in the days of the Jubilee Line Extension for London Undergound, after which it was developed further. However, the lack of work at the time negated any wish to take the qualification forward.
At the time the Construction Skills Certification Scheme was growing. Skills certification cards were handed out in order to gain signatures from ‘responsible persons’, so called ‘Grandfather rights’, to certify ability. The Tunnelling Occupational Working Group, on the basis of the need for skilled miners, has consistently rejected this proposal. The need to qualify personnel stems from the need to demonstrate competence and the wish to have a qualification that means something.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataFor a number of reasons, we now have the opportunity to push forward the NVQs and the NVQ Safety Passport. Major projects such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and Terminal 5 at Heathrow, provide opportunities to take things forward. For CTRL, the London Tunnels contractors have formed an alliance. In this context they try to move things forward together, supported by their client, Union Railways, and the project manager of Rail Link Engineering. This means that common aims, such as the wish to take NVQs forward, can be addressed in a collaborative manner. At Contract 250, contractor Edmund Nuttall, an accredited organisation, is already carrying out NVQ assessments in accordance with their ‘Fast Track to Success’ project, and already has three Level Two NVQs awarded. Further up the line at Stratford, with the assistance of the CITB, the Costain/Skanska/Bachy Joint Venture has achieved accredited status and is taking the project forward for C240 and C220.
The syllabus of an NVQ is broken up in a number of units, with each unit containing knowledge, experience or skill requirements. There are 12 units developed for tunnelling and related works, combinations of these units qualify a person for specific tasks or roles. There are three ‘core’ units which all must achieve to go forward, there are then a number of optional units, which are related to specific roles (see box).
Recognising the need to assure that all persons engaged in underground works have a good standard of underground safety requirements, the ‘NVQ Safety Passport’ has also been developed. This is achieved by passing, on assessment by an NVQ assessor, the ‘knowledge’ requirements of Unit No 515. This addresses the fact that we will not achieve a qualified workforce overnight and sets candidates on the road towards the NVQ. It is proposed that this becomes a minimum standard for commencing work underground; achieving an NVQ supersedes this.
To date, the new starters are invited to a workshop, which will last 1-1.5 days. All relevant aspects of underground safety are reviewed, and at the end of the session NVQ assessors evaluate the candidates’ understanding. In this respect the NVQ defines standards in a practical way, in sympathy with the traditions of the industry.
The BTS role
Is competence necessary in the tunnelling industry? No one in his or her right mind would give an answer other than “yes”. However, the fact remains that for generations the workforce has been casual or has relied upon Grandfather Rights, requiring the need to learn on the job to gain ability. Certificated qualifications for operatives have been virtually non-existent.
In contrast to the workforce, tunnel engineers, have generally been in receipt of certified educational and professional qualifications. However, these by themselves do not constitute proof of ability to do the job. Contrastingly, in parts of continental Europe, tunnelling professionals are encouraged to start out as hands-on practitioners. But the traditional UK educational system does little to promote hands-on experience. This is why initiatives involving liaison between educational establishments and industry, such as are now in place at Newcastle University, are to be encouraged.
What is the BTS’s role in promoting competence? The Society’s constitution states its aims and objects to be: “to advance the education of the public in and to promote the art and science of tunnelling, including the creation and use of underground space by fostering, understanding, experience, interest and research therein.” In furtherance of this the Society states certain powers, including: “to provide a forum for the discussion of the problems and techniques of tunnelling”; and “to arrange for the publication of papers and collect and disseminate information on tunnelling.”
It is notable that the constitution only mentions education in the context of the public. Perhaps the Society assumes that its aims and powers suffice to define its educational aspirations? However, the constitution does promote understanding and experience, discussion of problems and dissemination of information. Neither training nor the attainment of competence is a specific aim, although the final stated aim is: “to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the above aims.”
For a number of years the BTS has organised courses on health and safety in tunnelling, tunnelling in soft ground and, occasionally, tunnelling in hard rock. The courses have mostly proved financially viable, but numbers of delegates have varied from year to year, largely arising from the notoriously cyclical feast and famine of UK tunnelling activity. For the last four years the content of the separate courses have been combined into a five-day, two-module, tunnel design and construction course.
Feedback from those who attend suggests that, overall, they are satisfied with the five-day course content and there has been little call for any radical change. The course is very broad, in order to make it attractive to a wide cross-section of people in the industry. Yet, perhaps inevitably, the delegates are dominantly engineers and managers. The same is true of delegates to the UK’s (now) biennial underground construction conferences. Is there a need for a different kind of educational forum to cater for the wider workforce in tunnelling?
Conferences, seminars, BTS discussion evenings, and courses such as BTS’s ‘Tunnel Design and Construction’, all qualify for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) days. Is a well-filled CPD logbook a demonstration of enduring competence? Why should CPD not be extended to include the study of books on aspects of civil and tunnel engineering and management? Why does the continual experience of the job itself not count towards CPD? How does the workforce demonstrate CPD?
Demonstrating tunnelling competence, in terms of being able and qualified, is fraught with difficulty. The chances are, that in the future, the BTS will be faced with having to do more if it is not to become sidelined. The reason for this lies in the increased expectations of institutional bodies, including the Government and insurers, that professional people in positions of responsibility must be demonstrably competent.
In due course, it will no longer be enough simply to be a chartered engineer in order to perform a senior technical or managerial role in tunnelling. Engineers will instead become accredited tunnelling professionals, with demonstrable competence. This would bring more bureaucracy, but it is possibly an inevitable prerequisite for securing sensible insurance premiums for tunnelling projects of the future.
Would the BTS, as the body that supposedly knows the industry and its staff, be entrusted to administer the accreditation scheme? Even if such a scheme were to be introduced for tunnelling professionals, there would still be an argument for extending accreditation to demonstrate the competence of the workforce. Could the multi-level NVQ system provide for this without the need to introduce something else?
There are many questions surrounding the issue of competence in the tunnelling industry, but it is high time for the BTS to consider its role in all of this, if it is to play a future leading role in delivering the aims and objects of its constitution.
