Competence=satisfactory performance. The site determines what is satisfactory and how to record that attainment. Ideally there would be follow up to ensure key skills remain correct and properly implemented, but that does not always happen before a nonconformance reveals a problem.
People have different learning styles. Some do better with books, others with visual displays, but most of us truly "cement" our learning and skills with application (called "tactile learning" in educator's terms). Oversight and a final "walk-through" is therefore very often included in complex, critical skills attainment such as with certified operators in chemical plants.
When determining ineffective training and competency, we must first rule out other reasons for error: incorrect or insufficient inputs, incorrect/insufficient/unavailable reference documentation, insufficient/conflicting directives or objectives from management, incorrect/unreliable materials and/or equipment, etc. must be also considered so as to isolate training and competency as the true cause for error. Without robust process considerations, focusing on competency alone is an unreliable form of corrective action.
Let us also consider that competency can be about a physiological ability to perform. If a color blind person is expected to identify the correct colored wires and install into specified locations, we can expect trouble. I had a client that discovered that very thing, and resolved it though exacting staging of the components so the employee could succeed. Problem solved.
People have different learning styles. Some do better with books, others with visual displays, but most of us truly "cement" our learning and skills with application (called "tactile learning" in educator's terms). Oversight and a final "walk-through" is therefore very often included in complex, critical skills attainment such as with certified operators in chemical plants.
When determining ineffective training and competency, we must first rule out other reasons for error: incorrect or insufficient inputs, incorrect/insufficient/unavailable reference documentation, insufficient/conflicting directives or objectives from management, incorrect/unreliable materials and/or equipment, etc. must be also considered so as to isolate training and competency as the true cause for error. Without robust process considerations, focusing on competency alone is an unreliable form of corrective action.
Let us also consider that competency can be about a physiological ability to perform. If a color blind person is expected to identify the correct colored wires and install into specified locations, we can expect trouble. I had a client that discovered that very thing, and resolved it though exacting staging of the components so the employee could succeed. Problem solved.
