Qualified supervisor

[Pete999]

Firstli will say I have nil experience of the QS, been scanning through the Selects Committee report on Part P that Dillb passed on to me ealier today. One of the things that caught my attention was the scope of the QS's duties, it would seen from what was said during the discussion was that the QS has overall responsibility of the electrical certification of work carried out by the install teams of larger Electrical Companies. What happens with a one man band, how do they manage?
The discussion turned to qualifications, apparently the guys doing the actual work, installing etc, need not be Electricians, or hold any qualifications, they only need to be Competent, the final sy on whether an insallation is the responsibility of the QS.
This may be old hat to most of you Guys and Gals, but how on Earth can the poor QS keep tabs on how the installation has been carried out? Has this changed recently? Is this why The NICEIC in all it's wisdom has now decided to create a new position within their ranks, of someone asessing the suitability of the Electicians doing the work? I think it was Gavin who posted the report in one of his posts, have I got it wrong, grateful for your thoughts.

 

[Midwest]

I don't things have really ever changed, other than a new name for someone.

Worked for a few of companies and their 'foreman' would come round & see what you were doing. After a while if he was happy with you, you got less visits. He was more interested in finding you at work on site, as opposed to nipping off home early, especially on the weekend on double bubble.

These days I just Q&A my own work. I quite often pull myself up on a few things.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

@Pete999 Yes it was myself who posted the email the NIC sent out.
As a one man band in my own company I am the QS and what they call Principle duty holder. I have responsibility for both the company's compliance as a whole, and as QS responsible for the certification and designs etc... in a lot of companies there is the QS who is supposed to check the designs, test results etc and ensure all is okay, in reality they have a load of barely able electricians, sadly fresh college leavers looking for experience doing the donkey work as it where and the QS just signs it off on the certificate, thats all well and good until something goes wrong and you have to explain if you checked the results or the actual work for meeting the BYB.
On the NIC certificates the person doing the work signs the certificate, then its meant to be checked by the QS. who also signs.
Its not a fail safe system by any means and in larger or less honest companies the QS will only present a few carefully chosen jobs on the annual assessment and a lot of dodgy stuff goes unrecorded in the annual reviews. I do think this is a small percentage of the overall number of firms out there though, as for a small business like myself you cant run the risk of f**cking it all up. in a city like bath word would get round quite quick costing you jobs etc..
I think the annual reviews should be random jobs.

I know of one guy in this region runs a NICEIC AC firm, vans with all the shiny stickers you can name, looks the part, He is the only qualified one on the books and is the QS, he has several teenagers working for him and a couple of eastern europeans doing most of the work, fresh out of college and desperate for hands on experience. I had to put right some of the work they did in a small shop, god damn dangerous and awful, so much so i had to call building control as the holes they drilled with a sds in a listed building had damaged a load bearing wall. No action was taken against them by council but landlord took civil action. the cabling was a pick and mix of bad workmanship...

My understanding with the new ideas from the NICEIC is that you will have the main duty holder (company boss) then still have the QS or more than one QS but others can be assessed as competent and able to sign stuff off in the firm, sort of like a supervisor one below QS.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

the survey on the proposed changes for new roles and QS is here.. it might be of interest @Pete999 and give you an idea of how it works and might change Your thoughts on enhancements to schemes Survey - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LDQ65WK?utm_source=Certsure&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9498808_Individual%20Registration%20Survey&dm_i=WCP,5NLBS,RGOV71,LZX35,1

 

[Deleted member 26818]

One of the problems with the QS system, is that it is so open to abuse.
After hearing evidence from expert witness the ECA, the Coroner in the Emma Shaw case slammed the QS system and under Rule 43 wrote to the NICEIC voicing his concern over the QS system and the abuse of which led to the death of Emma Shaw.
Rather than abolish the QS system, the NICEIC have undertaken to purchase the ECA and are now considering adding a new role of qualified/experienced supervisor?

 

[Pete999]

the survey on the proposed changes for new roles and QS is here.. it might be of interest @Pete999 and give you an idea of how it works and might change Your thoughts on enhancements to schemes Survey - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LDQ65WK?utm_source=Certsure&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9498808_Individual%20Registration%20Survey&dm_i=WCP,5NLBS,RGOV71,LZX35,1

Wont let me continue as I am not a member of either NICEIC or ELECSA what does that tell you?

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

Wont let me continue as I am not a member of either NICEIC or ELECSA what does that tell you?

just tick niceic or elecsa and it will let you continue.. a little white lie for the greater good wont consign you to an eternity in hell

 

[The Ghost]

The facts about a Q.S. in a larger company is that they have to sign off work or get the sack. They may supervise say twenty-five electricians and normally cannot keep up with larger numbers. They may say something is not good enough and not sign it off and the owner of the firm will force them to by saying you will get the sack if you don't. This is S.N.A.F.U. Not that it is explicitly said but anyway I would never take on such a job. I am technically a Q.S. I have to sign certs. as designer, construction and testing and fill in the Q.S. signature on a cert. and I would happily get the sack or drummed off site if I did not like something, and to hell with them. I would not put my name on something obviously dodgy or dangerous. The worst thing is the guy may not be able to afford to lose his job. And the boss knows full well if it goes wrong the Q.S. is going under the bus.
I have looked at the report you refer to and it is emerging that protection for whistle blowers is in the pipe line, not before time.

 

[Phil Thompson]

Perhaps that’s the reason NICEIC are bringing in these extra categories as it’s obvious that a single QS can not possibly inspect more than minimal percentage of installs if he’s working to high numbers of installers.

So it leaves them open as they are approving work that’s blatantly obvious isn’t being checked by anyone.

The small guy has 1 QS to just himself or maybe up to 4-5 guys.

The big firm might have 1 for 50 guys and if the jobs are widespread there’s no physical way you could get to each job each day, never mind check all the work done by all those men.

Should probably be a QS per every 6 men and always on site. Not popping by a couple of times a week for an hour if you’re lucky

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

The small guy has 1 QS to just himself or maybe up to 4-5 guys.
The big firm might have 1 for 50 guys and if the jobs are widespread there’s no physical way you could get to each job each day, never mind check all the work done by all those men.
Should probably be a QS per every 6 men and always on site. Not popping by a couple of times a week for an hour if you’re lucky

I know of a couple of nationwide outfits with just that set up, they have a qs back at hq who supposedly goes out and inspects the work at random, but in reality the guys are left to get on with it and they have around 40 people doing electrical work for them as and where it is required. there is no real over sight what so ever.

i agree there should be a ratio of 1 QS per x workers. with the ratio dependant on the skillset of the people doing the work, obviously in theory a time served spark with recent and proven history of sound testing would need less supervision than a fresh out of college kid.

 

[Adam W]

The way I understood it the QS is there to check that the paperwork looks OK, dot the Is and cross the Ts, not to babysit someone who should be competent to carry out and test their own work.

 

[Leesparkykent]

You need the QS system if you have blokes out and about, unless they are all part of a scheme. When I was QS for a firm which had 30 sparks nationwide, I was QS for 10 of them. They had to take pictures of every installation they carried out and I would select jobs at random and go and take a look. I would also check their MFT on a check box every month. It's up to the QS to make sure the sparks are up for the job and if they aren't then they would be given the boot. Once I whipped the sparks I was QS for into shape I never had a problem. All jobs were to a very high standard as they wouldn't know which ones I would pick at random to take a look at and test to compare results. I don't really see what big firms are supposed to do? The 10 sparks I had would complete 20-30 jobs a day...it would be physically impossible to inspect every job or wouldn't be cost effective to have enough QS's to inspect every job. If ---- was to hit the fan and as a QS you could prove you have a system in place that was adequate then I don't really think theirs going to be a problem.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You need the QS system if you have blokes out and about, unless they are all part of a scheme. When I was QS for a firm which had 30 sparks nationwide, I was QS for 10 of them. They had to take pictures of every installation they carried out and I would select jobs at random and go and take a look. I would also check their MFT on a check box every month. It's up to the QS to make sure the sparks are up for the job and if they aren't then they would be given the boot. Once I whipped the sparks I was QS for into shape I never had a problem. All jobs were to a very high standard as they wouldn't know which ones I would pick at random to take a look at and test to compare results. I don't really see what big firms are supposed to do? The 10 sparks I had would complete 20-30 jobs a day...it would be physically impossible to inspect every job or wouldn't be cost effective to have enough QS's to inspect every job. If **** was to hit the fan and as a QS you could prove you have a system in place that was adequate then I don't really think theirs going to be a problem.

Don’t need to have lots of QSs, let whoever does the install sign the EIC.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Don’t need to have lots of QSs, let whoever does the install sign the EIC.

Yes and that is obviously what happens....I didn't suggest anything different.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes and that is obviously what happens....I didn't suggest anything different.

Clearly not in the Emma Shaw case.

 

[loplug]

Seems to me that every one that is taking any part in the verification of an install needs to be formally qualified for the part that they are doing. but if there are people about that are prepared to sit in a tea room and make up test results how can that be stopped?

 

[Strima]

I'm QS for a telecoms company that works nationally. We vary between 5 and 25 sparks either PAYE or day rate contractors. All as a minimum must hold C&G 2392 and 17th etc and have practical experience, none are dragged off the street and given a screwdriver.

I have to be very proactive to keep on top of things. I know most of the lads well and I know their work standards, some I have to 'encourage' a little more than others. As we work nationally I spend a lot of time travelling between sites to carry out audits and check up on the kids. I try to see each one at least once a month.

Any new lads we have starting with us are subject to a 100% audit check until I'm happy with their work. Also part of the interview process involves some basic skills checks such as termination of SWA, basic testing procedures and safe isolation.

Luckily most of our work is repetitive such as commando socket installations so the design rarely changes and most sites are switch rooms with a similar built and layout, this has saved me a lot of headaches. We also know the sites well so rarely get any surprises. The maintenance for these sites is done by another company but we get on well with their lads and there's always good communication between us so if I need something checking I can get someone to get me a few photos if I'm desperate.

As for signing off paperwork, I have to rely on the lads to carry out the correct testing and that the build is as per the design. So far I've had very few problems in the last six years.

I have no problems telling someone their work is not up to standard.

I think the biggest problem with the QS role is people aren't proactive enough and just sign off certs carte blanche without keeping tabs on the sparks doing the work. And although a cert has a QS review the companies must have processes in place to ensure the site work is up to standard, not just have a shiny cert for each job.

Any who, beer time...

 

[Leesparkykent]

what I also used to find is that many sparks aren't massively clued up when it comes to testing, even if they have their 2391 or equivilant. Many can't actually interpret test results and you could usually sniff out bull ---- Certs.

 

[loplug]

many sparks aren't massively clued up when it comes to testing.

and when almost every job undertaken requires some sort of test how can that be ?

 

[Leesparkykent]

and when almost every job undertaken requires some sort of test how can that be ?

It means what it says, I'll try and simplify it . I've come across many sparks throughout the years who can test and write out a test sheet but aren't actually massively clued up onit.