Chief Assessor report- assessment Round 1 & 2
Congratulations are in order, not only for those candidates who have been endorsed for certification but for members of the Site Contamination Prevention Australia assessment subcommittee in their efforts in assessing applications- a job well done.
The assessment subcommittee were remarkable in the generosity of their time, and in how they were able to hone in an applicant’s competency. This was a tall order from the beginning, to be able to infer an applicant’s competency in relation to statements about each competency made in their application. This required reviewing not only applicant statements but cross referencing them against client reports written by applicants to gauge some understanding of the depth of a candidate’s knowledge and skills. This is a difficult task even for senior accredited environmental auditors with many years’ experience, and I am grateful for those who were part of our first assessment panels.
But the skill, credibility and experience of the assessment panel is not the only feature to make the Site Contamination Prevention Australia assessment process robust, but the tools which were developed and applied in facilitating the assessment process. The assessment process was effective and efficient, largely due to the efforts to get a lot of feedback early on in the scheme’s development, as well as through the hard work by the Executive Officer (Paul Saeki) in consolidating and delivering the tools for implementation.
“Do you think we have the level right between graduate and accredited auditor?” was a common question from assessors. The principal test we applied was: “Can this person we are considering, be capable of sign off on a contaminated land report? Is the candidate someone who has a high level of understanding of contaminated site issues?’ We were not going for the middle of the road. We were looking for people with a high level of capability to do the type of work we do, to be able to competently service client needs in relation to contaminated site assessment and management.
There were quite lengthy discussions about applications which were poorly written, as well as applications where personal experience details seem to contradict the experience and status that was being alleged. But the assessment panel were not looking only at CVs, rather they judged applications on their written statements supported by the client reports they submitted. The aim is to develop a benchmark for competent servicing of client needs in relation to contaminated sites.
Written applications which just fell short of expectations in the panel’s desktop assessment, or where residual uncertainties were evident within the written application, were invited to interview. In the interview applicants were given a scenario whereby they were asked to review a contaminated site report for sign off, and provide feedback. Furthermore they were asked how they might approach the scenario assessment and what advice they would give to clients. Through the interview, assessors where able to determine a candidate’s competency levels and ability to service client needs.
As with any process, there are always areas for improvement, and we will apply these to the next round as we continue to develop and refine the process. Any feedback on the Scheme is always most welcome. It’s with great confidence I now look forward to overseeing the next round of applications (from July through to September).
Ross McFarland, Chief Assessor