Measurement of Competence

         Organisations should have a mechanism for determining competence of staff, not just with respect to human factors, but for all areas (both technical and non-technical) in which staff are required to be competent.
        Demonstration of competence applies to all staff within an AMO.          Management competence and human factors competence should be closely linked. A manager may be highly competent in day-to-day management and making money for the company, but not particularly supportive of human factors principles and policies, despite the fact that he understands what they are all about.
                       There are many different mechanisms available that may be used as evidence of competence. These include:

1. Examination - a good mechanism for assessing knowledge, but not necessarily competence of applying knowledge in a work context;
2. Interview;
3. Qualifications - a good source of evidence, if the training course or other method used to gain the qualification are directly relevant and practical for application in the workplace;
4. Completion of training courses is a good way of providing information, but not sufficient to prove individual competence in applying the knowledge gained from the course;
5. On-the-job assessment - a good way of determining competence, however its effectiveness relies heavily on the competence of the supervisor or manager conducting the assessment as it relies on their subjective judgement;

      Tailored assessments – staff are ask what they would take into account when doing particular tasks, e.g. a planner explains that he would give consideration to the effect fatigue may have and schedules critical tasks to be completed during the day shift or at the start of the night shift rather than in the early hours of the morning. This explanation shows the planner understands how some human factors issues are applicable to his job.
                 Assessing competence in the practical application of human factors is difficult,  therefore it may be appropriate to apply a selection of the above methods. Pervading culture within the company may be contrary to good human factors principles (e.g. the culture might be that errors are not tolerated, and are regarded as signs of incompetence). It is likely that judgements of competence will be biased towards that company culture. It is important, therefore, that staff are trained in how to assess competence, and that independent checks are carried out of the competence assessment process.
                An organisation may decide that it is going to limit its assessments to competence in the "understanding of the application of human factors" as specified in Part-145.A.30(e), ie. if people know what they should be doing, they are considered  competent in human factors, even if they don't actually do it.  No matter how good your training might be, unless it results in appropriate behaviour, its aims have not been achieved. However, it should also be  recognised that human factors training is not always the solution to lack of competence in the application of human factors. There may be instances where individuals would like to apply what they know to be good human factors practices, but are unable to do so due to limitations in the company processes. In such cases,appropriate solutions should be sought.
             Whilst the manager(s) concerned may have competence in an understanding of the application of human factors, the fact that they fail to support the application of such principles within the company means that the intent of the Part-145.A.30(e) requirement has not been met. The extension of understanding of human factors, to its effective application, should be the ultimate aim for all staff, if safety is to be improved.