- This topic has 19 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m after opinions based on the following question.
Would you as a consumer (as opposed to be an engineer) be happy having an engineer work on your appliance with less than 20 days classroom training ?
I know I’m banging on about it and this probably should be in the training section of this site, but I want to gather info from regular peeps here. Its not about anything to do with running a course, its more to do with a current situation and its possible consequences legally if say the following fictitious scenario happened.
Drain pump mounts broken, engineer instead of replacing pump, cable ties into place, then pump leaks, causing fire and death. On analysing engineer competence it is found he has received less than 10 days in house classroom training, no electrical qualifications and has been unsupervised for 6 months.
Re: Experience Vs Training.
depends..
does this ficticious engineer have 30 days, 30 weeks, 30 months or 30 years of experience?regarding the second part of the question, that isnt down to classroom training or electrical qualifications, its more about concience and attitude and i don’t know if you can train that into someone?
Re: Experience Vs Training.
20 days classroom training doesn’t usually include the art of bodging. That takes years of experience adapting the skilful art of ‘improvisation’. Priceless publications such as “1000 uses for duck tape and chicken wire” and “Dodge it up with Debor” a must for the budding ‘engineer’. (Available in all good book shops) 😉
Re: Experience Vs Training.
No experience. Just theory and let loose.
Can we keep it adult and on topic, if not fu88 off.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Re: Experience Vs Training.
This is the problem that customers face with cowboys, how do they know who is competent or not.
I have 17th edition and gas safe registration and have never been asked for proof of competence from any member of the public. 😯Your factitious engineer would have to confess to being inexperienced for the customer to know, he is unlikely to do that is he?
So the point is?
Re: Experience Vs Training.
My training was one week with a senior engineer, 3 weeks training in the training school on washing machines/ t/dryers and dishwashers which there wasnt very many in those days, then back out with the senior engineer for 2 weeks then let loose on my own with reduced amount of calls then a gradual increase in workload, the 6 months later it was another weeks training on other products, that was the best training anybody could get but that was back in the good old days, i’m a timed served electrical fitter so it wasnt a change in direction for me anyway.
Re: Experience Vs Training.
Was that with HOTPOINT Johnny as it sounds exactly the same as mine back in the eighties
Re: Experience Vs Training.
As a consumer I would expect the engineer sent to repair my appliance to be competent enough to repair my appliance.
I can’t see that coming from just 20 days of classroom training
Re: Experience Vs Training.
Andy jones wrote:Was that with HOTPOINT Johnny as it sounds exactly the same as mine back in the eighties
Yes any January 1984 i was at the training school.
Re: Experience Vs Training.
TBH Martin is correct in what he is trying to say, he is just dressing it up a little.
The hypothetical situation you propose would not be avoided with either 30 years of training or 30 years experience .
It would only take 20 minutes of training to instil in anyone who was honest, and of reasonable intelligence that if a part is broken you replace it.
In fact as Martin alluded to, you are more likely to get someone with years of experience and training doing this.
It is very unlikely that a new, wet behind the ears engineer of ‘reasonable intelligence’ would ever attempt such a bodge.
So my answer is Yes.
However, if the engineer missed a serious electrical fault due to lack of training that would be a totally different matter.
Re: Experience Vs Training.
DrDill you got my point, i’m trying to get a view from a clients point of view, in a way, but from people with a technical understanding of our industry. If that makes sense.
Would 20 days or less make a person competent to work on appliances without any electrical qualification or any other measure of understanding.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Re: Experience Vs Training.
johnnyj wrote:
Andy jones wrote:
Was that with HOTPOINT Johnny as it sounds exactly the same as mine back in the eightiesYes any January 1984 i was at the training school.
Had a great time training in Peterborough in 86. Some bloody good nights as well 🙂Re: Experience Vs Training.
Competence is as much about aptitude and attitude as about training and experience. With the right attitude and aptitude (which can be tested at point of selection), 20 days intensive classroom training is probably ample when followed up by effective supervision and monitoring.
Two questions I get asked occasionally by customers are “How long have you been doing this for then?” (code for “How experienced are you?”) and “Did you work for a manufacturer before that?” (code for “Have you received proper training?”). But the things that reassure the vast majority of customers are helpfulness, courtesy, honesty, efficiency, effectiveness and value for money.
Re: Experience Vs Training.
lee8 wrote:Would 20 days or less make a person competent to work on appliances without any electrical qualification or any other measure of understanding.
Off course not Lee as well you know. Your 20 days is ample for a basic grounding that most manufacturers (including your outfit) would initiate. During that time a persons aptitude would be easily assessed before he or she were allowed out in the field. After which they are accompanied by a senior engineer until such time as they can be let out on their own. All the while monitored on a call by call basis. That’s how it works, I know it ,you know it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.