2018 I give up observing !

[trashbat]

I think the effort to standardise to some degree is commendable, since for a very long time one of the chief criticisms has been variable quality. I realise that it might be seen as hoop jumping, but at least they should be easy hoops for anyone on here.

However, my personal experience has been that the process through which they (my local group, anyway) have tried to achieve this has been both opaque and arbitrary - something of an irony. Maybe they need to standardise the standardising?

[akirk]

I don't have an issue with the concept of training standards - but perhaps it is how they are implemented and (as mentioned above how that can affect people) maybe it just needs a little sensitivity around those who have been doing this for a while - so that they feel enabled / supported by this, not threatened?

Alasdair

[hir]

What is the IMI standardising? The entirety of Roadcraft or just the bits the IAM like to mention? From my perspective, all this is about is standardising which parts of 'the book' IAM observers impart and not why some of it is omitted altogether from the syllabus and never discussed. IAM observers are bound to/restricted by the contents of 'the book' and not to the potential of or best outcomes for a driver, so will the IMI insist that everything will be taught from now on and not just eg.10-2 PP?. I won't hold my breath...

The IAM/IMI accreditation process is solely intended to introduce a minimum standard of observer skill and knowledge for the delivery of Skill for LIfe to associates. The IAM/IMI Observer accreditation programme includes, inter alia, the following criteria: "Evidence of planned session"; Briefing of the associate"; "Effective communications at all times"; "Praise combined with constructive criticism"; "Effective use made of questions and answers"; "Assistance with problem resolution"; "Judgement as to where to stop for debriefings and questions"; "Procedure for booking an IAM test", etc. etc... you get the picture. Might I suggest that your group is under a misapprehension if it has intimated to you that the IAM/IMI is "standardising" Roadcraft or HTBABD by this accreditation process, it is not. As you might have guessed already, I'm having difficulty reconciling your view with what's actually happening... "From my perspective, all this is about is standardising which parts of 'the book' IAM observers impart and not why some of it is omitted altogether from the syllabus and never discussed."

I felt that my group considered IMI to be a good thing/ mandatory, as it would not only help all concerned to reach acceptance of an attained standard but also that it would help them to support the less able observers to improve ... or reconsider/ be removed pending further testing? Handy as that may be for groups to deal with less capable observers, it was not made explicit that the latter could happen. So the failed observer has to tick some different boxes at their next attempt? Three strikes? I can't recall if there's a practical aspect to the IMI accreditation.

I'm struggling with this. Why would the IAM not wish to set a minimum standard of observing and remove those observers who, after further training, simply aren't capable of delivering a sufficiently high standard of observing? Why would it need to be made explicit that this could happen? If the IAM regard it to be necessary that certain of its observers need to improve their knowledge and ability or be "retired" why be mealy mouthed about it?

I'm crap at written exams and great at practical demos and imparting knowledge in a way which suits the person asking for it, how will IMI allow for that strength/ weakness? Just my thoughts.

Fear not. If you're... "crap at written exams" that won't be a problem because there are no IMI written exams. Unless of course you are including in your definition of "written exams" the art of drawing a corner on a piece of paper and then writing "Information zone"; "Positioning point"; "Speed reduction zone"; "Gear changing zone"; "Acceleration point"; "turn-in point". If you do, then that's going to be a problem.

Related but marginally off topic so ignore at will:
Are the IAM also planning on introducing mandatory retests for all members? I hope so...

No, that's never going to happen, for two reasons.

Firstly, the IAM have no desire to commit commercial/financial suicide by requiring all existing or future members to retake the test inorder to retain membership. Voluntary retests are available for any member should they wish to do so.

Secondly, there aren't enough examiners to go round.

In any case, there is another organisation for those who wish to subject themselves to regular three yearly retests.

...but i'm ever mindful that IAM observers are volunteers, who are working to a textbook and not necessarily to the full potential of the driver.

The IMI accreditation process will assist those observers who are not currently working to develop the full potential of the associate to do so in future, [see my first paragraph above].

.Certainly the drivers I observed, during observer training (back seat), didn't need any adjustments to their basic driving and had no intention of going any further at that time, than passing a test. So whether observers are IMI accredited or not, what they're doing is reiterating what a book says and not in practice being examined on how, why or when that information is being presented.

Under the IMI accreditation process observers are... "being examined on how, why or when that information is being presented", [see my first paragraph above].

So credit to the IAM for causing these improvements. I hope their members appreciate it and make it work.

The raising of observer standards where necessary will assist a larger proportion of associates, who will go on to become full members, to develop their driving potential beyond the point that would otherwise have pertained. So, that must be a good thing.

[hir]

However, my personal experience has been that the process through which they (my local group, anyway) have tried to achieve this has been both opaque and arbitrary - something of an irony. Maybe they need to standardise the standardising?

I agree that the process of Local Observer accreditation is opaque, over-elaborate, over-complicated and ill thought through.

However, the National Observer process is simplicity itself. I would urge anyone, including ROG, who has got a modicum of observer experience to apply for National Observer accreditation and forget about the Local Observer process.

The problem with the Local Observer accreditation process is that it started out life being over-engineered, unwieldy and unworkable. So it was simplified. We now have a simplified-complicated process, or should that be a complicated-simple process? Instead of which they should have started again from scratch and developed a straightforward simplified process. None of this criticism is of the IAM/IMI programme criteria, it is simply a criticism of the paperwork process that the assessors have to wade through.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I've just taken the opportunity to review the LO and NO qualification documents available on the IAM website. I'm reasonably impressed, although I have the following observations:

- The LO requirements seem to set out the list of competencies you'd expect for an Observer, albeit with a heavy handed evidence requirement which must need a lot of an assessor's (and apparently being an NO is not sufficient to be an assessor) time. In order to assess all the competencies you'd have to follow nearly the entire progress of an associate from initial session to test ready. In small groups, this must be an almost insurmountable burden. I don't (as yet) assess my Tutors while they're tutoring associates (I'm not required to) although it is something I've considered. It must also be a considerable extra burden for the associate whose observer is, in turn, being observed, an imposition I have only assumed once or twice, and then only after seeking not only permission, but a sense that the associate will be entirely comfortable with the process. I guess some of this can be done with role play - is that how Groups are expected to carry it out?
- The NO requirements are, by comparison, only a relatively small step up. I can see why experienced observers would be encouraged to apply for that, instead. There's nothing about being able to train new LOs, which in my organisation, and I believe, previously in the IAM, would be one of the major tasks of more senior observers (or tutors). There's some extra flannel written around the "customer centred" part of the competencies, which is puzzling, since you'd expect any Observer to have good customer skills, not just senior (or National) ones, but little else, apart from an oblique reference to being able to drive at a higher level than the IAM entry level. It's not suggested how the candidate should achieve that extra level of skill. I suppose they assume that "experience" will naturally lead to improvement, since there is no suggestion of any training from other IAM resources (such as Regional Examiners or whatever they're called) to achieve this. Since the IAM doesn't offer periodic driving retests, it's hard to imagine how the majority of IAM observers actually improve their driving over time (apart from those enthusiasts who post here, for example).
- The introduction document only describes deltas from a pilot that preceded it. For any Groups not involved in the pilot (I'm not sure if all Groups participated), this must be a confusing document.
- fengpo's group obviously haven't read these documents! They clearly state that the Group's approach to SfL, the procedures for achieving test standard, and for booking a test, should be explained to the associate at appropriate points during the process
- The IMI's own document that accompanies the IAM ones is deeply disappointing, being solely concerned with bureaucratic elements such as H&S and complaints. You get the feeling that they're only interested in raking in the fees for rubber stamping the process, not in the training itself.

[Horse]

I had made clear that I have become a nervous driver, like a novice again and am not considering myself advanced despite my years of experience and I am not the person I was . . . He was a very nice chap, but extremely critical of my driving

. . . he was not understanding of my problem and admitted he had much higher expectations because I have passed the IAM for motorcycles some years ago, and thought my driving did not reflect this! Okay, but as I told him, I . . . need guidance to get back my skills. 

. . . his honesty and candidness . . . has destroyed any remaining confidence I had. 

Taken from another forum. Jars a bit with:

some extra flannel written around the "customer centred" part of the competencies, which is puzzling, since you'd expect any Observer to have good customer skills

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Let me reword "expect ... to have" to "hope ... would have"

I certainly look for this in my tutors, when I train them - in fact, it's one of the few things I use to distinguish tutors from merely good drivers - we start pretty much with a Gold level across the board, anyway. And that's bog standard tutors, not Advanced. Which was my point, in case you missed it - I want the customer centric skills at all levels, not just the higher ones.

PS my "proudest" test pass was my very first Associate, who had suffered a bad accident due to suspension failure, and was scared to drive anywhere above 45mph (coincidentally, the speed at which the accident had occurred). He got Gold. It took months, and it was worth every second.

[martine]

Mr. C-W: a very erudite summary of the IMI process! There are more details not shown in the docs you accessed...like the driving standards expected with specific 'scores' needed for LO and NO.

As hir said, IMI is an accreditation process not a driving standard - the standard is set by the IAM. It has been likened to the process NVQ assessors use. Just to be clear, NO's are tested every 3 years by the IAM Regional Quality Manager (formerly the Staff Examiner) - both in driving (by doing a demo on a specific subject) and coaching skills (with a live associate).

The LO competency checklist does look daunting but it's mainly a tickbox exercise with 'supporting evidence' being a few lines of comments showing progress over 2 or more drives. It's early days, but I think it looks worse than it is, in practice. Bristol group now have 9 NO's and a few LO's - we'll see how we get on with the rest over the next 12 months.

[WhoseGeneration]

Then, it'll be the IAM will want all Observers to train as ADIs.
Why not cut out this middle way and go the whole hog now.
What happened to folks just interested in helping out other interested folks?
Fwiw, my view is that IAM standard should be the standard for all drivers within 3 years of their initial test pass and that IAM standard to be tested by the DVSA.
Don't pass, no licence, simple.

[akirk]

there is an interesting side question here as well - ref. coaching / teaching / liability / etc.
while an observer is simply that and is not teaching or coaching - so logically no liability ref. outcomes during drives or later (e.g. "I was taught xyz... therefore this happened")

does this start to muddy the water - this process is in essence a training process, a 'qualification' process - at what point does an observer stop being an amateur and might be considered to be doing this professionally, though not for cash...

this then does lead also to whoseGeneration's comment ref. ADIs as presumably there would be a legal requirement to be an ADI?

seems a little murky
can understand why you would want observers to all be of a similar standard - but are there possibly unexpected consequences?

Alasdair

[martine]

It's worse than that...my understanding is the Road Traffic Act is worded so badly that the ADI qualification may only be needed to teach provisional licence holders. I don't believe it's ever been tested in law with a non-ADI providing paid instruction to a full licence holder.

Unless anyone knows differently...

[WhoseGeneration]

Funny how the Government licenses "teaching".
I'm a qualified teacher, which means I can teach any subject up to A level, despite most subjects not being my specialist ones.
However, I can't teach driving without further qualification, why not?

[GS]

I have looked at the IMI thing and to be honest it will not prevent individuals or groups from still putting their own spin on issues so what is the use of it ?

It's an attempt to move in the right direction, to work towards a more consistent experience for associates, a step on the way to helping the worst observers get closer to the best, in terms of content delivery and results.

Perfect is the enemy of better ...

I have no problem with addressing any issues after that issue has been assessed as needing to be fixed but why fix something that is not broken ........

I have to say that you appear to be one of the few people, in my experience, who think that the IAM's observer system / quality control / consistency 'is not broken'. Or do you mean that because you feel you have been successful you personally should not have to take this qualification?

I'm sure that you posted some time ago that you were giving up observing then. What happened to change your mind then?

[Gareth]

It is suggested that the IAM and RoSPA are "OK" because the payment is for membership, not instruction. Whereas that may have been the case some time ago, I am not so sure now. The IAM SfL package/product is quite specifically a course of "instruction".

Surely it's a self-study course, the instruction being provided by a book.

The observer is only there to tell the associate how well they're doing, maybe to suggest which parts of their studies need more attention, and to provide clarification if the associate has trouble understanding what is written.

[akirk]

I don't think there is really any doubt that IAM et al could be seen as instruction.
You pay money to an organisation - and as a result you get materials / sessions with one of their team - a team who are trained to deliver the course in as standard a way as possible... at the end you have an exam from one of their team...

I don't think you can really see it as self-study - if an associate has a query about something in the book - who do they ask? can the observer provide clarification? do observers ever give the associate a demonstration drive? is there really no training between an observer and an associate?

Alasdair