2018 I give up observing !

[ROG]

I have been an IAM car & LGV observer since 1998 and will be giving it up come 2018 because I have no interest in the IMI accreditation

IAM HQ have stated that all observers must be IMI accredited by 2018

As I will be 60 years old in 2018 and will by that time have assisted nearly 200 associates I reckon that will be a good record to go on

The way our group has done things over the past 20+ years has stood the test of time with constant examiner feed back and test results setting the bar for our observers to enable a steady and competent delivery for the associates so why the IAM has decided to go down this IMI route is totally bewildering.

It seems that tick box and paper qualifications are now worth more than years of experience

[akirk]

This is an issue I observed when working for a vocational exam board back in the 1990s - there has been a move in our culture to courses to prove what you can already do / know - rather than courses to extend your knowledge or capability...

it is driven by a general lack of understanding of how to determine capability, so if you have two people in a warehouse:
- 1 who has spent 20 years there and could run the place standing on their head
- 1 who has been there for 6 months but has an NVQ in warehouse xyz (proof of an ability to fill forms / tick boxes / 'gather evidence' etc.)
you can guess who gets the promotion...

this is then a vicious cycle as those promoted put more value on 'paper qualifications' than real ability...

the counter argument says "well if you can do it, getting the qualification to prove it should be easy - if you can't get the qualification then obviously you can't do it!"

which sadly is flawed on so many levels:
- doing the qualification for someone already at / beyond the level is a waste of time, yes they can do it, but they would basically be spending their time proving the status quo - pointless
- it is a big demotivator to be told that you are incompetent as you don't have a bit of paper to prove you are where you are
- the qualifications are usually tick boxes / record keeping - again demotivating to those who can do it - to have to spend time a) doing it and then b) re-spend that time proving they can do it
- at the end of doing the qualification the person feels they have put a lot of time in and gained nothing other than a bit of paper to say that they can do what they already knew they could do!

it is indicative of a society which cares more about surface appearances (he had the bit of paper) than reality and ability

of course that is not to say that vocation qualifications per se are wrong - simply the way we tend to implement them - used as a training for new learning they can definitely make sense, but just to prove you can do what you have always done - makes no sense at all...

for the IAM, I can see a logic in bringing this in for new observers - but perhaps they need some triage:
- new observers - this is a part of their progression
- current observers, evaluate and either:
- - some issues, use this as a way of fixing the issues
- - doing the job well - grandfather them in

can totally understand your feelings...

Alasdair

[jont]

it is indicative of a society which cares more about surface appearances (he had the bit of paper) than reality and ability

It's also indicative of an arse-covering, risk averse society ("ah, but he has a piece of paper so if he does something wrong it's /his/ fault, rather than /my/ fault"), and one that is interested in valuing things that are easy to measure, not measuring things that are valuable (see speed limits, NHS targets, the education system, policing etc etc etc).

[Gareth]

It's simply an attempt by the IAM to fix the problem of widely disparate standards of observers across the country, from pretty poor to very good. The IAM has slightly painted itself into a corner by pushing a single product, (SfL), and wants as much as it can for the associate experience to be the same whichever group they sign up with.

I've read a number of comments that suggest that IMI is mainly a box-ticking exercise for competant observers, and that the only ones who should be concerned are those who are nearer the incompetant end of the spectrum.

[JamesAllport]

I'm just returning to observing after a couple of years off and so far the process seems pretty sane to me. My local group are going to put me into the "trainee observer" group and then flex my path through that depending on what they see. The first requirement is to have my own standard of driving checked, which all seems perfectly sensible.

The process they've described to me is almost identical to what I went through to qualify originally with RoADAR in 1995 and IAM in 2002.

As Gareth says, I think it's good that there is a consistent minimum standard.

James

[ROG]

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 ?

Its still going to be only test results and examiner feed back which can show any real failings

[Gareth]

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 ...

[ROG]

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 ........

[GS]

It's simply an attempt by the IAM to fix the problem of widely disparate standards of observers across the country, from pretty poor to very good. The IAM has slightly painted itself into a corner by pushing a single product, (SfL), and wants as much as it can for the associate experience to be the same whichever group they sign up with.

I've read a number of comments that suggest that IMI is mainly a box-ticking exercise for competant observers, and that the only ones who should be concerned are those who are nearer the incompetant end of the spectrum.

I sort of agree with this.

[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.

I definitely agree with this.

[Gareth]

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 ........

Just because you are good at being an observer doesn't mean all other observers are good at being observers, and it is clear that many are not.

If you were in head office trying to find a way to lift the lower end, how would you go about it? Or do you think the worst observers aren't that bad?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Rog - I've edited the thread title since I think you probably meant to type "give up".

I hope you don't. If, as Gareth says, it's a formality for experienced observers, it'd be a shame to lose your skills for the sake of a simple assessment and a pat on the back. You were an LGV driver, right? In that profession, you were used to being assessed and having to maintain certain competencies. Why should it not be the same with observing? Associates should be able to go out with any observer knowing that their core competencies have been assessed and are up to scratch, whether or not they have differences in style over and above that.

[Horse]

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.

Perhaps part of the same process which resulted in this:

http://www.iam.org.uk/images/stories/Me ... july14.pdf

As I said elsewhere:

TBH, I thought that it's a bit of an indictment that such document was needed, given the structure of the organisation.

Each one of those items must have come about from either a test 'concern' or gradual evolution of what's acceptable on test - and those show, perhaps, how things have changed (offsiding/straightlining, speed limits, acceptable bending of the limit on overtaking, etc.) . . .

. . . my concern as expressed earlier; there's a national organisation, with regular magazines, highly-organised local Groups in regular contact with HQ, a recently-introduced, externally-accredited standardised observer accreditation levels scheme, regular Observer training and wide-area supervisors . . . but still the examiners are seeing these issues . . . .

[martine]

It's simply an attempt by the IAM to fix the problem of widely disparate standards of observers across the country, from pretty poor to very good. The IAM has slightly painted itself into a corner by pushing a single product, (SfL), and wants as much as it can for the associate experience to be the same whichever group they sign up with.

I've read a number of comments that suggest that IMI is mainly a box-ticking exercise for competant observers, and that the only ones who should be concerned are those who are nearer the incompetant end of the spectrum.

+1

I haven't seen ROG observing but from what I know over several years of posts here, I'd be pretty sure he would sail through it.

I was in the IAM Regional training team (until it was disbanded) along with a few other contributors here and I can say from experience there is wide disparity in the standards of observing across groups.

IMI National Observers are tested outside the group, every 3 years. IMI Local Observers are tested by group assessors who are themselves National - so helping to ensure standards.

It would be a great shame if ROG decided to give up observing as a result of IMI - but if that's the case, so be it. A little harsh may be but I do believe the IAM needs more consistency.

[Kimosabe]

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...

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 wish them luck because it's evident that some people aren't cut out for observing beyond technical comparison with 'the book', no matter how well meant their intentions. 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.

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

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

Edited.