Certification dilemma
Evan Zabawski | TLT From the Editor July 2015
Training’s role in passing the exam.
Classroom training covers ‘the breadth but not the depth’ of knowledge.
www.canstockphoto.com
INDIVIDUALS SEEKING INDUSTRY CERTIFICATION often ask me if the training I provide will help them to pass the exam. This is a question I find difficult to answer, since I struggle with the role of training in regards to certification.
To be fair, the certifications that conform to ISO 18436-4 require that the candidate have at least 16-24 hours of documented formal training matching a defined curriculum. Understandably, one must take such training to be allowed to challenge the exam, but that is not what I am being asked. The real question is, “Will I pass?”
I have no problem providing compliant training, and certainly there are many other individuals and organizations out there that also provide compliant training. As well, I don’t believe any of them make any promises regarding passing, though some do tout historical pass rates.
What concerns me are the candidate’s thoughts surrounding the training and its ability to enable a passing grade where one might not be otherwise achieved. Perhaps this type of thinking stems from other common types of certifications, such as first-aid and safety-related certifications. These types of certifications are often structured so that one must attend a lecture portion and either display understanding of the material by writing an exam or show proficiency through a form of live demonstration.
Not to impugn these certifications, but often they are attributed to a very narrow range of knowledge or skills rather than a greater skill set. For example, one can become certified for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillation (AED) in one day, but this does not make the individual a first responder or emergency medical technician (EMT).
I don’t believe that the common lubricant-industry certifications are on par with EMT certifications (often a one- or two-year course), but I certainly don’t believe them to be as limited as a CPR course. The idea that a two- or three-day training session can yield a certification raises questions about the value the candidate places on the certification. Perhaps they believe that the skill set is small enough that it can be acquired through a brief training session, or do they believe the training is so thorough that it imparts knowledge that would otherwise take years of experience to develop? And what about the certifying body’s intent?
I doubt the committees that determined the body of knowledge and developed the exam questions intended that training alone could guarantee certification. The application’s requirements for one to three years’ experience clearly show that this must not be the case.
Exams are often scheduled on the last day or day after a training session for a number of reasons, but does this timing promote the guarantee sentiment? The training is not meant as a guarantee, so I think it is helpful to view the training as a refresher or review only. The way I like to phrase it is that classroom training covers “the breadth but not the depth” of knowledge one should have to successfully challenge an exam.
To be completely prepared for an exam the candidate must not only be versed in the body of knowledge but also experienced enough to have applied the knowledge in the shop or field environment, which is the best way to get the depth of knowledge.
The value of certification is readily apparent; salary surveys confirm certified personnel earn higher salaries. The value of training is sometimes questioned, and I think it is best summed up in a favorite comic of mine. The first character asks, “What if we train them and they leave?” to which the second character replies, “What if we don’t and they stay?”
Evan Zabawski, CLS, is a senior reliability specialist in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. You can reach him at evan.zabawski@gmail.com.