I think that  often times we organizations think of "certification" as a fix all solution for a system that doesn't work to begin with. I think testing and certification is a great way to get started,  but lets not depend on that piece of paper to assure that our employees are doing what is expected. Let them know what is expected, monitor their performance, coach them where needed, and move them up in responsibility.

My intent in the "Better pre-screening prior to testing" item was in relation to documentation of experience.

I don't know about now, but when I certified 1st time many years ago, the industry I worked in had few CWI's. Yet the industry prospered. However within that industry, all of the companies involved were required to have a documented quality control system that addressed many of their tasks. I think Certification is fine, but its never going to be the magic solution to assure knowledge and ability. Just another tool to help assure a minimum level of knowledge. Certification (Inspector/Welder or Other) is no replacement for sound screening of individuals and a well documented quality system that addresses qualification and training requirements.

Thanks for your response Brent. Not sure how the poll would go over. Figured I would try it.

Gerald

Thanks Kent. But with experience only, it would have taken me years to be able to pass the exam. The study time that I put into it was based upon an interest in welding with no knowledge of the CWI program for most of that time. I do think some way to better confirm related experience would be nice. And maybe that is done now. Maybe someone goes over in detail what is on an application, makes a few calls, and sends the application on down. Or not.

My concern is a "Mandatory Course" would probably lead to a "Mandatory Paid Course" and thus be a burden to those who have dedicated many hours to  self study.

Good points, but the bottom line is whether there is sufficient demand to make the endeavor profitable. Is the client willing to pay the freight? It costs money to hire and train instructors, develop the training program, hire a facility to offer the training, and all the little details required to offer training. Let's never forget the cost of insurance.

What is your price point you would be willing to pay for additional training? AWS, ASME, and other organizations offer a plethora of training are different venues. They discount the cost of attending the classes to people that are members of their organization. The discounts often cover the cost of membership if one takes advantage of their offerings.

May I ask how many training classes you’ve attended? Or do you consider the cost of attending the courses more than you are willing to pay out-of-pocket. Do you attend additional training only when your employer is willing to pay all the expenses of attending the course? I am not trying to point a finger at you or anyone else, I am only trying to make the point that training isn't free. Someone has to pay the freight. Just something to think about.

Best regards - Al

Central certification by professional organizations such as AWS, API, ASQ, and ASNT serve as an unbiased basis of verifying the candidate understands the principles of the test method or the discipline covered by the certification. However, rarely do they include a practical demonstration of the candidate's ability to implement or apply the knowledge in a real world situation.

The employer still has the legal responsibility to ensure the individual is capable of performing the work. Under perfect conditions the employer can operate a perfectly legitimate qualification program if they have the desire to do so. That is the basic premise of ASNT's SNT-TC-1A. However, money and the need to turn a profit in a competitive environment results in a less than perfect situation. Thus, we have CP-189 which doesn't allow the contractor as much latitude in how they qualify and certify their employees. Still, the system can be fudged. it isn't a perfect world.

The Owner also has a responsibility to verify the contractor/laboratory hired has the capability to perform the work. How often does the price quoted the key determinant in deciding who gets the job?

It isn't a perfect world. It is the nature of man to cut corners, to maximize profits, etc. That is what keeps lawyers in business.

Best regards - Al

I know a Quality Manager for a Steel Fabricator that failed 2 or 3 times that I would love to have on my side when it comes to welding inspection, quality control, and code application issues.

He's taken the class 2x. But even before he went he was pretty sharp.

It is fine to find fault or to criticize, but what alternative have you to offer.

Employer base certification is not viable since there is no base line established and it is biased.

The marketplace wants a yardstick that can be used to determine if an individual has the basic knowledge required to perform a function. That is the case with folk lift operators, crane operators, electricians, plumbers, welders, inspectors, engineers, doctors, teachers, and lawyers. Few people or corporations have the time, money, or expertise to evaluate every candidate they interview or consider when filling a position. Instead, they depend on independent bodies that are perceived to have the expertise to do part of the task for them. It is still the employer's responsibility to exercise due diligence when assessing the abilities of an employee before assigning him or her to a task. the goal should be to ensure the assignment is within their capability and experience.

I do not expect a family practitioner to perform open-heart surgery. I do not expect a teacher fresh out of college with a license to teach grammar school to instruct a course intended for graduate students working on advanced degrees. I have to recognize the limitations of the credential. The credential alone does not mean the individual has the experience or capability to perform a job function that requires advanced training and experience.

What do you propose in place of the “certification?” What system do you propose that can provide a yardstick that can be used to assess an individual’s knowledge of a subject? Does the employer discount the value of the high school diploma and administer their own examination? Does the employer discount the college degree and make each candidate complete an examination to demonstrate proficiency or mastery of basic sciences, humanities, or subjects of specialization? Does the employer discount the engineer’s license to practice and require each candidate to complete an extensive series of practical engineering problems? Does each client discount the lawyer’s diploma and require the lawyer to pass an examination of their design before allowing that individual to represent your interests in a courtroom? The same argument extends to the doctor’s license and every other profession. How many of us have the expertise required to properly evaluate a prospective professional. Instead, we depend on certifications and licensing to verify the individual has the basic abilities, education, training, and experience needed to perform the job function. 

Evidently, industry does recognize the need and the value of certification and licensing as a means of validating the individual’s knowledge or skill. Industry requires and relies on certification/licensing programs to ensure the individual has a basic understanding of a particular subject. It does not confer “expert” status on the credential holder.

The question really is, “How far does one go and how much money is to be spent to assess the knowledge and capabilities of the individual under consideration?” I agree that the credential should not be the only consideration when hiring someone to provide a service or to fill an employment opening. However, it is a recognized tool that can be utilized to sort out those individual that are unlikely to meet the needs of the employer or the client.

No system is perfect. Every system can be improved upon. I am always in favor of training. Few people taking the CWI examinations are proficient in all subjects. More classroom time and more time spent studying subjects such as welding symbols, metallurgy, mathematics, nondestructive testing, codes, material specifications, etc. would be a benefit. However, the subjects by themselves can be boring to say the least. I find it useful if the subjects can be tied into practical problems that require more than memorization. Learning to use analytical skills and learning how to find information using multiple references, i.e., codes, standards, and specifications are valuable lessons for solving real world problems. The question becomes, "How much time is required?" Some people require more time because the subjects might be new to them. Some people might be proficient in some subjects, but not others. What is a happy medium that would be suitable for the majority of the attendees?  Home study, classroom training, on-the-job experience are all ways to learn. All ways are viable, but classroom training usually accelerates the learning process for most people.

The fact remains that people that have decided to take the CWI examinations have alternatives to consider. They can self study, they can attend the AWS one week review, they can attend a class offered by companies such as Hobart, Real, or others, or they can attend seminars offered by the local sections of AWS (not all sections offer CWI seminars). A one week seminar is hardly the venue for someone that doesn't have experience in welding, NDT, or mechanical testing. Yet, a two week curriculum would cause a person with years of experience to fall asleep in class. It is the individual's responsibility to determine what venue will best meet their needs. The one week CWI seminar is not intended to offer one-on-one tutoring. Few courses offer that type of training. One-on-one training simply is not cost effective. I should point out that a person that needs considerable "hand-holding" probably isn't an ideal candidate for a position as a CWI. There are many situations where the CWI is expected to wok independently. They have to be problem solvers that can use references to find answers to a broad spectrum of questions. They have use formulas to solve math problems and they need to be able to write reports. Basic skills such as those are difficult to teach in a one or two week curriculum. That's where classes completed at the local community college can be beneficial. Taking such courses would be of great benefit if they are completed before attending CWI training.

Finally, is the goal to eliminate the individuals that have not mastered the subject matter, enhance the capabilities of the CWI, or ensure the CWI can fulfill basic job requirements? It there a  problem with the existing program or is there a problem with employers that assign the CWI work that they are not qualified to perform?

Best regards - Al

"What I would like to hear is what would make the program stronger."

AMEN!!  There is always room for improvement and this program is no exception.  Especially when it comes to additional educational opportunities after the original certification.

I was very blessed with the man who came to me after I achieved the CWI certification and asked if I wanted to do more than just my own in house QC.  He was a mentor that really rounded out much, not all, of what I needed to carry on as a TPI after CWI certification.  And, every job is different.  You have to get into your job specs and see what the engineer has called out and expects of you. 

One part of the problem is that no one wants to be a student and get paid less while 'apprenticing'.  They want the full pay right now.  'I'm a CWI, I don't need you to tell me how to do my job!'  Yeah, right.

Another part of the problem, getting enough money from the job to be able to pay an apprentice any type of wage while paying the mentor to do his job and teach too.  Some jobs are large enough and if multiple people are needed on site then you can work in a newbie.  But there aren't near enough of those right now. 

I was glad I added the Bolting Endorsement and more recently, should have done it sooner, the ICC Welding and Bolting Certs.  The background I gained in self study preparing for those and the documentation they provide that I have experience and knowledge of Bolting and Print Reading has been a real asset.  Endorsements help add some of this knowledge we are concerned about.

Example:  It has come up many times on this forum as well as on jobs- restricting cleaning to a wire brush and hand held manual chipping hammer.  If one gets into other codes and spends time around here they find out that codes have different requirements/restrictions.  And that particular one does not cross the line to be applicable to D1.1.  We would not have to keep doing that discussion with every batch of new CWI's if they had more training in other codes. 

They need to do much more study after passing one code and disregard most of what they thought they knew and make sure everything they do or say is in the code they are currently working to. 

Maybe an idea for another on line class for AWS: Disregarding Preconceived Ideas and Working From Facts.  They could cover many of the conflicts of understanding because people have not realized that much of what they have heard is true, it just comes from a different code and/or application. 

I better stop.  This is becoming a soap box for me.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent

Al, that was easier for my brain to follow. :)

For most guys you get this certification and "you are one", but the trouble is that nobody teaches you how to be one. If you are lucky enough to have a friend or cowoker to mentor you that is great, however a lot of guys don't have those opportunities and develop bad habits and remain ignorant of relatively basic inspection knowledge.
     This is where offering classes on how to conduct ones self as an inspector and perform common inspection tasks such as: maintaining open communication, report writing, duties and responsibilities, NDT requirements, handling of common situations etc. would be very helpful to an inspectors development.
     For instance while I have worked as a Level III in building construction I have answered a lot of simple questions from CWIs about testing requirements that are spelled out very easily in the structural codes and standards. But due to perpetuated inspection myths and assumptions the inspector will miss something or request testing that isn't required without looking it up first. It's things like this that have drove me to begin preparing a course for my local area to teach inspectors in the building construction industry the basic what's, how's, where's, and why's of NDT requirements commonly found on structural steel projects. So far I have had a lot of interest in the topic. My primary drive isn't about money but helping to lift up some of the new guys in the industry.
     For me I see a need to get back to basics on a lot of topics because the employers these days are failing at training the new guys.

Ramon

Gerald, you have made the comment that you don't generally see welded structures failing and you don't see a major concern.

I see the flip side and have worked several cases as an expert witness that involved people that involved death and serious injuries because someone didn't do their job. It isn't always the welder at fault, but I will say the welders played a major roll in each failure. The last case I worked on didn't involve a death or injury, but it was only by the grace of God that no one was crushed.

There was plenty of blame to spread around. The Owner, the Engineer, the welder, and the inspector (or lack there of) were incompetent or negligent. In each case a qualified welder should have known the welds were not acceptable. In each case the defects should have been discovered had the inspector been competent. The owners negligence was they didn't hire competent people or insist on qualified inspectors. The Engineer carried some of the blame by not questioning the absence of inspection reports.

Don't for an instance think there are not weld failures. There are plenty of them. You may happened to work for one of the contractors during the fabrication or installation. Unless the failure happens during construction or during a warranty period you would not likely to hear of the in-service failures that the Owner has to repair and foot the bill for.  On the other hand, I get called in when there is a failure and help sort out the mess that results.

I'm pretty sure few of the workers on the assembly line at General Motors heard about the accidents that were blamed on their automobiles until it made the headlines of their local newspapers and on the evening news on television. Just because one doesn't hear about weld failures doesn't mean they don't happen. The majority of cases never make it to court. Most cases are settled with nondisclosure agreements. After all, no corporation wants to see their name in the headlines.

Best regards - Al