This discussion brings to mind a very important and usually overlooked point. The requirement is almost always training / refresher
training, not
competence.
Training is only an input, not a guarantee of results (an analogy: an investment of your hard-earned money may or may not result in making a profit!). Training is only one of a suite of learning and development tools available to address performance.
We should be starting with a proper learning needs analysis, which should identify specific behaviours and measurable performance factors required of forklift operators - i.e., what specific skills or competencies do operators require, and how will you verify these?
Next, we need to ask what information people don't know already and need to know to be able to do their job. The solution for this is to provide training.
If people know what they are supposed to do but don't perform according to the required standard, we need to determine whether they just need more practice, or they need coaching to overcome some obstacles. If a person already knows what they need to know but don't get opportunities to practice, or are hindered by attitudes, assumptions, etc, it is pointless to send them to a training course thinking that anything will change.
Likewise, it is a terrible waste of time and money to send people who already know what they need to know and are already doing the work all the time to a suitable level of performance to training courses!
If we developed a robust competency framework, including performance standards, why couldn't people just be assessed periodically against a standard to verify continued competency???
A well-formed competency assessment would serve as a reminder anyway, and anyone who doesn't meet the required standards could then be reviewed to determine whether they need practice, coaching or a refresher.
But of course, there are a lot of agencies with a vested interest in continuing to require the full training.....
Most standard courses seem to follow a standard format based on very low level competency requirements such as being able to regurgitate facts without any verification of genuine understanding or application of what they are meant to know. That's because most training on Unit Standards is largely assessed by exam questions that are primarily designed to assure the person passes the assessment and gets their certificate so the training provider gets their money. I once attended a training where the "trainer" basically stood at the front and told us which section of the training notes to read next, section by section - no explanation or discussion. Then we did a short written assessment - a set of simple multiple choice questions. Then we each took the EWP up and down once, then we were signed off.
So just like they say about the computer,
GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. Training that is put together and delivered by providers with little grasp of neuroscience and principles of learning and instructional design usually misses the mark on delivering genuine competence. Just because you have some technical "expertise" and experience doesn't necessarily result in useful learning outcomes.
Poorly designed training, put together without appropriately relevant learning objectives and outcomes, repeated periodically - it is just wrong on so many levels - wasting everyone's time, money, attention, good will, etc.
Check out Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning [url=http:// https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/]
https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/[/url] for better descriptions of levels of competency, and we really are overdue for doing some in-depth review and updates of this framework.
Also, on a bit of a side note, please avoid the temptation to regurgitate all the training content in your workplace forklift operational procedures - it creates unnecessary clutter when you already have a policy of limiting operation to trained and certified operators!!