The advantage of this quantitative system is to develop skills that provide the necessary verification documentation which reflects that the work was carried out by those who dealt with the necessary professional standards within the quality management process. Persuading people can be very difficult, especially when people believe that they operated for a considerable time. It is desirable to use such a term as "proof of competence" in order to determine the evaluation system, but not the term "demonstration of competence", since it is assumed that before the evaluation the candidate may not yet be competent.
For high usability, such as manufacturing, installation or maintenance the most accurate valuation method is generally a method of checking work of the candidate. Any knowledge that could not be derived from observations, but which are required for the collection of professional standards, will be removed from the survey or test. The candidate engaged in activities valued in the workplace, and probably carries out this activity in a normal manner. Downtime (unproductive time of the work) of the candidate and then limit the answers to any questions raised by the candidate.
However, this is not so for many engineers and managers, including design engineers and designers, who carry out their work mainly at the table. Activities usually done over a longer period of time, covering the discussion and analysis that are difficult to observe in action, and the candidate may need to collect information, meetings, etc., before the result can be demonstrated. In this case, the traditional method of assessment of managers and engineers is their personal report that reflects how they did their job and collected a portfolio of documentary evidence used by their professional standards.
There are tendencies to refuse additional work to demonstrate that "doing their job properly", especially in an atmosphere where there is little free time for personal development, yet financial incentives or required in the contract or regulatory requirements. There is also the "expert time" to consider as probable the lack of experts at the highest level. Assessors should be professionally competent at the level of the candidate as well as the expert level. Many organizations feel that the engineers and managers at this level are more productive in the performance of duties of the engineers and managers of the experts.
Therefore, in order to obtain the recognition of a competence evaluation system and knowledge, it is necessary that this process not become a burden of time for both candidate and examiner.
