Comment #1Amendment: Proposed Substantive Changes to MINHERS Chapter 2, Section 205.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI)Page Number: allComment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: We are in favor of this new language and recommend adoption as proposed. Response: Reject No new language proposed.
We are in favor of this new language and recommend adoption as proposed.
Reject
No new language proposed.
Comment #2Amendment: Proposed Substantive Changes to MINHERS Chapter 2, Section 205.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI)Page Number: N/AParagraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.2.2.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: The JobWerks application was a great tool that is multipurpose and allows people to have remote review of work done by Rating Field Inspector candidates. In fact, I would argue it is a much better resource than that proposed by the contractors who are forming a "Remote" QA process. It's certainly been tested more and can run more efficiently. Beyond that, if the tool was too technically complex and cost too much to manage, how was it put in place in the first place? Why was it put in place at all? If RESNET staff cannot manage this tool why don't they learn how to use it? I certainly think the fees associated with using the tool could be purposed towards training RESNET Staff in how to manage it. Proposed Change: 205.2.2.1 Pass the RESNET graded field evaluation using the RESNET JobWerks RFI Tool. Response: Reject The proposed new language does not eliminate JobWerks as a potential method for field evaluation of RFIs. But naming the product in the Standards leaves no viable alternative in the event of any interruption of service, whatever the reason. The SDC 200 Committee believes it is in the interest of RESNET and the HERS Rating industry to use generic language when referencing an evaluation tool for RFIs. The issue of whether to continue with JobWerks is separate. Changing language to “a RESNET approved graded field evaluation” to help clarify Dictating how fees are spent is a budget issue and not under the purview of a Standards Development Committee.
The JobWerks application was a great tool that is multipurpose and allows people to have remote review of work done by Rating Field Inspector candidates. In fact, I would argue it is a much better resource than that proposed by the contractors who are forming a "Remote" QA process. It's certainly been tested more and can run more efficiently.
Beyond that, if the tool was too technically complex and cost too much to manage, how was it put in place in the first place? Why was it put in place at all? If RESNET staff cannot manage this tool why don't they learn how to use it?
I certainly think the fees associated with using the tool could be purposed towards training RESNET Staff in how to manage it.
205.2.2.1 Pass the RESNET graded field evaluation using the RESNET JobWerks RFI Tool.
The proposed new language does not eliminate JobWerks as a potential method for field evaluation of RFIs. But naming the product in the Standards leaves no viable alternative in the event of any interruption of service, whatever the reason. The SDC 200 Committee believes it is in the interest of RESNET and the HERS Rating industry to use generic language when referencing an evaluation tool for RFIs. The issue of whether to continue with JobWerks is separate.
Changing language to “a RESNET approved graded field evaluation” to help clarify
Dictating how fees are spent is a budget issue and not under the purview of a Standards Development Committee.
Comment #3Amendment: Proposed Substantive Changes to MINHERS Chapter 2, Section 205.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI)Page Number: N/AParagraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.2.2.2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: The JobWerks application was a great tool that is multipurpose and allows people to have remote review of work done by Rating Field Inspector candidates. As a remote quality assurance/training process, it's more effective than a piece of paper than can be easily modified to look like someone else did the work. Beyond that, with all the money that has been put into this tool, by RFIs who have been certified, RFIs currently being certified, and through the fees RESNET collected from Rating companies to get this tool built, aren't we pulling the plug a bit fast? I think that this tool deserves more deliberation from everyone than a quiet night of rush standards proposals. I propose we keep the language as is because: -) It was a heavy investment built upon fees collected by RESNET from Rating companies and we deserve to deliberate more on the tool -) RESNET Staff can undergo training to use the tool, if they're willing to spend the time to learn how to -) The tool itself can be repurposed for the "remote" QA work, instead of the process they've barely tested and want to put into the standards. Proposed Change: 205.2.2.2 Complete at least five probationary Rating Field Inspections observed by a certified HERS rater or a quality assurance designee. The certified HERS Rater or QAD shall use the RESNET graded field evaluation RESNET JobWerks RFI Tool to document the results of probationary inspections. The probationary Rating Field Inspections shall comprise at a minimum the following tasks. Response: Reject The proposed new language does not eliminate JobWerks as a potential method for field evaluation of RFIs. But naming the product in the Standards leaves no viable alternative in the event of any interruption of service, whatever the reason. The SDC 200 Committee believes it is in the interest of RESNET and the HERS Rating industry to use generic language when referencing an evaluation tool for RFIs. The issue of whether to continue with JobWerks is separate. Changing language to “a RESNET approved graded field evaluation” to help clarify Remote QA is not the purview of SDC 200. This sentiment should be directed at SDC 900 when the QA Chapter is out next for public comment.
The JobWerks application was a great tool that is multipurpose and allows people to have remote review of work done by Rating Field Inspector candidates. As a remote quality assurance/training process, it's more effective than a piece of paper than can be easily modified to look like someone else did the work.
Beyond that, with all the money that has been put into this tool, by RFIs who have been certified, RFIs currently being certified, and through the fees RESNET collected from Rating companies to get this tool built, aren't we pulling the plug a bit fast? I think that this tool deserves more deliberation from everyone than a quiet night of rush standards proposals.
I propose we keep the language as is because:
-) It was a heavy investment built upon fees collected by RESNET from Rating companies and we deserve to deliberate more on the tool
-) RESNET Staff can undergo training to use the tool, if they're willing to spend the time to learn how to
-) The tool itself can be repurposed for the "remote" QA work, instead of the process they've barely tested and want to put into the standards.
205.2.2.2 Complete at least five probationary Rating Field Inspections observed by a certified HERS rater or a quality assurance designee. The certified HERS Rater or QAD shall use the RESNET graded field evaluation RESNET JobWerks RFI Tool to document the results of probationary inspections. The probationary Rating Field Inspections shall comprise at a minimum the following tasks.
Remote QA is not the purview of SDC 200. This sentiment should be directed at SDC 900 when the QA Chapter is out next for public comment.
Comment #4Amendment: Proposed Substantive Changes to MINHERS Chapter 2, Section 205.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI)Page Number: AllParagraph / Figure / Table / Note: N/AComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Why did the JobWerks tool get suddenly pulled? What happened to the technical support that RESNET Staff needs to manage this tool? As a member of this industry, I believe that RESNET owes its members an answer for why they are abandoning the huge investment that JobWerks is. "It's too technically complicated" and "it costs too much to run" are broad and do not give me comfort that we're making the right decision. Give me reasons, actual reasons, for why this is an appropriate decision. Until such a time as an actual public meeting is held where we can learn why this decision was made, I propose we maintain the language, as is. Proposed Change: 200 RESNET NATIONAL STANDARD FOR RATER TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION 205.2 RATING FIELD INSPECTOR KNOWLEDGE AND FIELD SET 205.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI) 205.2.2.1 Pass the RESNET graded field evaluation using the RESNET JobWerks RFI Tool. 205.2.2.1.1 The graded field evaluation shall performed under the observation of a certified trainer, Quality Assurance Designee, or QAD Delegate. 205.2.2.2 Complete at least five probationary Rating Field Inspections observed by a certified HERS rater or a quality assurance designee. The certified HERS Rater or QAD shall use the RESNET graded field evaluation RESNET JobWerks RFI Tool to document the results of probationary inspections. The probationary Rating Field Inspections shall comprise at a minimum the following tasks. Response: Reject The proposed new language does not eliminate JobWerks as a potential method for field evaluation of RFIs. But naming the product in the Standards leaves no viable alternative in the event of any interruption of service, whatever the reason. The SDC 200 Committee believes it is in the interest of RESNET and the HERS Rating industry to use generic language when referencing an evaluation tool for RFIs. The issue of whether to continue with JobWerks is separate. Changing language to “a RESNET approved graded field evaluation” to help clarify Holding RESNET Staff accountable is not the purview of a Standards Development Committee.
Why did the JobWerks tool get suddenly pulled? What happened to the technical support that RESNET Staff needs to manage this tool?
As a member of this industry, I believe that RESNET owes its members an answer for why they are abandoning the huge investment that JobWerks is. "It's too technically complicated" and "it costs too much to run" are broad and do not give me comfort that we're making the right decision. Give me reasons, actual reasons, for why this is an appropriate decision.
Until such a time as an actual public meeting is held where we can learn why this decision was made, I propose we maintain the language, as is.
200 RESNET NATIONAL STANDARD FOR RATER TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION
205.2 RATING FIELD INSPECTOR KNOWLEDGE AND FIELD SET
205.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI)
205.2.2.1.1 The graded field evaluation shall performed under the observation of a certified trainer, Quality Assurance Designee, or QAD Delegate.
Holding RESNET Staff accountable is not the purview of a Standards Development Committee.
Return to Proposed Substantive Changes to MINHERS Chapter 2, Section 205.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI)