EVALUS JOURNAL
2026-09-17
In the previous article, we asked who should provide technical EV competence and electrical safety competence.
One thing became clear:
These two competence domains serve different purposes and may be acquired through different educational pathways.
That leads to the next question:
How should these different competencies be represented in a meaningful and transparent way?
A certificate or a single course title does not automatically show what a person can actually do.
A future-proof qualification system should therefore not merely document courses.
It should make competence visible.
EV describes technical competence related to electrically propelled systems.
This may include, for example, system understanding, vehicle and component knowledge, electric propulsion systems, energy storage, power electronics, diagnostics, troubleshooting and repair competence.
EV therefore primarily answers the question:
How well does a person understand and master the technical system?
HV, by contrast, describes electrical safety competence.
This may include recognising electrical hazards, selecting and applying protective measures, securing work areas, establishing an electrically safe working condition, verifying the absence of voltage, applying appropriate working methods, using personal protective equipment, and understanding responsibilities and the limits of one’s own competence.
HV therefore answers a different question:
How safely can a person work under the relevant electrical conditions?
A person may have extensive technical knowledge of an electric vehicle and still not be qualified for every electrical task.
Conversely, a person may have a high level of electrical safety competence without being able to diagnose or repair every vehicle system.
This is exactly why the two competence domains should be assessed separately.
This leads to an important principle:
Technical competence and safety competence can develop to different levels.
A qualification system should make these differences visible rather than hide them behind a single umbrella term.
Instead of one single qualification, an individual competence profile emerges.
A person may, for example, combine strong technical competence with fundamental safety competence, advanced technical competence with extended safety competence, or specialised technical competence with competence for particular electrical working methods.
The exact combination depends on the task.
Qualification can therefore be described much more precisely.
Not:
“This person has completed a high-voltage course.”
But:
“This person has demonstrated defined technical and safety-related competencies for specific activities.”
Another distinction is important.
A competence profile alone does not automatically determine whether a person is permitted to carry out a specific task.
Additional requirements may apply, including national legal requirements, employer authorization, risk assessments, manufacturer requirements, defined working procedures, organisational responsibilities or additional product-specific qualifications.
A modern system should therefore distinguish between three different levels:
Competence
What can the person do?
Qualification evidence
How has that competence been demonstrated?
Authorization and responsibility
Which activities may the person actually perform within the relevant legal and organisational framework?
These levels should not be confused with one another.
In addition to general EV technical competence and electrical safety competence, a third layer may be necessary:
Manufacturers may require additional knowledge for specific battery systems, isolation procedures, diagnostic processes, repair methods, special tools, software or new technologies.
This results in a three-part model:
EV
Technical competence
HV
Electrical safety competence
Product / System
Manufacturer- or product-specific competence
Only the combination required for the specific task describes a person’s actual ability to act competently.
This also changes the role of training.
A course is not the objective.
A course is one way of developing competence.
The decisive question should therefore not be:
“How many hours did this person attend training?”
but rather:
“Which learning outcomes were achieved, and which competence can the person demonstrate?”
This is the essence of a competence-based system.
Duration, training format and learning methods remain important.
But they are not the final outcome.
The outcome is competence.
This approach can be summarised in one simple principle:
Not the certificate.
Not the course title.
Not training duration alone.
But:
the demonstrated competence of a person for a defined activity.
Certificates and digital credentials continue to play an important role.
They document and verify competence.
But they do not replace competence itself.
A competence-based model also offers another important advantage:
It can be modular.
People enter training with different backgrounds and prior qualifications.
An experienced vehicle technician may require a different learning pathway from someone without a technical background.
An electrical specialist may require different complementary content from a vehicle technician.
Requirements may also differ between road vehicles, mobile machinery, motorsport, aviation, watercraft and rail vehicles.
A competence-oriented model therefore allows:
different learning pathways – while maintaining comparable competence outcomes.
This significantly improves international comparability.
The underlying logic therefore changes.
A conventional approach often looks like this:
Course → Certificate → Qualification
A competence-oriented approach looks different:
Prior learning + Training + Practical application + Assessment
↓
Demonstrated competence
↓
Individual competence profile
↓
Task-related deployment within the applicable legal and organisational framework
That is a fundamental difference.
Once technical EV competence and electrical safety competence are separated, a fundamental question of terminology remains:
What should “HV” actually describe?
Is “High Voltage” — the magnitude of electrical voltage — really the right foundation for a competence and training system?
Or should the focus instead be on the point at which electrical energy can become hazardous to people?