Hello everyone - this is my first post, so go easy on me. :)

The changes made in ISO 2k and TS relating to the old "training" clauses now recognise - rightly in my opinion - that it is "competence" of people that is important, and imply that training, skills, qualifications, experience etc. are effectively "enablers", which can be used to produce "competency".

It is quite possible (if uncommon) for someone to be competent at something who has no experience, training or qualifications - and I'm sure we can all think of people who are not competent at certain tasks despite having all of these things.

Is this a fair assessment?

My problem is that, whilst I have seen many simple systems that meet the requirement to measure competency for shop-floor workers, supervisors etc., I have yet to come across a system which measures competency of management systems auditors.

Given the change of intent from "training" to "competency" in the standards, surely we can't continue throwing audit course certificates under the CB's nose and expect to get away with it? I know many "auditors" who have passed reputable 5-day lead auditor training courses, but who are simply not competent (they would agree by the way).

How do you guys actually measure the competency of your auditors? :confused:

Welcome to the Cove Baldrick,

Nobody needs to "go easy" on you. That was an excellent first post. Looks like you will be a welcome addition to the Cove.

Your post makes a lot of sense and I am sure there are many instances of what you point out. I think to determine competence, we can take a lesson from the accreditation bodies. They determine it by actually monitoring a new auditor until he/she demonstrates the required competence. I train my internal auditors, then accompany them on audits until we are both confident they are "competent". These audits are shown on the auditor's training record.

I put competent in quotes above to show the word has to be looked at subjectively in the standard. A competent auditor may be different things to different companies. The standard of competence has to be determined by your company and what will work in your system. The measure of the internal audit process, including the competence of the auditors, is part of the Management Review. If management feels it isn't getting good data from the audits, maybe the level of competence will have to be improved and you may have to monitor their audits until they reach that level.

Good luck,

Dave

The first several audits that one of my newly trained Internal Auditors participates in results in an actual "competence statement" inserted in their training file, in which I make a judgement call and add some supporting evidence for that decision, as to the competence of the internal auditor. Just a paragraph usually does it. If I note that someone still needs more practice or help I just make sure I follow up on that. In theory (though it hasn't happened yet, surely do to my extraordinary training skills! :D ) if I were to determine that an internal auditor was just plain INcompetent I would of course have to take action on that.

Yes. Congratulations on your first post! Welcome to the pantheon of Cove posters!http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bigwave-d2.gif

Competence testing always seemed to me to be a less controversial task than "performance appraisals" which leave too much up to personality of both the appraiser and the person being appraised.

In competence testing, an organization sets the MINIMUMS for performance to be rated "competent" as absolutes. Some absolute competence items I have seen (which I agree measure minimum competence at various tasks) are:

lift standard fifty pounds package waist high and walk 10 feet then put it down without damage
transcribe standard letter into computer word processor in 3 minutes or less with zero errors
read standard document in English and answer five questions about the content with zero errors in ten minutes.
So, the concept of creating a competence test seems straightforward. I agree with you - The only question remains, "What skills are absolutely necessary to do a competent job?"

I think we can ask Covers to suggest some competence test questions for an auditor which (to answer Dave's concern) are OBJECTIVE in determining pass/fail, but the actual task or skill being tested is SUBJECTIVE to the company and its needs. Here are a couple of samples I think meet the criteria:

Can the candidate read and comprehend the procedures and work instructions he will be using as benchmarks in his audits? Perhaps the candidate could be asked to write a summary, graded by someone knowledgeable in the procedure to determine if he grasped the key points for audit purposes.

Can the candidate read a work instruction, then listen to a worker describe in his own words how he performs the work and fairly compare the two to determine if the worker indeed follows the work instruction? (I would guess the auditor is allowed to ask questions to clarify his understanding.) A worker's supervisor or foreman might judge the auditor's answer as "competent" (not necessarily "expert") or not.

Can the candidate summarize each point of a Standard in relation to a process being observed and determine and be able to explain how the process observed fulfills or falls short of the Standard? This is trickier, because knowledgeable people disagree on these points all the time. The essence has to be "for the organization at that particular site at that particular time" versus the skill set of a registrar's auditor.

It will be interesting to see if Covers come up with a good list.

I've found that folks who use this definition normally have no problem.

"Competence" - the ability (to include actually doing it) to consistantly achieve desired results

I've found that folks who use this definition normally have no problem.

"Competence" - the ability (to include actually doing it) to consistantly achieve desired results
That's an excellent concise definition, and it underscores the need to explicitly define what the desired results are.

I typically give clients an example of a checklist that the management rep (or whoever manages the audit process) can use to evaluate auditor performance. Auditors can be rated on a scale of 1-5, or simply have comments related to each criteria. Following are examples of what checklists might contain:
 Prepares a complete audit plan
 Uses interviews effectively
 Uses observation when feasible
 Performs review of appropriate records
 Sample size is sufficient
 Audits linkage between controls and objectives
 Audit record provides useful information
 Discusses nonconformities with auditees
 Clearly documents nonconformities
 Looks for opportunities for system improvement
 Understands the difference between system, process, and product audits
 Effectively interprets the ISO 9001:2000 requirements
 Uses all levels of QMS documentation when planning and conducting an audit
 Evaluates both compliance and performance of the system/processes
 Can effectively audit undocumented processes
 Uses process thinking that looks at process interrelationships and PDCA

You're absolutely right. The challenge (and where I always get blank stares) is defining what is necessary to be "competent".

What are the measurables?

What are the steps to achieve competency as you've defined them?

When is competency reached?

I always use Table 3 in ISO 19011:2002 as an example for the evaluation of Auditor competency during training sessions. I tell folks that they can adapt the table format for other positions.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a rating (1 to 5) - I prefer simple pass/fail. (It must be the Demingite soul in me!)

I agree Wes, I don't like the 1-5 either. I would think if you did use a scale you would then have to identify a point on the scale that met your competency level which would in turn make the scale redundant. You are either competent or you aren't.

I don't think Dokes is wrong in using a scale. I am sure it works well in many applications.

Dave

:thanx:

Thanks everyone - some very useful information from you all. I think ISO 19011 is a very useful document - after all, it lays out in detail all of the expected qualifications, skills, experience etc....even personal traits, so it makes sense to take it on board.

I also think it is too easy to get hung up too much on detail - the beauty of standards such as ISO2k and TS2 is that our businesses can now focus on doing whatever we need to do to achieve customer satisfaction. So long as we focus on the requirements in clause 2.3 (Quality management systems approach) of ISO2k, then I think we should be OK.

My only concern is that the transition to auditing with the systems approach seems to be leading to a lot of comments/opportunities for improvement/nonconformities in other companies...