Our organization sends out To Be Read and Understood training through our Electronic Document Management System each time a new or revised procedure is released. Does anyone have experience on how to manage the assignment of this type of training? What I am experiencing right now, is quite a mess to maintain (e.g., ensuring all employees are in correct job role, correct department, etc. in the system). We assign the procedures based on the job role. There are currently 400 + roles in my organization. This responsibility has fallen to the QA Document Control department, but in my previous experience, it was the responsibility of the Corporate Training Department.

Your help is greatly appreciated. :thanx:

In our organization, it is an employee's supervisor who determines which QMS/EMS documents are applicable to their job responsibilities.

We're currently about 160 employees spread over 3 locations. When we upgraded to ISO/TS QA by default got the job of determinig what SOP's should be assigned to what tasks/job responsibilities. I argued long and hard that the manager's should be responsible, but was over ruled.

At the moment, I'm happy if I get a notice when there is an employee transfer so I can update the system. To get a better system in place, I'm probably going to have to do a c/a from an internal audit. Not the way I like to work, and in my opinion not the way to work, but it seems to be the only way to get some action. :mad:

Just a suggestion, use Outlook and set up a meeting. Attach the Procedure with a statement that when the recipient has read and does understand the procedure click "ACCEPT" the meeting. Training documented. If the click "DECLINE" you would have to contact them to settle the misunderstanding...

Erich

.... I argued long and hard that the manager's should be responsible, but was over ruled....

I cast my vote with those who say it is the direct supervisors role to ensure her people are trained. Always was, always needs to be.

Not HR, definitely not Quality.

But...as above it doesn't work that way, at least not in my real World. Those people are too busy with the "important things" to do training. (fighting fires caused by poorly trained people?). So HR and Quality try to pick up the pieces.

We have software that tracks training needs, but we are REactive. The person is already in the role (untrained of course) before the gap is identified.

Training has also devolved into a "get 'em signed off" game, wasting a valuable opportunity for improvement, IMHO.

Wow, I'm cranky tonight!:mad:

Thank you all for your responses. Seems like I am in the same boat with all :mad: . I agree that there is definite room for improvement on this process, and if I find it (yeah, right), I will be happy to advise.

Thanks again!