hi :) i'm a newbie in this arena. i am a qmr in a crew manning industry (we supply seafarers). anyone in the house from the same sector? :tg: it would be such a relief to be able to discuss and clarify some :confused: issues on maintaining a qms :cfingers:

Folks don't often think of Chicago as an international port, but we have been since the St. Lawrence Seaway opened. Even before that, we had a thriving shipping community on the Great Lakes. When I was a boy, I recall stumbling across the merchant marine hiring hall where berths would be offered on everything from ore carriers to tugs that pushed strings of grain barges up and down the Mississippi River. The sailors would come in and sign up. Ship owners and captains would come in and pick crews from the lists or even pick guys just hanging around the lounge area.

Apparently, a lot of boys ran away from home to the sea and the hiring hall was a regular stop for the police looking for runaways back in the years right after WWII.

To the point:
I can't imagine hiring sea crews is much different from any recruiting and hiring business. The question is: Do the seamen go on the ship's payroll or on your company's?

In other words, do you act as an employment agency (like the old merchant marine hiring hall) or do you act as a contract agency which keeps the crews on your payroll and contracts with a ship owner or captain to staff his ship?

Each type of business has some special requirements in the Quality Arena.

In other words, do you act as an employment agency (like the old merchant marine hiring hall) or do you act as a contract agency which keeps the crews on your payroll and contracts with a ship owner or captain to staff his ship?

Each type of business has some special requirements in the Quality Arena.

i am actually star struck!!! i just can't believe Wes Bucey has addressed my thread! Thank you for your kind attention, sir! but :bonk: back to why i finally got the courage to post a thread here...
primarily we are like a "merchant marine hiring hall" with japanese principal (=customer). Though, we have a baby division (shipmanagement) which is act as a contract agency like you described, it is not yet part of our ISO since it has a different customer (based in the US).
we just finished our Periodical Surveillance Audit last February and is due for renewal next year. In 2004, our then qmr resigned and i was designated as her replacement (being the only one who has attended a training in documenting and implementing an iso 9001:2000 qms). but after our re-assessment audit (which we passed without non-conformities, a big thanks to God given the circumstances), i was transferred to another section. i was re-designated as qmr to prepare for our surveillance audit this year a few months before the audit. though we passed again with only suggestions for improvement and some (very frank) observations, i requested the management if i could focus on our qms. some of the auditor's suggestions include:
1. He suggested the Preparation of a QMS Planning Schedule - for the whole year (he noticed and is frank enough to confront us that we only give attention to ISO whenever our President has time for it, which is not often enough)
Our QMS states that it is the President who gives the go signal when we will have our MRM, etc. Being a newbie i feel i don't know enough to say otherwise esp. since iso emphasizes the big role of the management in qms. as qmr, i feel i should do more, that's what i joined this forum for. to find out my scope and limitations.once again i digressed...:bonk:
What i did after the audit was to conduct an MRM with the department heads. the president attended the first day (it was a 2-day, 2 hour each day schedule) but had to attend to other more important matters the following day. while he was there, the President discussed our main process (Hiring). In the past, MRM and operational meetings were often mixed up and confused with each other. but i gently (because everybody is much older both in age and in the business) oriented them that MRM goes beyond and requires specific inputs as stated in 5.6.2 of the standards. after which, i discussed the audit results including the observations and suggestions of the auditor.

2. the auditor observed that most staff are not so familiar with our quality policy and objectives. i had to coach them in our native dialect (which the auditor couldn't understand being japanese)

i don't blame the staff since this is our current scenario:

a. we have a high rate of employee turn over.
we keep adjusting the work instructions to fit the competence and abilities of our employees. it is only now that i am focusing here that i am able to keep track of the changes.but i am having a bit of trouble in identifying some process owners since processes get sliced, chopped, minced...:tg:

b. we find it hard to assemble our staff for traditional lecture type orientation
(my action plan on this is to inject our qms orientation in ways i only imagine but hasn't attempted to do yet: include a game of word relay during our bi-monthly sportsfest activity. of course,the words we will use for this game will come from our quality statements)

my most pressing concerns are the following:
1. i noticed that although we have an initiation/revision request procedure, forms are being changed without being properly processed. i just saw a staff paste a piece of paper on a form to add a necessary statement. not being the qmr who was here to help establish the system, i have encountered so many uncontrolled forms and its duplications. when i ask the staff to list the forms they use, they do not give me a complete list since some of the forms they use do not even have titles! conduct individual process reviews focusing on tracking forms used. i have asked the president's permission on this since i dont want to be accused of taking the staff's time away from "real work." i am still waiting for his reply.

2. i dont know how to go on about analysis of data. during the two audits, it has been the President who determined, collected, and analysed these data. as a qmr, i hav focused only on aligning work instructions. do i need to study statistical analysis?

with these thoughts posted, i hope to be able to continue this interaction.:thanks:

I'm pretty sure most employment agencies with a successful business plan are employer-centric.

To me, this means absolutely assuring they understand exactly what the job description is and can identify employee characteristics to match that description.

The next most important thing is to develop a screening system that will match candidate with opening for the most efficient process of the agency.

Next is to recruit a large enough pool of candidates to achieve compatible matches with available openings.

Finally, a continual evaluation of the process for possible improvement.

Bells and whistles expected of world class agencies would include training programs for candidates to assure they can indeed meet the customer requirements listed in the job description.

Given practices would include continual evaluation of the interview technique of agency employees and excellent document management to keep track of candidates as they rotate from ship to ship and gain skills. The ideal would be to foster a Mentor relationship with candidates to assure they will return for new assignments, reducing the net cost of recruiting for each candidate.

A company which follows an excellent business plan naturally meets many ISO clauses - the point is to recognize the fit.

:topic: Some folks find great success in training by using DVDs starring an excellent trainer/presenter. It is relatively easy to dub voice over in different languages. The net result is the trainee can learn at own pace, going back at will to repeat material which doesn't "stick" (as demonstrated by test scores on evaluation tests and reviews of trainee's work product.) The trainer need only be available on taping day. Trainees can train individually or in small groups - it is not necessary for them to be brought to a central classroom.

You are absolutely right but also every Employment Agency has the right to play by its own rules, not to mention that every single job has specific requirements. I risk repeating what you have already said but surprisingly these things are never settled enough and we always risk bumping up in arguable contractual clauses.

Engineers Beneficial Association (http://www.d1meba.org/)

You are absolutely right but also every Employment Agency has the right to play by its own rules, not to mention that every single job has specific requirements. I risk repeating what you have already said but surprisingly these things are never settled enough and we always risk bumping up in arguable contractual clauses.

Engineers Beneficial Association (http://www.ktalks.com/meba.htm)Welcome to the Cove!:bigwave:

OK! I'll bite. Why is a software programmer interested in Marine Engineering to the point it was a search topic and incentive to sign up here in the Cove?

Actually, "arguable contract clauses" are a good thing, because it means the parties are involved and care enough to try to work things out via contract. If the clauses are written in stone and not arguable, and thence "changeable" if a good enough argument is made, it is time to look elsewhere to do business.