Hello,

We are a small (15 people) Norwegian company that employs 2 foreigners. The language used to communicate with them is English - a language which is non-native for all. We are developing and at the moment already implementing the QS based on ISO 9001:2000.

I read some of the threads here and I understand that in order to comply with the standard we need to prove that our internal communication, trainings, competence levels and general QS awareness are effective/acceptable for all employees.

The problem that I face now is related to the language all the documentation should be in. Here are the scenarios I am considering. Can you give some opinions on that topic?
1) Procedures and work instructions related to work area of those 2 persons are in English, rest in Norwegian.
Effect: These 2 persons cannot understand OP, WI, Quality manual and other documents. Rest of the organization understands the English documents reasonably well.
2) Procedures and work instructions related to work area of those 2 persons are both in English and Norwegian, rest is in Norwegian.
Effect: Rest of the organization understands all the documents without any problem
3) All the OP and WI are in both languages.
Effect: All in organization understand the documents. Document control work is doubled.

Backgourd facts
a) company has not formally defined the company language. The practice shows it is Norwegian and the part that affects the work of the 2 persons is translated or communicated to them in a separate session.
b) Those do not know Norwegian. Rest do know English, communicate well, but are not comfortable with relating to written English on day-to-day basis (topic was already discussed)
c) as company is small the internal communication, verbal instructions and training are by far the main source of knowledge and competence.

The core question for me is: Can we avoid scenario 3, without non-compliance. We do know that in this case the 2 person will not be able to refer to these documents, they would however have a general knowledge about the processes. Is it sufficient?

... That was a lengthy way to put a question :). I just wanted to make sure all info needed is in place from the beginning.I hope this will not deter you.
This forum has been a great help so far, especially as I am still learning a lot, many questions got answered before I even posted them. It is a great resource.

I would like to ask for some expert knowledge on this matter? :)

Maja34

I would not translate all procedures. You need to take a practical approach. The ISO 9001 standard requires that all employees need to know what to do, need to know what the quality policy is and how they contribute to the objectives. This can be done in an one hour training session from an english speaking person in your company. Document this training and confirm by internal audits that those 2 employees understand their work.

You can also, where possible, consider using photographs as instructions. These are language free!

Hope this helps.

Rob Udo

In all honesty all they need is access to "relevant" documentation, not all. Base your decision on translation on relevancy.

Maja,

This may not be practical, but can you make your proceedures and WI based more on digital photos and/or illustrations and less on words?

I have done that here where English is the official language, but certain departments do not have that as their native language. I have also produced documents that have a few words, that are basically captions for the digital photos that show the process and had those are translated to other languages (a lot less words to have translated then a standard document). It does seem to get the point across so maybe you can try it if your documentation can be relayed in this manner.

As long as you controll these picture based documents in the same manner as your "worded" documents, you have satisfied ISO requirements.
Larry

Thank you for your help.

Rob Udo, I am sure we have this "understanding of work" covered and you give me a good idea how to document it, apart from showing in day-to-day reality.

I was also concerned about situation during audit when an employee needs to refer to the procedure to answer the auditor. In this case the 2 persons in our company would not be able to do that.
I am just voicing (and questioning at the same time) the implicit requirement that lies somewhere in between 4.2.3 d) and e).
Rephrase: Documents should be available at points of use, remain legible

Doesn't in imply that the documents have to be in a language understandable to the users? Hmm... This seems to be the core question here, I think.

Randy, your advice is a positive answer to that question then. It also fits what my common sense was suggesting.

I was just discussing it internally and we are considering going for "transition period" (6 - 12 months) where both languages versions would be maintained. After that these 2 persons should be able to read and understand the relevant documentation in Norwegian. Even though they may not be able to prove good Norwegian skills still at that point.
Do you think this would be good enough?

:thanx:

I've worked in Mexico and have seen the exact issue there that you have. The solutions was as I stated and it worked for them. Additionally the folks who didn't speak the native language (Spanish in this case) were afforded the opportunity to study it (I believed they were using Rosetta Stone and of course normal conversation)

Larry, to be honest, I would very much like to do that. I am however not sure if it is possible in our case, or not sure how to do that.

Most of our WI are about "is items matches criteria a,b,c,d then put it in a location x / plug it in on the production line and run application x"
Basically those are things you cannot really take a photo of, you need word to represent it.
We made a decisions to avoid creating WI that would be so detailed as so to represent a manual job to be done. We consider it a competence of every employee.

In cases it is possible though, we'll try to follow the advice. Thank you.

Maja

Randy/all:

A question on this. As you suggest, it be sufficient to translate the procedures/ work instructions that the operators need to use and refer to on a daily/weekly basis.

Then, for everything else, could you document that the individuals were trained on the procedures? Saying the "majority" could assure the minority was trained (by observing, discussing it with them, testing them, etc.) If there were decent training records showing the individuals demonstrated competency, and they had ready access to somebody who could translate the documents should it be necessary, would that muster?

c) as company is small the internal communication, verbal instructions and training are by far the main source of knowledge and competence.

The core question for me is: Can we avoid scenario 3, without non-compliance. We do know that in this case the 2 person will not be able to refer to these documents, they would however have a general knowledge about the processes. Is it sufficient? God dag, god dag Maja.

In answer to your question, yes you can avoid scenario 3 without non-compliance provided you have means to communicate the requirements to the associates. Here in California, it is quite common for plants to have multiple languages spoken. A savvy auditor realizes that it would be a herculean task to attempt to develop and maintain command media in many languages.

As already mentioned, you can use pictorials and other means to communicate requirements to your work force. Based on the little command I have of Norwegian and what I saw in your website, the types of service you are delivering require an educated workforce and you might use that to your advantage. Remember, besides the minimum documents required by the standard, you have latitude to determine what other documents HAVE to be documented, describing the processes, which, in their absence would affect the quality delivery.

Hope that helps.
Ha det bra.

We are a small (15 people) Norwegian company that employs 2 foreigners. The language used to communicate with them is English - a language which is non-native for all. We are developing and at the moment already implementing the QS based on ISO 9001:2000.


It might be relevant to the discussion to disclose whether the 2 employees are production operators, support personnel or management. Also whether they permanent or contract employees.

Whatever policy you develop for the language issue should be flexible in order to accommodate other individuals you may employ (who may have different language skills).

B.G. Wiehle

It really doesn't matter who they are or what they do, everything is relevant to need and potential impact upon customer satisfaction. Additionally what Sidney has stated is fact. In So Cal I've seen a dozen or more languages in common use and pictorials were indeed widespread.