I have a department manager who is developing a training matrix for his department and he asked me if it should be approved into the QMS.

My :2cents: is "no", since he will be using it as a tool and guide to determine the training needs of his people, and it will updated on an ongoing and frequent basis. He also asked if it would be acceptable to put a note in each of his people's training files stating that a matrix for his department exists and is maintained in his office, should an ISO auditor wish to see it.

I'm just curious to see what my fellow Covers say....Comments anyone?
:thanks:

If by "approved" you mean should it be a controlled document, I would say no. However, it would be a quality record.

I personnally have all training matrices and also compentency matrices as part of the quality system.

Why? It made it VERY easy to show what people were trained in (signoffs, dates, etc.) as well as how we assess the effectiveness of the training and an individuals compentency level for a particular task.

Our auditors are VERY picky about how we train and how we determine when re-training is required. I can tell you that it made it MUCH easier to show the effectiveness of the system as a whole.

We were actually commended by the audit team on how our training program is structured and matured compared to other systems they see.

If by "approved" you mean should it be a controlled document, I would say no. However, it would be a quality record.

Yes, by "approved" I mean controlled document. And yes, I did tell the manager that it would become a quality record. :agree1:

Thanks, Duke!

We had the same situation here when an auditor was all but demanding a training matix.
We said "no".

The first reason is that the training records are kept as quality records and the auditor was able to find the training record he was searching for.
The second reason is that we maintain a training database that includes training dates and re-training required by dates where applicable. We maintained this database is, in fact, a training matrix. It's just not a controlled document but it is backed by the training records.

If you're not using a database to track training I'd recommed a matrix for easy reference. But I would control the form not necessarily the content as your training records should be enough.

We had the same situation here when an auditor was all but demanding a training matix.
We said "no".

The first reason is that the training records are kept as quality records and the auditor was able to find the training record he was searching for.
The second reason is that we maintain a training database that includes training dates and re-training required by dates where applicable. We maintained this database is, in fact, a training matrix. It's just not a controlled document but it is backed by the training records.

If you're not using a database to track training I'd recommed a matrix for easy reference. But I would control the form not necessarily the content as your training records should be enough.


This is similar to our situation. Thanks, Discordian! :thanx:

Hi Gidget!
We have some interesting answers, as always - and I recently 'bumped' into a similar situation. Based on that experience, I'd say 'yes' the documentation, however it's used, should be part of the qms, approved and controlled - here's why: -

It's not a case of whether ISO says so, or an auditor demands it. It's more important to look at this in terms of a value added process of the organization. If a manager is using a tool to identify training needs, planning to fulfill those training actions (so identified) and keep records of training completed, then that is value-added.

If those documents are not formally part of the business management (read quality) system, then they have little chance of being sustained, regardless of who is in the management 'chair'.

Countless times, a manager has developed an informal, but effective system, only to move on. The next manager then may create or develop 'their' system.

My experience was with a (truly awful) manager who wanted to change everything, simply because she 'didn't like it'. Her staff all went through performance evaluations, which where done on 'unapproved' forms. Now they have to be done over, since the 'approved method' wasn't used and she's moved on (fired, as it turns out!!). All the evals were done to the wrong criteria on the wrong form.

This type of thing is causing huge costs all around.

The processes, tools and forms etc., should be part of the qms to allow controls over these situations and to stop 'churn, cost and confusion.
O.K so it may not be a huge volumes of wasted effort, but hey, we all complain about being 'lean' and having too much to do, so it has to stop somewhere.

Andy

training matrix format and 'rules of use' are in our QMS as controlled forms/work instructions. We do have stringent rules around how many people must be trained to mainatin proper staff levels and we color code the actuals vs required staff levels.
Red means not enough people trained to maintain daily capacity / takt time.
Yellow means enough people trained including vacation levels and past absenteeism to ensure meeting takt time. (yellow because any excursion above the average attendance rate will result in not enough coverage). Green is enough to cover all but a catastrophic event (ice storm, flu epidemic...) and suprisingly this doesnt' yield to too many people trained!

The filled out matrix is NOT a quality record. it is used as a daily tool for the managers and supervisors.

We DO have separate training records that are signed and filed in the indiviual's file. Teh training record is a form under doc control and for many operations is part of teh work instruction since we have qualification and test requirements documented on the form or WI....

We do have stringent rules around how many people must be trained to mainatin proper staff levels and we color code the actuals vs required staff levels.
Red means not enough people trained to maintain daily capacity / takt time.
Yellow means enough people trained including vacation levels and past absenteeism to ensure meeting takt time. (yellow because any excursion above the average attendance rate will result in not enough coverage). Green is enough to cover all but a catastrophic event (ice storm, flu epidemic...) and suprisingly this doesnt' yield to too many people trained!



Great idea - I'm a strong fan of colour coding, which really makes things simple & is well received by management. I use them in audit reports, but hadn't thought of applying them in this way. Thanks. I seem to be missing something though - what is 'takt' time?

takt time = the customer demand rate.
required number of shipments (orders) in a given time period / the number of available work time in the same period. Usually expressed as 1 unit every XX minutes...
this enables a line to know how much time each individual operation should take for each unit.