:confused:
OK, how are folks dealing with the HR standard 6.2.2 and the documentation/effectiveness of training? I am a training shop of two (Me and I) :vfunny: and I want to do this this right but if someone has a good, yet simple, process I would love to hear about it. We are using AS400 Optimum for our personnel system, but Access or some other data base tool could be an option.

:bigwave:

Thanks

Nav,

We use ABRA software for our personnel system, but you're right, an Access database would also work if you have time to develop something.

Job descriptions will help us:
a) determine the necessary competence ...

We maintain a record of training provided.

We have discussed 2 or 3 different ways to:
c) evaluate the effectiveness of action taken.

Depending on the action taken:
- an exam could be given after training,
- defect trends could be monitored, or
- although more subjective, evaluation of effectiveness could be noted as part of an employee's performance appraisal.

Anyway, you'll get plenty of ideas here,
Welcome to the Cove Forums.

Best Regards,
Hank Fowler

:)

Originally posted by Nav
:
OK, how are folks dealing with the HR standard 6.2.2 and the documentation/effectiveness of training?


Nav,

Do a search with the word "Competency". There's a lot of threads about it. Then do a search with the word "Training". There's tons of stuff on training. Upper right hand corner of your screen, just in case you didn't know. I use it all the time, before I let these experts have a whack at me.:vfunny: :smokin:

We have implemented a lot of the things Hank has.

We have Job Descriptions for Administrative, Management and Engineering personnel and for Production personnel we have Job Training Checklists that they have to complete once hired.

Any training completed after the hired date is recorded on an Employee Training Record and maintained in that personnel file. Depending upon the training the employee may be tested. Most effectiveness is verified and recorded on our Performance Appraisals at the employee's annual review. Our internal Auditors do not have access to completed performance appraisal forms. When an outisde auditor comes in they'll be there for him/her.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nav
:
OK, how are folks dealing with the HR standard 6.2.2 and the documentation/effectiveness of training?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where is the documentation of effectiveness requirement? c) says “evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken”, and e) requires you to maintain records of education, training, skills and experience” One could argue that the documentation of effectiveness of training is built in, but I don’t see it that way. If I have a competency need and fill that need by either hiring, or training, the evaluation might be nothing more than keeping the person on that job (or removing them from that job).

Job descriptions will help identify the competency requirements (maybe), and a formal Skills Management Process might help meet all of the requirements, but for small organizations, you do not have to add any additional loads to your documentation. Even records, the key word there is “appropriate”. I would not generate any additional records just to satisfy the auditor. If your system is working, don’t constrict it with additional requirements that are not there.

All of course IMHO

Originally posted by Nav ...OK, how are folks dealing with the HR standard 6.2.2 and the documentation/effectiveness of training?...

At our company: For each position here we have a skills and qualification requirement form used during hiring evaluations and annual performance reviews. For Manufacturing positions this is then followed up by OTJ training which includes training evaluation by both the area supervisor, the training coordinator, and the new employee. For other positions - it is less structured. The manager over positions is responsible for detailing the goals for his/her staff and annual evaluations of performance to those goals (as well as any specified by the employee).

We also use an Access database for employee history, including a training section which can be used to track by either subject/training class {facilitator, date held, who attended, synopsis} or by employee {what training they had and when}. This has been effective for us.

Eileen

We're a small organization, less than 50 people, that fears any additional paperwork like the plague.

We kicked around various ideas to substantiate the effectiveness of training such as post-training testing, supervisor evaluations, and others. Finally settled on an idea I picked up at a local professional society meeting where the speaker was an ISO auditor. We will use the results of internal audits to substaniate training effectiveness. Making sure that somehwere in the audit report there is a phrase such as "for those audited at this time, training in this procedure has been effective..." or "..additional training reccomended".

Note, we haven't gone through our certification audit for 9001:2000 yet, so I don't know how our auditor will view this.

Internal audits are one of several good sources, but I would make sure you don't limit yourself to one methodology. I doubt that internal audits alone would fly.

Originally posted by energy

Do a search with the word "Competency". There's a lot of threads about it. Then do a search with the word "Training". There's tons of stuff on training.Yup - and don't forget to search on "effectiveness". The forums search engine has an 'and' function, so if you input "training and effectiveness" (without the quotes) it will only turn up posts with both words together.

I typically start by searching All Forums by Title (there's an option you'll see which says "Search titles only").

Here are a few more possible answers. First, the standard does not say documentation is required, only appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience. But to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken, consider normal Quality indicators; reject/scrap rates, customer complaints, etc. Anything that can distinguish whether someone can do the job, or not might be sufficient. Some of this stuff, you might already be recording. Additional paperwork requirements should be nil.

Hi Nav,

This is what I have done.

1. All Job Description 'Responsibilities' area recognised as being the competencies required. After all, if they have a responsibility documented, they need to be competent to perform that task.

2. Each 'Responsibility' will have tick boxes allocated to it. On the left hand side it will be for induction for new employees. On the right hand side there is two - one for 'Competent' and the other for 'Training Required'. These will be assessed at the annual perfromance reviews.

3. A training plan will be compiled from the identified 'Training Required'

4. Training Effectiveness will be evaluated either at perfromance reviews, interviews with the employee or monitoring job perfromance through errors or audits as required.

This is a simple method for us to maintain and still be 'effective' in what we do.
:p

Hello

Everyone has a lot of great ideas. But I am curious. Does anybody actually have their certificatio in ISO 9K:2K? I'm just wondering. Plus, has anyone had any experiences with their auditor not approving how they documented competency. That is my concern right now. Some of our technically skilled guys probably know more about, well technial stuff, than most of us, but don't ask them to write a test. I was thinking that performance reviews should be sufficient, plus we monitor NCR's and internal auditing. That satisfies me, but I'm not my registrar.

Any comments?

FG
:confused: :confused: :confused:

We are planning to continue to use our job descriptions as the basis for competency. They are very comprehensive and layed out to merge well with these new requirements (only by luck not planning). As employees are hired or get promoted/transfered to a new job we are adding to our current training checklists areas that must be demonstrated competencies. These items will be signed by the trainer and the employee. As a final step the shift supervisor or trainer will verify the competency of the individual.

Other measures will be the quality data that is already collected and some new things we are going to be looking to add to the quality process.

In the future we are also going to be adding a piece for employees who only do a task only a couple of times a year, ie: cover a different machine for vacations, etc. There will be a review sheet for the supervisor/trainer to verify competnency in these rare cases.

:thedeal:

Hello

6.2.2 d) ensure that personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives

WHAT? How in the heck do I do that? Is it enough that I explain the big flow chart matrix thing so they see how their job fits into the scheme of things? Am I out in left field here?

Any help would be great!

Thanks.

FG

Fire Girl,

A lot of this requirement as I see it, fits into the "warm and fuzzies" as I see it. Not only pointing out the "here you are in the big flowchart" , I think that managers, supervisors, and of course you can influence this a lot by your culture. The kinds of conversations that remind everyone how they influence all the other functions, their part in customer satisfaction, etc. We keep telling everyone that while we have a sales department that takes the orders, they are the ones who ultimately influence the customer by providing the best product possible.

Originally posted by db
But to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken, consider normal Quality indicators; reject/scrap rates, customer complaints, etc. Anything that can distinguish whether someone can do the job, or not might be sufficient. Some of this stuff, you might already be recording. Additional paperwork requirements should be nil.

db,

Devil's advocate time:eek:

I like the concept. But, according to most of the learned folks posting here, employee errors are unacceptable excuses for answering CAR's. This acknowledges that it is real and the excuse is real and that additional training is required. No? Do I make up an acceptable response worded like "The operator needs more training in counting parts?" He made an error and it got caught :bonk: :ko: :smokin:

> I like the concept. But, according to most of the learned
> folks posting here, employee errors are unacceptable
> excuses for answering CAR's. This acknowledges that it is
> real and the excuse is real and that additional training
> is required. No? Do I make up an acceptable response
> worded like "The operator needs more training in counting
> parts?" He made an error and it got caught

I think you're twisting the thread theme / confusing the issue. I think we were discussing employee errors with respect to answering CARs in another recent thread --> http://16949.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4168

This thread is more about Training Competency and related Documentation and proof thereof. With respect to the thread topic I agree with:

> But to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken,
> consider normal Quality indicators; reject/scrap rates,
> customer complaints, etc. Anything that can distinguish
> whether someone can do the job, or not might be
> sufficient. Some of this stuff, you might already be
> recording. Additional paperwork requirements should be
> nil.

and a number of other similar responses.

Originally posted by Marc
http://16949.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4168[/url]
This thread is more about Training Competency and related Documentation and proof thereof. With respect to the thread topic I agree with:


Yea, I did stray a bit. But, if an operator can be measured for incompetence by using a CAR, for example, the response may well be "Operator Incompetence". How does that sit with the people that do not like "Operator Error"? He didn't make a mistake. He's just a dolt.:vfunny: Just trying to make sense out of who's the judge between error and incompetence. I must be getting rusty:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

IMHO

I don't think the issue is really being twisted too far. We are still kind of on topic here. It seems that auditors perhaps like the best of both worlds. On one hand they tell us that 'operator error' as a root cause for an NCR or whatever, is unacceptable. And on the other they tell us that we need to document competency. I think the NCR should be quite an obvious red flashing light to the fact that perhaps this operator is incompetent. Which to me spells training issue. I do think that sometimes people have dumbhead moments. I have several a day!:biglaugh:

It seems to be that the key to documenting competency is thru a variety of methods. And chances are, that most of us are probably already doing something that qualifies as documentation of competency.

But that's just me.

FG

As we go through our evaluation of why a product is not meeting the quality standard set we look at all the aspects. Machines, initial products being used and their quality, and operator factors. If it is determined that it is operator error, then we will "retrain":eek: the person. If the quality does not go up to standards, then the person maybe, "a dolt":bonk: . Then we begin or continue the process to correct them or terminate them.

Sometimes the tendency is to take the easy way out and say it's the person and not look for the root cause of the problem. What helps us is that we also look at the quality factors from the machine when other operators are using it. This can drive the quality folks a little crazy :ko:. Especially when the error can't be traced back to a particular piece, or fact. But that's the fun :D of dealing with quality issues.

Originally posted by Nav
If it is determined that it is operator error, then we will "retrain":eek: the person. Sometimes the tendency is to take the easy way out and say it's the person and not look for the root cause of the problem.

So, you determine that it is operator error. Do you respond with that reason? True, further training is required. The biggee here is using that term. Personally, to say otherwise is to ignore the real cause. No one ever suggested that you do not perfom a fullblown root cause analysis. But, sometimes, all indicators are that it was a mistake. To suggest that Operator Error is unacceptable is to deny the fact that mistakes do occur. To suggest that re-training is necessary every time that an error is made, is to suggest that the evaluator never makes an error. Where do these people come from? :ko: :smokin:

Sorry, I'm pretty new to the ISO stuff. The Quality manager and I have been talking about all this and I got the same statement from him for the ISO standards. I think the door is opening a little on people error with the issue of competency being addressed in 2000.

My learning curve is steep, but I'm climbing fast. And at times :frust: happens.

Nav

Originally posted by Fire Girl
Hello
Everyone has a lot of great ideas. But I am curious. Does anybody actually have their certification in ISO 9K:2K? I'm just wondering. Any comments?
FG
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Hi Y'all,

Nobody has responded to FG's inquiry about actual certification/registration. I, too, am curious. Could it be that we talk the talk but haven't walked the walk? Let's hear it.:ko: :smokin: Vote in the new poll!

http://16949.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4208

From your poll it appears some of us are 'walking the walk'. :thedeal:

Originally posted by Marc
From your poll it appears some of us are 'walking the walk'. :thedeal:

That's too funny!:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by energy

That's too funny!:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin: Please do explain. It appears a number of us have successfully gone through 1 or more 'upgrade' registrations. Is that not 'walking the walk'?

Originally posted by Marc
Please do explain. It appears a number of us have successfully gone through 1 or more 'upgrade' registrations. Is that not 'walking the walk'?

While it wasn't listed in the poll content, this thread makes reference to "walked the walk" to registration and those of us who "talk the talk" because we haven't achieved certification. I know there a lot of us. When you changed the "walked" to "walking", I thought "Hey,that's a new catagory". Like we're talking and walking! I still think it's funny!:p :ko: :smokin:

Ah! Now I understand.