I am currently reviewing my company's training program and I also just finished reviewing an excellent thread here regarding position descriptions for training.

HOWEVER.....let me back the cart up one moment. Does anybody have any suggestions or comments regarding how to determine positions/titles in the first place? (he asks as he throws the meat out to the piranhas:vfunny: )

When I started the training program a while back, I asked employees to define their titles for the tasks they perform and a brief job description. It's amazing how pomp and circumstance some people made their positions. I guess it is somewhat encouraging to note that no one used "King" or "Emperor" in their title although there were a few that came close.

Would using the philosophy of, 'Use titles and organize positions similar to what you would do if you were placing a want-ad', be too simplistic?

We are a small company where people wear many hats. Should position title/descriptions be down to the nth detail? (I have a feeling somebody is going to say "Keep it simple and do what works for you").

Also should positions such as "Security Manager" and "Benefits Manager" be included seeing they are not directly part of the quality system?

The bottom line is my training system is not working well and is performed to meet the ISO requirement versus actually used for value. IMHO it is too bogged down in detail and needs to be simplified.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Okay people, let me have it

HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA!

I've seen these job title wars before! What a hoot. All of a sudden the clerk becomes a data entry specialist.

My suggestion:
Gather up everyones' suggestion for their job title like you have done. Then get a team of level headed supervisors/managers to review them. Have the team create the official titles, using your org chart (if you already have it) as a model.

If you allow peoples emotions and inflated sense of self worth to rule your decisions, you will have a job title for every person on your payroll, and some will have two. If titles are that important to these people, I'm sure you can find some terminology that is acceptable. Data Entry Coordinator, instead of Data Entry Clerk, etc.

Personnally, I never have understood the big deal, I don't care what you call me, as long as I get my check on time:biglaugh: I've been called worse things in my life than clerk or janitor, and as the quality police, I spend a lot of time cleaning up others' messes:eek:

I had to laugh to myself as I read your question and Steelmaiden's reply as I've seen the same type of stuff happen regarding job titles and descriptions. The old joke about a gas-station attendant being a "Fuel Dispersement Engineer" ain't too far off of what happens sometimes. However, a couple of quick thoughts from my little brain: First, realize (which I think you do already from reading your post) that many people feel titles really are important for many reasons. For example, at a gathering it is nice to answer with something important-sounding when asked "so what do you do?". Imagine if you will being the guy or gal who has to pump out Sani-Pots for a living (ugh!). If I were that person I'd much rather have the title "Waste Management Technician" or something else flowery like that than "Portable Toilet Cleaner". You get my drift. So, when I participated in job title and description work at a previous company I reviewed existing job titles and descriptions used by other companies by doing a 'net search for "job descriptions". I used these lists to get started and modified them as needed to fit our business, always keeping in mind the need for the employees to have a title that was at least somewhat important-sounding.

Next, don't get too specific or IMHO it'll come back to haunt you with that oft-used phrase "that ain't in my job description". The "...and other duties as required" phrase helps here, too, especially in small companies where one person has many hats to wear like mine and apprently yours, too. I focus on the main duties I want that person to accomplish, not the specifics. During regular performance reviews the job description and title should be reviewed to make sure it is still appropriate.

Instead of first asking people what they think their title and duties should be I instead suggested what I thought was right and asked them if it sounded okay, making changes if I missed something important. This seemed to avoid most of the "I want to be 'Director of Purchasing' arguments from a 'Purchasing Clerk'. If you ask first, and they want something high falutin' for a title, you may crush morale a bit when you give them something less grandios.

And of course, your KISS and make it work for you is ALWAYS good advice.

Steve

Hey RCW

I also work for a small company, with employees who wear many hats. I let them do most of their job descriptions. I took a lot of stuff out, because I don't think they need to list every little itty bitty thing they might do once. Myself and management chose titles. Lord help me if I let them pick their titles. I would end up with Czar of the toolroom and Princess of Production for sure!!

Definitely keep it simple. For extra :ca: I always add at the bottom, "Any other duties assigned by the plant manager". Always works for me!

Anyway, I got some ideas from somebody in here. I can always send you a copy if you like. Let me know.

Fire Girl

Originally posted by Sbell
Instead of first asking people what they think their title and duties should be I instead suggested what I thought was right and asked them if it sounded okay, making changes if I missed something important. This seemed to avoid most of the "I want to be 'Director of Purchasing' arguments from a 'Purchasing Clerk'. If you ask first, and they want something high falutin' for a title, you may crush morale a bit when you give them something less grandios.

And of course, your KISS and make it work for you is ALWAYS good advice.

Steve

Yep, Steve, my first step would have been creating titles, but since the masses have already put their bid in, you just gotta start there and try to do some "damage control".

I personnally consider my job title "The Queen of Everything" or "Most High Priestess of All Things"

As we were recently going through our ISO 94 certification...(I know Marc, I know...why 94)...and the answer is...

But at any rate in the QA group we had our training folders all ready and the first thing the auditor looked as was our Job Descriptions. They are the standard one-page phraseology out of HR that this big company uses for this level of position. They are different from entry level to Senior Staff, etc so requirements change as you progress.

Our auditor gave us an observation on the description not being detailed enough...wanted more day to day tasking kind of stuff in it.

Is this not another one of those cases where the auditor went to far in his finding, personal oppinion vice the standard requirement?

So my question is as we get ready for our 2000 cert should we have to expand these documents or since it works for us will that be good enough to meet the standard?

Thanks.

Actually, I don't think that it says anywhere that you have to have "job descriptions" it does state that you have to determine the necessary competence. Job descriptions are kind of a logical sequence, right?

As far as whether or not yours were detailed enough depends on whether the auditor found that there was a lack of assignment of responsibility/authority, lack of training, or that competence was not established.

For what ever it is worth, here is an example of things I have placed in job descriptions in the past:
Receptionist
Min. requirements:
High School Diploma or equiv.
Good Phone/Communications Skills
Ability to work as a team member

Skills (either present upon hiring or to be developed):
Type 60 wpm
Familiarty with 10 key calculator
Computer Skills
Competency in use of Microsoft Office Applications
Familiarity with product line

Job Description:
Answer phones and direct calls to appropropriate area
New Customer Mailings
File shipping paperwork
Member of Customer Focus Team (or any group that this person would be a part of by definition of their job title)
Type letters, reports, etc. as may be required for operations
Other clerical duties as may be assigned
and so forth and so on.

The thing to remember is, you need to make this all work for you. What I do, or what your auditor thinks you should do, means little or nothing if it doesn't add value. We did it this way because it allowed us to create a checklist for training, as well as an easy way to assess competency.

Good luck!

Hey, does anybody out there tie their quality procedures and work instructions into their training requirements?

Just curious because I have a training/document control program from my ISO consultant that will prompt when training is required after a document has been rev'ed.

Most of the position requirements I have seen have not mentioned anything about training against a procedure / work instruction / industry specification.

Any opinions?

We have a matrix that shows what jobs/people need to be notified when revisions are made. We are in the process of creating a database for doc control that will automatically show a message on log on for all revised documents (or new or deleted) depending upon one's log on - job title.

We have taken our "Skill Sets" and developed the training requirements from them. This training/Work Instructions package is maintained and as they aquire a skill it is signed off and the WI is no longer needed to be referenced.

As for job titles; use whatever is easiest to reference and makes sense when viewed on an org chart (I guess that's why they don't let me use Bodacious Bubba). We still have some TBDs on ours!
:vfunny: :bonk: :smokin:

training is a difficult element to grab hold of ....everyone thinks they have it, BUT few do it well. :eek:

the identify the needs part is the worst (looking "in' as the auditor)

personally, i dislike job descriptions for this. They are a tool to get there ....MAYBE...but most are not worth the paper they are written on. IMHO ......They all should just simply state "keep the monkey off my bosses back"

Re: Titles......they are an ego trip too, and assigned/upgraded to hold the old carrot out there with no $$$$$...again .... just my humble Opinion...I stay away from them, and giggle to myself as I watch the reactions to that. I say give me the the authority/freedom to get the job i am measured on done right.....call me anything but late to dinner.

I think training needs should be tied directly to tasks and what is needed to become proficient/expert at those tasks. Job descriptions should assign responsibilities and verbage should be general. Updates to procedures should tie to doc control approval/review/distribution and be driven from there. Performance review sets future goals/needs for advancement(more job titles???????). But then, who am I ? just another soul with an opinion. Been there, done that ...have the t shirt. Do it enough and you form very bias opinions.....sorry


X!!3@$$%$4,,,,,,,ow.......I TRIPPED FALLING OFF MY SOAP BOX

Originally posted by SteelMaiden
We have a matrix that shows what jobs/people need to be notified when revisions are made. We are in the process of creating a database for doc control that will automatically show a message on log on for all revised documents (or new or deleted) depending upon one's log on - job title.

SteelMaiden, could you please elaborate on what you are doing?
What are you using to generate the datebase? I like what you are saying and hope that I might set up something similar here.

Originally posted by SteelMaiden
We have a matrix that shows what jobs/people need to be notified when revisions are made. We are in the process of creating a database for doc control that will automatically show a message on log on for all revised documents (or new or deleted) depending upon one's log on - job title.

It sounds like SteelMaiden is way ahead of where most companies are in the training area and tying it to doc revisions. I too would like to see some detail as to how she does it. (Maybe she really is "The Queen of Everything" or "Most High Priestess of All Things"...

As far as tying training to quality procedures and work instructions at our small company, we have to do everything manually for now (cutting-edge we are not in the quality system area). We don't have formal written training records for every simple little task (the Dept. Manager determines competence and assignments), but in my mind if a process is complex enough to require a written procedure or work instruction it deserves some degree of formal training and a formal record of that training. We "certify" our people to perform the process described by the work instruction. We use 2 levels of certification, "Certified Operator" and "Certified Trainer". You have to define who will be your first Certified Trainers to get started -- we picked the Department Manager and the Engineer(s) responsible for support of that process as being Certified Trainers by definition. They can train other trainers and Certified Operators. All cetrtifications, after review of the written doc. and training as needed, are in written records maintained by the Dept. Manager. If a work instruction is revised, it is the responsibility of the Dept. Manager to review the changes with his/her people and, if the changes are significant, do re-training and re-certification.

This is probably far from an ideal route to take and I look forward to seeing others' ideas for doing it better, easier, faster.

Mike

Originally posted by Mike S.
If a work instruction is revised, it is the responsibility of the Dept. Manager to review the changes with his/her people and, if the changes are significant, do re-training and re-certification.


This is how I described it in our doc control process also, Mike. It is up to the Mgrs. to review the changes and "determine and provide training as necessary". Seems the easiest way to do it IMHO.

In my former company we used a spreadsheet matrix similar to what SteelMaiden describes, and so I also incorporated it into our doc control here - at least it's there in theory since we haven't had to use it yet.

When someone is hired they are assigned to Group categories according to status (manager or not) and department. This assignment is maintained in a personnel log and the person is added into that Group's email. Then on the doc control Master List there is a column that says which Groups are affected bya change to each document and must be notified. Top mgt. is always notified. When a document is revised, we will send the document change notice by email to the affected Groups.

It's a natural progression to say that since they are affected by certain procedures , you can reasonably expect their training program to be based on those procedures.

I like the combination of Randy's skill set checkoffs, and someone else's idea of calling work instructions "training aids". I've been thinking of changing the structure and heirarchy of what we've been calling procedures, based on this idea. It seems to me that "training aids" would only have to be reviewed and revised whenever a new person is hired for a position as opposed to revising them everytime the details of how something is done is changed.

It has worked well for us Lucinda. The biggest benefit was in the Calibration/Validation area. We do not have company owned gages here, everything is employee owned. Well no one was willing to say we will pay to have their mic, etc. calibrated, so we went to validating them. To make a long story short, we comply with the QS standard but all gage blocks are sent out to be calibrated and our Qual Techs are trained in the validation process. The work instruction is part of their training so it is available but doens't have to be referenced, etc., etc.
:D

Ok, guys, better late than never!

I am not a programmer, so I can't be sure that my info will help you or not. We are creating a document tracking Access Database application. Similar to some of the ones that you see ...you know the ones that you enter all your documents in and then to revise them a person would "check out" a copy, make changes and forward through the approval command?

Anyway, once everyone else that needs to approve them does so, they come back to me to "publish" on the intranet/tracking application.

Each document has record(s) that are associated with it that show the approval routing i.e. approver 1 = widget supervisor, approver 2 = plant manager, etc. plus records that list all jobs that are/might be affected by the document. As soon as a document is implemented for the first time, or is revised, a notice is posted on the "log in" screen of our application. So, if you are the widget supervisor and you log in today, there may be a listing of the following docs:
XYZ123, Widget Packaging
XYZ234, Control of Nonconforming Widgets

Each document would be linked and you will be required to read (at least open it and pretend, :rolleyes: ) it. Once you have read the document, the program takes it off of your notification list. If a person has not cleared his notification list by the time he submits his time card (through the same document tracking system) the supervisory person will be notified that John Doe has documents that have not been read, and then the supervisor can hold approval until they are reviewed

SteelMaiden Exalted Extraordinaire, :bigwave:

Thank You! It sounds like you will have a great means for keeping everyone informed to changes in your documentation. Now it is time for me to go lean on our IT department.:frust: You have given me good fuel.:thedeal: Again thank you.

Jim,

Good luck! I think it will be great when we get it done. I will no longer have to re-key in everyones stuff, they'll just do it themselves and I get to do the things I was hired for! Like managing the system:rolleyes:

Originally posted by RCW
.....let me back the cart up one moment.

Exactly. Do you have an organisational structure that is clear and understood?
Then sort out titles.
Then job descriptions.
Then authority schedule/matrix
etc
etc
Then Training!