Question on Training: Should all published procedures and work instructions require that those personnel affected be “Trained” to them and after which, an evaluation of training effectiveness be performed?

Should it be mandated that any time someone writes a work instruction, training has to be provided, evaluations performed and records maintained?

If the answer above is no, what would the distinction be where training is required and not required? What criteria would one use when determining if training is necessary or not?

I believe ISO 9001:2000 required Tier 2 procedures require training. Organizational Tier 2 procedures not required by ISO but necessary should at the very least require some type of awareness training. Finally, some Tier 3 work instructions may require training and some may not.

Yes - Training must be provided and a record or the training must be maintained any time you issue a work instruction or procedure.

Yes - Training must be provided and a record or the training must be maintained any time you issue a work instruction or procedure.I'm not really sure about the need for TRAINING for each new work instruction, but I am absolutely CERTAIN you need to have a competency test for everyone who will perform the activity covered by the WI.

Think of it as similar to taking a PROFICIENCY EXAM to skip to higher level courses in school. If you score sufficiently high on the exam, you can take the next level course without plodding through stuff you already know.

If you had a Work Instruction for high school draftsmen in drafting Engineering documents, would you require graduate Engineers to go through the training? In my opinion, that would be a waste of resources.

This is a hot button for me. I will agree that you need to have training for any new, or modified work instruction. However, that training can be relatively informal, and I would argue that training records are not always required (getting back to that “appropriate” thing). I would also argue that any “competence testing” could be as simple as looking at normal quality and production outputs. Once again, the formality of records of this would be up to you.

I think too many of us try to make this too complicated.

Certainly most of us have expressed opinions on this at one time or another. It occurred to me that when I was trained to "ESD-LEVEL III", I was then certified. Once a year I was required to be retested to maintain my certification. If I failed the test then I was retrained (concurrently).
You see I could not lose my certification! The employer recognized that if I lost my certification they longer could enjoy the "fruits of my labor" so they wrote the procedures in such a manner that it was a closed loop system. Each employee was trained and certifed to the appropriate level (I-IV) and then retested (retrained) each year. This was under MIL-Q-9858A. Would it survive under ISO?
It did work! Each employee, over time, became very conscious of ESD hazards!

I'm not really sure about the need for TRAINING for each new work instruction, but I am absolutely CERTAIN you need to have a competency test for everyone who will perform the activity covered by the WI.
I disagree. The 'training' may be OJT, but people must be trained. I would not put a person at a press, for example, with a new work instruction and not 'train' that person on the instruction (typically their supervisor does this).

On the other hand, I seldom see any type of competency test for same. The closest I typically see is "Show Me" or "You do it once while I watch" or "Do you understand what I just explained to you?"

I think the degree of training and whether or not a competency test is required is situation specific.

I disagree. The 'training' may be OJT, but people must be trained. I would not put a person at a press, for example, with a new work instruction and not 'train' that person on the instruction (typically their supervisor does this).

On the other hand, I seldom see any type of competency test for same. The closest I typically see is "Show Me" or "You do it once while I watch" or "Do you understand what I just explained to you?"

I think the degree of training and whether or not a competency test is required is situation specific. On the other hand, I seldom see any type of competency test for same. The closest I typically see is "Show Me" or "You do it once while I watch" or "Do you understand what I just explained to you?"
In the real world, this kind of competency test may be all that's necessary. Similarly, "training" can be simply giving the worker a copy of the instructions with no hands-on training.

Some organizations take the worker's possession of a driver's license as proof of competency, while others require workers to take a practical exam to show competency to handle the organization's equipment.

However, even if it is only as minimal as Marc describes, I believe it is imperative for the organization to be able to attest to the competency of a worker to perform a task whether or not formal training is part of the equation.

On this point, we may have to agree to disagree!

I think we agree, Wes. My experience in semi-conductor, for example, was operators were trained and then every six months they were retested. This was because one operator screwup could potentially cost upwards of US$100,000.

On the other hand, as I say, take something simple like metal forming - a test for competency every 6 months wouldn't buy much.

I support training to new procedures because it gives a chance for feedback.

Technical writing is not easy. Being clear, direct, and easily understandable by the wide array of users helps to ensure the procedure will be properly followed after the supervisor leaves the area.

The fact that it was written in the first place shows me that it is supposed to be important, there is a value to it and there's a risk of loss should we fail to properly use it. But how many times have we seen overly technical, garbled, or otherwise nonsensical documents and have workers disdain them? Very often, this loop does not get closed or it happens after recognizable loss. Then there is physical loss, but also morale loss that damages further efforts to effectively document processes.

There are lots of small ways to record such training. It doesn't have to be a nuke of a process, but it should be there in some form.

I suggest making the trainees part of the solution, not a detail to be attended to.

I have to take perhaps a little different twist on this subject. Why not train, test/check for competency, and forget the work instruction? In some areas you may want to have a bullet list/flow chart/visual reminder of the process, but I believe that training, supervision, and testing for competency should be more than adequate for many activities.
:2cents:

I have to take perhaps a little different twist on this subject. Why not train, test/check for competency, and forget the work instruction? In some areas you may want to have a bullet list/flow chart/visual reminder of the process, but I believe that training, supervision, and testing for competency should be more than adequate for many activities.
:2cents:

Where possible, sure. Not everything needs to be done with a checklist right there, though I'd say it's good to have one where they know how to get to it (like MSDS). And, depending on how important it is, your way I guess they might have to check up on methods a bit more often. Like you said, it depends on the job.

I have to take perhaps a little different twist on this subject. Why not train, test/check for competency, and forget the work instruction? In some areas you may want to have a bullet list/flow chart/visual reminder of the process, but I believe that training, supervision, and testing for competency should be more than adequate for many activities.


In the TS world, work instructions are mandatory to all jobs that can affect product quality. However, a work instruction may be nothing more than just a print, or a control plan. I've worked with companies that had nothing more than a slip of paper indicating how many to build.

Wow, talk about good timing!

We had an independent Gap Audit conducted a couple of weeks ago, and we had a number of observations, minors, and four majors issued. We knew about and were working on all them (except just partially for one*). Nevertheless, the Gap Audit served its purpose, it certainly raised the awareness level, and will make it more likely that everything is in place prior to the next internal audit and the registration audit which is four weeks away.

* The worse 'offense' was not having a clear specification in our training procedure for skill evaluation and documentation of the same. We talked about the training, about its need, but failed to be specific as far as how we evaluate skills.

We just modified our procedure and added a section describing the new Skill Evaluation form and a matrix that correlates every employee applicable with the skills for which they are qualified.

To create our new "Skill Evaluation" form, we just modified our job descriptions, which include necessary skills, and added a section to allow details of how the operator is evaluated. The evaluation itself is left up to the manager to define, but whatever method (observation, quality output over specified time frame, etc.) is used must be recorded in the form and dated, etc.

Now a question -

Given that the procedure is only a few weeks old, and the section related to skill evaluation is only a few days old, how can we satisfy the registration audit:

Is it OK to 'grandfather' the present operators, who have satisfactorily been doing the work for the past months and years, and put the 'new' procedure in effect for new (or transferred) operators? Or is it necessary to go back and re-evaluate everyone to the new procedure?

Thanks -

Alex

Given that the procedure is only a few weeks old, and the section related to skill evaluation is only a few days old, how can we satisfy the registration audit:

Is it OK to 'grandfather' the present operators, who have satisfactorily been doing the work for the past months and years, and put the 'new' procedure in effect for new (or transferred) operators? Or is it necessary to go back and re-evaluate everyone to the new procedure?

Alex,

I'd say yes, that's fine. It's like any system that you put in after the fact, in my opinion. For us - a good example is APQP. We started with APQP when we were first registered to QS (before my time). We now have new product meetings for anything that's being sent to market for the first time. Did we go back and hold new product meetings for our existing products? No. They were already established at that point. Same goes for training. If your company conducts employee performance reviews, you could use those as evidence that past training was effective. I wouldn't make more work for yourself when you've likely already got plenty to keep yourself busy between now and the audit. Besides, the procedure is being issued now - it doesn't apply before its issue date - I can't see how you could be held responsible to evaluate training according to the new procedure before the new procedure was even issued. (Did that make sense??? :bonk: )

Cheers,
-R.

YES!!

I had not thought about using previous performance evaluations as a sort of evidence for 'before the new procedure', but it sure could be viewed as such.

Thank you!

Alex

YES!!

I had not thought about using previous performance evaluations as a sort of evidence for 'before the new procedure', but it sure could be viewed as such.

Thank you!

AlexHere's a quote from our Quality Manual (note we use "broad brush" and leave details to individual Procedures. The blue stresses are just for this illustration - they don't appear in the QM.) I think the most pertinent part is this:
We qualify and authorize personnel to perform specific tasks based on education, training, and/or experience as required.

6.2.1 General
We select personnel for performing activities or processes based on our perception of their competence to perform the task. Factors of that perception are employee’s education, training, experience, and demonstrated skills. We try to be fair to our employees and to our organization by using an unbiased system to assess and evaluate that competence.

6.2.2 Competence, awareness, and training
6.2.2.1 Competence
We have a system to evaluate people to determine their capability to perform an activity within the organization. We may use these systems to evaluate prospective employees, current employees before they perform a new activity, current employees to determine how well they perform a current activity. Depending on the results of the evaluation, they are hired, approved to perform an activity, or scheduled for training. Where appropriate, we maintain records of these evaluations.

6.2.2.2 Awareness
A major factor throughout our company is stress on how each person’s activity contributes to the success of the organization as a whole, including the interconnecting relationships between the various activities.

6.2.2.3 Training
Training in our company comes from two sources

1) Internal. Administered by authorized trainers following established procedures.

2) External. Administered by competent third party organizations, which may include educational institutions, suppliers of specialized equipment, professional associations.

We have documented procedures to identify personnel training needs and provide for the training of all personnel performing activities throughout our company.

We qualify and authorize personnel to perform specific tasks based on education, training, and/or experience as required.

In appropriate cases, we may require personnel to demonstrate capability before performing an activity by undergoing tests or examinations monitored by supervisors.

Training effectiveness is periodically reviewed by various methods and may include pre- and post-testing, audits or appraisals of performance.

We keep records of training and testing.

Wes,
Excellent! It reads better then most that I have seen.:applause:

The question to to train or not to train has come up many times at my company. We have just developed a training database that will record all training. Trying to decide the format has been challenging. We decided that any job that affects quality, would have training and competency would be proven by testing or observation. If a WI is updated so that testing methods have changed or the frequency of testing has changed, etc, we would train. However, for just a change to procedures, there is no formal training required, but the department supervisor / manager must ensure that anyone in their respective department that is affected by the change, is "trained" or shown the procedure. This type of training will also be recorded.
Is there an ISO requirement that certain "L2" procedures have to be "trained" at a certain frequency? In the past, we have gone over all the L2's at company meetings, but talk about non-value added, it was a nightmare of snoozing and snooring. My contention is that we train people how to access the procedures, notify them of changes and then let each department take care of its own.
By the way, I work in quality - why is it always quality, never HR that takes the lead?!

We use our "Quality Issue" form for new and revised documents - work instruction or otherwise. Page two of the form is a document change checklist which the document administrator or I use in order to not forget stuff like other documents that may be affected, etc. The last item is "Retain evidence of training." What I do is - since I always attach the old rev (when applicable) and the new document with the QI - is review the QI and the changes to the document (or the entire document) with affected personnel. I have them initial the document itself, which is attached to the QI. The QI is followed up for effectiveness - hence the training effectiveness and competency is evaluated.

We are a shop full of skilled tradesmen. With the exception of a few work instructions posted for receiving - necessary because we have one describing general receiving, one for Raw Material, and one for repair evaluations - our work instruction is a print with a router attached. We don't have, for example, a generic work instruction for assembling a ballscrew - that would be silly. However, now that we are subcontracting from FAA Repair Stations - we have to develop specific repair procedures that are approved by the customer, or they supply the repair procedure. We attach the work instruction (which they call the repair procedure) to the router each time we repair that part number, and the router actually calls out the individuals authorized to perform each operation. If there were a change to the repair procedure, training would be conducted with each of these individuals.

If the procedure is is required for product or service qualty, then evidence of competency is required to verify that that personnel actions or the process will meet the quality standards. This is moreso important when you deal with personal safety issues. The type of measurement can very i:e: OJT, checklists, testing, observation. Be prepared to defend your measurement/approval criteria.

See http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=82887

Perfect example, Marc.

...This is moreso important when you deal with personal safety issues.
That is because:
1. To the company it becomes a liability issue with the potential of a lawsuit against the company.
2. To the employee it could cause their death in some circumstances.