ISO is putting an emphasis on employee competence in their revised specifications.

How would you evaluate the competence of an employee?

How would you document the competence of an employee?


And finally...who in your opinion shall determine if an employee is competent

Employer or auditor?

Ok… I’ll bite….

Evaluate:

I would ask myself if the employee is able to perform the task at hand. If so, you have a competent employee.

Document:

Lack of competence should lead to a training and / or education plan.

Determine:

The employer hired the person, in order to get a job done. The employer shall also determine the necessary competence for the employee. Of course the auditor can voice an opinion, but the employer must determine if the employee is competent.

/Claes

Ken,

I agree with Claes.

You probably already do this so don't sweat it. The employer, usually the employee's trainer, supervisor or manager, determines competence. Can they do the job properly?

To document, we do a simple form where we list the employee's name, the task(s) they are "certified" or "authorized" to perform, the trainer's/certifier's name, date, and signatures.

Make sense?

I'm writing a procedure to cover Section 5.2 in ISO 17025.

We currently do a yearly employee evaluation. It covers job performance, goals accomplished, job responsibility priorites, an assessment of potential, training / educational needs, goals for upcoming evaluation period.

So I guess we have everything covered. I'll just insert a link to the form we use.



I always get this nightmarish scenario running through my mind before an audit. As we're going through the audit, the auditor screams out..."you incompetent *******!"

Ken,

Understood about the stress.

All I would add is a reference to how you evaluate employee competence in the beginning -- when deciding whether or not to hire -- and then how you decide when they can start to make product/do their assigned tasks on their own (before the first yearly evaluation). Then I think you're covered, but I'm not familiar with ISO 17025. Good luck.

Hey Ken,

If you are doing yearly employee appraisals then you probably have competence covered.

I had a problem because our Union contract does not allow annual performance reviews. :frust: Therefore, we had no appraisal format.

My management kept pointing to training records, thinking that training alone makes you competent. It took awhile to get the message across that being able to do the minimum tasks required for a job makes you qualified…being able to perform those tasks effectively over time makes you competent. You cannot determine competency the day that training is completed.

We came up with a simple 1 page form that is filled out by the Floor Supervisor once a year to cover it. It doesn't violate the contract, and it isn't a review. It's just documentation.

For the training part of the new hire competency we modified our training checklist to add a column the supervisor or senior operator doing the training initials indicating the individual demonstrated the skill properly.

On our annual performance appraisals we added a line on the sign off sheet the employee and supervisor signs that says the employee is competent in thier job. If the employee is not competent, then there is an area to develop a training plan.

So all we did was add a column and a line. We did also talk with the supervisors and the senior operators to let them know what the expectations were for the new areas. We got little to no resistance to the changes. :D

I have a client that has about 20 folks. They built a matrix showing the tasks and the names and then rate the employees on each task (whether they perform it or not). The rating is:

0 = Unaware of task
1 = They have awareness, but cannot perform
2 = They can perform, but need supervision
3 = They can perform without supervision
4 = They can instruct others

A number 4 doesn’t have to be an expert, and a number 3 might be an expert. To get to number 4 the employee must be able to show they have the ability to train others (patience, communicative skills, etc)

That is the only documentation they have, unless someone attends a class and comes back with a piece of paper. The supervisors are responsible for deciding who is at what level and changing the level as time progresses.

More confusion!!! 6.2.1 tells one that you should be competent on the basis of the 4 listings. So, a signoff that you hired based on 1 or more of the 4 competencies (e.g. hired a welder based on his welding cert.). 6.2.2 b) or take other actions to satisify these needs. What are other actions?? C) says you must evaluate the effectiviness of actions taken. So, if you read the standard if one trains and takes no other actions, no evaluation needed. Just one take on it and of course the employer determines competence.

Every situation is different, and Registrars have varying interpretations, however...

I believe that competency has to be evaluated from time to time. Situations change: people get moved to other jobs and get rusty, people age and lose agility (I can attest to that one!):biglaugh: and tools, materials, and technology change. One time training will not ensure that the trainee remains competent over time.

That's why we have to renew certifications and licenses periodically.

So an approach that relies on a static assessment doesn't really address the issue of competency over time. I think to meet the spirit of the requirement, we must have a periodic method for determining competency.

I believe that competency has to be evaluated from time to time. Situations change: people get moved to other jobs and get rusty, people age and lose agility (I can attest to that one!) and tools, materials, and technology change. One time training will not ensure that the trainee remains competent over time.

Excellent point RosieA. Couldn't agree more.

They built a matrix showing the tasks and the names and then rate the employees on each task

Good idea Dave. This will work especially well for test methods and specifications the lab technicians use.

RosieA said:

I believe that competency has to be evaluated from time to time. Situations change: people get moved to other jobs and get rusty, people age and lose agility (I can attest to that one!):biglaugh: and tools, materials, and technology change. One time training will not ensure that the trainee remains competent over time.



Absolutley true, Rosie.

Implementing a new technology on a large scale (Like swapping to an entirely new process) could render the competence of the entire staff obsolete, and make massive traning and/or education efforts necessary.

And please, don't get me started on lost agility :vfunny: .

/Claes

I believe that competency has to be evaluated from time to time

I kinda disagree here, well maybe not disagree, but I think competency needs to be evaluated on a continual, on-going basis. Folks lose skills gradually, and depending on the frequency of the evaluation, there could be too long of a gap in the evaluation. This is especially true in changing circumstances such as new processes, job change, etc.

db makes a good point I think. Our training/competence procedure basically states that after a person is deemed qualified to perform certain tasks their performance is continually monitored by their Supervisor/Manager by direct observation of their work, by review of inspection records, customer complaints, etc. as well as during the yearly "review". Their qualified status remains in place unless/until the Supervisor/Manager finds evidence of loss of ability or poor performance, or the employee volunteers that they need some remedial training, or until a significant process change is made which automatically triggers new training and re-qualification. It seems to incorporate the best of both worlds -- no unnecessary action is taken simply because of a passage of a certain amount of time (wasted time/money) but action is taken, regardless of time passage, if there is evidence of need.

Mike, this is an excellent example of developing a system that meets the requirements and meets your needs as well.

I kinda disagree here, well maybe not disagree, but I think competency needs to be evaluated on a continual, on-going basis.


Dave, don't you feel employee's are evaluated on a continual basis, but it's only officially documented, say, once a year?

I highly doubt if an employee's performance drops or job skills diminish, a manager would wait until their review comes up to discuss it.

Dave, don't you feel employee's are evaluated on a continual basis, but it's only officially documented, say, once a year?

I'm not certain I am in favor of officially documenting performance once a year. The standard doesn't require it, so unless you have some business need, why do it? My post was because I hear folks say that annual performance reviews are the only way to evaluate the "effectiveness of the action taken". I havn't have a performance review in three years (and that is when raises are administered). Perhaps that's why I'm kinda dow on them. ;)

I think that this whole competence issue( i think that it should be evaluated on a regular basis) is laying the way for more certification schemes for professional certification. When you see competence and skills mentioned, I think of $$$$$ schemes and continual education. I think the standard is heading toward the continual learning beyond your four cores mentioned in 6.2.1, which is excellent but am sure it will be exploited.

Mike S. - Our training/competence procedure basically states that after a person is deemed qualified to perform certain tasks their performance is continually monitored by their Supervisor/Manager by direct observation of their work, by review of inspection records, customer complaints, etc. as well as during the yearly "review".

I agree with Mike. It is not just a matter of once and done. Through our process sign off procedures the supervisors are observing/monitoring the product at various steps. We also have the various quality checks and, unfortunately, customer complaints to use to determine the "competency".

The question for me is what do you do when the person is moved over from their main machine to fill in on a different machine? We have discussed putting together a refresher checklist on particular items that the experienced operators have found to be problem areas. The supervisor or trainer would go over the sheet before the person starts on the machine. Thoughts??

Nav,

There was a thread to this effect a few weeks ago on temporary or fill-in operators that had lots of good ideas in it. A search should net you some good ideas.

DB,
I agree. Every organization needs to define what "from time to time" means in their own environment.

I guess my point is that competency is a living issue, not a static one.

(This is a response to your post on page one of this thread)

db said:

They built a matrix showing the tasks and the names and then rate the employees on each task (whether they perform it or not). The rating is:

0 = Unaware of task
1 = They have awareness, but cannot perform
2 = They can perform, but need supervision
3 = They can perform without supervision
4 = They can instruct others

A number 4 doesn’t have to be an expert, and a number 3 might be an expert. To get to number 4 the employee must be able to show they have the ability to train others (patience, communicative skills, etc)


I ran across these definitions of competency in a monthly news letter that we get. I've modified it somewhat to make it more relevant:

1. Unconscious Incompetence: "We don't know that we don't know."

The Foreman wants to write a procedure like he sees others write. But he doesn't know that he doesn't know how to write it.

2. Conscious Incompetence: "We know that we don't know."

This same Foreman tries to write a procedure and falls unconscience due to a brain drain. He has immediately gone from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

3. Conscious Competence: "We work at what we don't know."

Here we made a conscious effort at learning a new skill. Now the foreman learns how to use a dictionary and starts to construct basic sentences and is consciously thinking of where he is going to put the period.

4. Unconscious Competence: "We don't have to think about knowing it."
Here the skill happens automatically at an unconscious level.
The foreman gives the assignment to the MR. Now, he can whistle, talk, shout, chew gum and do other things with his mind at the same time. :bonk: :vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Would a "0" be just plain unconscious?

energy, you sparked my memory. I remember either reading, or hearing those one before. Perhaps mine were a convolution of them. I'm getting too old to figure out where I get things.

When using the Conscious/Unconscious Competent/Incompetent analogy, I usually refer to learning to drive an automobile. I sometimes can even remember back that far…

We have invoked the model throughout the organization. We use it to explain to the operators why they are not, as skilled craftsmen, required by the ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001 standards to refer to the work instructions every time prior to putting ink/paper/plates etc. in/on the presses before running a job.

A newly hired apprentice, being unaware of the requirements of setting up the press (unconscious and incompetent) may underestimate the difficulty of the task and not perform the task. As he progresses, he becomes aware (conscious) of his level of incompetence and refers to the work instructions on every occurrence. And so on until the task(s) become(s) routine.

Using and understanding this analogy helps the operator feel more comfortable around the registrar/auditor as the operator fumbles through the manual to find an individual work instruction: “I don’t usually have to look this document up. You see I am a skilled, trained, competent and aware craftsman.”

We are looking at ways of fulfilling 6.22 on competence for personnel without doing a formal performance appraisal, but possibly informal feedback or a "conversation." I am a disciple of Tom Coens and Mary Jenkins and their book, Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why they Fail and What to do Instead (2001). But now that we are ISO certified we have some leaders thinking we must have performance appraisals to fulfill this shall. Any suggestions? (Tom and Mary did teaching and were from my area, before Tom Coens passed away.)

Hi abass,
Back on page 1 I talked about a method I used on my last job, where the Union outlawed performance appraisals.

It was a one page document, fille dout during the month of the employee's birthday, that had a simple assessment made by the employee's supervisor stating whether the employee remained competent for the job they were doing. Behind this were employee metrics, like their personal reject rate measured in ppm and productivity data. You really DO need to back up the assessment with something like this.

If they were not judged competent, the supervisor used the HR process to document the problems and corrective action.

Hope that helps.

We use a competence profile that corresponds with the tasks and responsibilities listed in the job description so we are truly evaluating the ability of the employee to satisfy the requirements of their function. I am attaching a copy. I hope this helps.

... But now that we are ISO certified we have some leaders thinking we must have performance appraisals to fulfill this shall. Any suggestions?

At my company we use an Access database to record the training records. The training record shows how competency was determined:
Attend - means only attendance was necessary, (implies that HR will have a record of an attendance sheet).
Certif - a certificate is given to the employee at completion of the training indicating that the trainer certifies they are competent.
Test - A test is given to demonstrate competence.
Demons Abil - means that a trainer has observed the employee on the job and deams them competent. The trainer must send an email to the database coordinator indicating this before the coordinator will put their initials and date in the database.

See that attached example of our training matrix.

I like to link competence to the training record itself, not to performance appraisals. Think of competence in terms of a one-time indication at that point in time.
Performance appraisals (if used) should focus on the process, not the people, right? Process metrics should indicate how well our processes are performing, and if the data indicates the people aren't doing well, perhaps the corrective action should drive for improved quality of the training.

Good luck.

Andy

Hi Andy,
Thanks for the file. But I had some additional concerns on this.
In our case, we haven't started the database for training and it was really a hard time especially these days in which the issue is competency. We had our training records but basically we don't know how to start all oevr again in evaluating the competency of each personnel in the company versus their job descriptions.
Does on your side, the test that you were saying is more of the written test? How about actual test? Do you manage to perform this on your end? How? Please advise. :confused:

Kindly enlighten me more on " I like to link competence to the training record itself, not to performance appraisals. Think of competence in terms of a one-time indication at that point in time."
Because on our end this is what happening and every evaluation that we need to do the answer is training and not performance appraisals which tells a merit increase on the personnel's salary.

What does a process metrics mean? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy

Hello all,
I've attached some training progarmmes we us.........hope they are of help.

Kindly enlighten me more on " I like to link competence to the training record itself, not to performance appraisals. Think of competence in terms of a one-time indication at that point in time."

Hi Raffy,
I'll try my best. Before I do I should let you know that I work under an assumption, and that is I assume everyone has good intentions and wants to do a good, quality job. I've seen people who get frustrated with the system and then they show an "I don't care" type of attitude, but basically I really haven't met anyone that doesn't care. Whenever I see someone like this, my thought is that there is a system problem somewhere letting this person down.

Having said that, in my opinion starting over and trying to measure if everyone is compentent at what they do would be a large waste of time. You already have measures of whether someone is compentent or not, and all you really need to do is identify what was already done. For example, some people receive a certificate at the end of a training course, and that certificate is evidence that the instructor feels they are qualified. So I would just get a copy of the certificate for their file and mark on the training matrix that a certificate was issued verifying competence. In other types of training, a test is given and the participants are given a grade for the course. Use a copy of the grade report as evidence of competence in those cases. And other types of general training, such as sexual harassment training, really only require the attendees be present. In those cases, a copy of the attendence sheet will serve as the record of competence.

Does on your side, the test that you were saying is more of the written test? How about actual test? Do you manage to perform this on your end? How? Please advise. :confused:

We train welders at our facility, and our trainer will give them a test that they have to pass before we certify them. In those cases we manage the test. In other types of training performed on the outside, the testing is controlled by the organization performing the training. In either case, the training matrix only shows that a test was given and whether or not they passed, along with a copy of a certificate, grade report, or some statement from the trainer certifying that they are competent.

Because on our end this is what happening and every evaluation that we need to do the answer is training and not performance appraisals which tells a merit increase on the personnel's salary.
What does a process metrics mean? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy

Remember what is really important. Ask yourselves why you are concerned with competence to begin with. We are really concerned that people are competent because we want them to do the job correctly. And how do we know that they are doing the job correctly? The answer should be the process metric. The process metric is a measurement that shows how well the process is working, for example, a metric might be the number of nonconformances created each month.
If the metric is trending in a negative direction, we then need to ask and find out why this is happening. If the root cause turns out to be the people are not compentent, focus on how the process could be improved. Could the training be performed better?, are the work instructions simple, clear and easy to reference?, could the design be changed so that it becomes impossible for them to assemble the part incorrectly?
Sure there may be times when you have someone who really doesn’t care about what they are doing and they may need to be disciplined, but the data will usually show you when this is the case because there will usually be a repeated pattern. But these cases are rare, and usually not hard to identify.
Focus on the process, measure the results, identify the root causes of problems and let the data tell you whether or not your training is effective, and whether or not you may need a different method of assessing competence.

Good luck.

Andy

Hi Andy,
Thank you for your immediate reply. :bigwave:

There are people actually shows the "I don't care attitude" I've met them all here, I think the problem its case to case basis. I know for a fact that starting over and trying to measure everyone competency is such a waste, however I'm now facing a blank wall. :frust:

Last year we were audited against the requirement of the Clause 6.2.2 and a nonconformance for this was issued. Its says "Job specification and job summary defines the competency requirements of the individual employee. However, no evidences to show that the personnel assigned to the position were evaluated against the competency requirements. (e.g. Engineers, Supervisors, Planners, etc.)".
I try to work on our HR Personnel on how am I going to do this however no help was given. I was already frustrated and confused. :confused:

Thank you very much for enlightening me. :thanx: We do have an Inspection Trouble Report issued to personnel that was been audited and found to have violated some process related issues. I think I need to track all of this as a start. Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Raffy :cool:

Hi sal881vw, :bigwave:

Thank you for the attached training programme, can I use it as a reference and benchmark too?

Thanks in advance. :thanx:
Best regards,
Raffy :cool:

Hi raffy,
Feel free to use what ever you need :yes:

I must have been missing this thread during its life....oh well..

After review (actually skimming, but you guys don't know that ;) ) I realized that we have not identified the true base issue..... are you :confused: ?

Before you can evaluate and document competence, competence must first be defined.

What are the factors that it takes to make one competent to perform a task?

How can these factors be managed to obtain or improve competence?

Can we determine competence objectively or is it a subjective exercise?

Are the ones who are determining competence competent in the task in question and in the process of determining competence?

I'm sure we can come up with some more questions. Think on it, there are many things to do before we just jump in and start saying that "so-in-so" can or cannot perform.

Hi sal881vw,

Thanks a lot. :thanx:

Hello Randy,
Basically, your right that competence must be defined first.:agree1: On our end, we are still in the process of defining one; Leadership, Communication, Service Excellence, Results Orientation and Teamwork.

I think I would use the sets of questions as our guide in preparing the competency program on our end.

I 'll go back again into this thread if I have some concerns that need to be discussed. Probably another sets of questions. :o

Thanks for your help.
Best regards,
Raffy

An excellent resource for identifying inputs/outputs on the training process relevant to competency may be found in the ISO 10015:1999(E) document. ISO 9004:2000(E) Section 6.2 isn't half bad either.

We've developed a matrix, by position which is then used by Department Managers to identify, on a scale of 1 to 5, how the individual is performing, for that task based on a number of factors (as each person can perform differently on any given task). This down and dirty matrix is then used as a comparative tool during annual assessments. Of course, there is the presumption that the assessor is competent also!

Good Luck. :)

Let me throw in my two pennies......

One way of evaluating competence is professional certification. That is not always true of course, but if I am assessing a concrete laboratory and the operatrs are ACI certified, I know they have been trained and have at least the basic skills. That makes the demonstration of competence much easier.

Hershal

Let me throw in my two pennies......

One way of evaluating competence is professional certification. That is not always true of course, but if I am assessing a concrete laboratory and the operatrs are ACI certified, I know they have been trained and have at least the basic skills. That makes the demonstration of competence much easier.

Hershal

It makes the process easier, I'll grant you that, but it doesn't mean that they're truly competent. I have my driver's licence but that doesn't mean I'm a good driver. :D FYI, I learned all I need to know about driving from Michael Schumacher. ZoomZoom!

...Last year we were audited against the requirement of the Clause 6.2.2 and a nonconformance for this was issued. Its says "Job specification and job summary defines the competency requirements of the individual employee. However, no evidences to show that the personnel assigned to the position were evaluated against the competency requirements. (e.g. Engineers, Supervisors, Planners, etc.)".
...
Raffy :cool:

Sorry for the late reply. I am a bit confused by the description of your auditor's nonconformance. Could you provide an example of a job specification or summary competency for an engineer or supervisor that they did not feel was evaluated?
Tyically, I've covered 6.2.2 by describing our annual employee review and appraisal system to the auditor. In most companies, you typically have to meet with your manager quarterly or at least annually to discuss your performance and your raise for the next year. Does your company have employee reviews?

Andy