Our TS16949:2002 registrar has stated that OJT records for supervisor's are necessary? I don't understand why. Could someone please shed some light on this subject for me?

:confused:

Howdy, Lewis, welcome to the Cove!!!


There are two parts to this requiremnts. 1) OJT for personnel in any new or modified job affecting product quality and 2) appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience.

Now, I would assume that supervisors have jobs that could affect product quality, and you may have actually stated so. this often occurs when an auditor askes how you know the supervisors are competent. The common reply is they were trained on the job (or something like that).

Now, the very next question from the auditor is; "Where are the records?" A very logical question. Your answer must be equally logical. If you say; "We don't have any." Then why not?

The real question here is are supervisor OJT records "appropriate"? What purpose do they serve, and why should we have them. I for one, and not totally convinced they are appropriate. I also think a list of "grandfathered" employees is not necessarily appropriate. If we keep a record just for the sake of meeting a regiatrar's request, the record is not appropriate (IMO). There are others who will undoubtedly dissagree.

Typically, that is the way I would present it to the auditor. Let us know how this turns out, and why the auditor thinks they are appropriate.

Lewis,

Nice to have you aboard!!

Are we talking about brand new supervisors or experienced supervisors that have already proven themselves?

Are you already registered?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can an auditor ask for a training record for an employee that was trained and/or experienced before a formal system was put in place?

Unless they are just looking for a bogus record to :ca: !

As db said, grandfathering is not a good way to go, just alot of useless paperwork. Past OTJ training, is just that, in the past. The company has surely improved and set new internal training standards to follow. Those should be the goal!

If in doubt, ask the auditor how he/she was trained.

-On the job?
-Classes?
-Past experience? (maybe not documented)
-Who trained the person who trained the auditor?
-What was their training?

-How has the registrar that employs an auditor documented how have they have been trained? And by whom?

-Has the entity/person who trained the registrar have ample training records to indicate proficiency?

Just trying to show that there is a gap in the process and that it is the registree(sp) that usually gets screwed in the process unless they have the ammunition and can face down (in a calm manner) an auditor and prove how his/her system works.

Anybody have the details as to what clause would be violated by not having an experienced supervisor prove that their OJT in the last decade really happened?

As always looking for additional input,

Al...

Key words;
Affecting product quality?
What is your definition of product quality.
Having made that determination then ask; What is the supervisors role in affecting product quality? Also is this person a real supervisor or just a line worker saddeled with supervisor responsibilities?
IMO, if the supervisor is performing work on line then OJT would be required, if not then I don,t see the need.

Thanks for all of the replies. Everyone of which expresses a very good point. This gives me some ammo to go back to our registrar with. I agree that having training records for line personnel are necessary, but not for Supervisors.

Now, a little background.
We underwent our initial TS registration audit back in January, but was defferred. We just had our follow-up visit the first week of April and have now been recommended. We’re just awaiting that little piece of paper to hang on the wall.


:D

We just had our follow-up visit the first week of April and have now been recommended. We’re just awaiting that little piece of paper to hang on the wall.

Congrats!!!!!!!!!!! :agree:


One quick question. How was the requirement for all of your suppliers to be registered to ISO 9K2K met/handled?

Why should I have to produce training records at all??? If I deem someone competent at a certain skill or job, why do I have to go any further. What if s/he passed a test based on prior employment, or aquired skill? The company sets requirements and it is up to the company to ensure their people can perform the work.
Yes we have training records and tests. I just have issues with these non-value added records & paperwork. :bonk:

One quick question. How was the requirement for all of your suppliers to be registered to ISO 9K2K met/handled?

We sent out a request to all suppliers inquiring about their plans to become ISO9000:2000 registered. If they didn't respond, or if their response was inadequate, then a customer waiver to use that supplier was sought. If not already ISO9000:2000 registered, then the supplier must have at least a plan to become ISO9000:2000 registered.

Why should I have to produce training records at all??? If I deem someone competent at a certain skill or job, why do I have to go any further. What if s/he passed a test based on prior employment, or aquired skill? The company sets requirements and it is up to the company to ensure their people can perform the work.

If a person is competent to perform an existing job, then I don't think a record is really an issue. I think it becomes an issue when a person performs a new or modified job where the employee does not have any prior experience in the matter.

Not one of my suppliers is ISO 9001:2000 certfified, they´re all in transition.

Can a program of detailed actions, like a Gant schedule or a program specifying date of implementation audit deal with it?
:bigwave:

Not one of my suppliers is ISO 9001:2000 certfified, they´re all in transition.

A gantt chart is evidence of a plan for supplier registration. I don't see any reason why this would not satisfy the intent of this requirement.

Please remember though that even though they have a plan, they must follow-through with the plan or provide you with an update if they fail to meet their plan deadline.

We sent out a request to all suppliers inquiring about their plans to become ISO9000:2000 registered. If they didn't respond, or if their response was inadequate, then a customer waiver to use that supplier was sought. If not already ISO9000:2000 registered, then the supplier must have at least a plan to become ISO9000:2000 registered.

I'm not convinced just having a plan is enough, nor is working towards a plan. The standard (or rather technical specification) doesn't say; "suppliers shall be working towards", it says; "suppliers...shall be third party registered". A waiver is acceptable, but I can't see where a "plan" to become registered is acceptable. With all of the grief that registrars received about the failure of QS being their fault, I would assume they would take a hard line on this. I find this all very interesting.............

db, you are correct in your interpretation of the specifiation, on the other hand, Lewis is correct in stating that a plan is adequate for registration. However the plan must not only include the suppliers intent for third party registration, it must also include what plans the organization has for ensuring that the supplier can be "second party registered".
Fact: DCX, Ford & GM will not give a waiver for supplier third party registration unless there is a plan for auditing by the organization. What has been stated is that, if a supplier fails to become third party certified it is the responsibility of the organization to audit the supplier using 9K2K and/or TS2 certification requirements, including man-days.
Shades of QS.

Lewis said:

If a person is competent to perform an existing job, then I don't think a record is really an issue. I think it becomes an issue when a person performs a new or modified job where the employee does not have any prior experience in the matter.

If a person is performing an existing job, then someone in a position of authority (someone that knows) can merely signoff that the worker has the skills or knowlege to complete the task. This is easily documented and will save an explanation.

It will also curb the auditor's urge to dig deeper!:eek: