How does one handle the issue of education--6.2.2 e? Should there be minimum education requirements for workers? Some people never went to school.

The standard says that you maintain records of education, training, skills and experience. Do you use apllication forms asking for schooling level completed? If the employee filled it out as "No schooling" - there's your record. If your company has no minimum schooling requirement, I don't see a problem.

IMO - "Training, Skills, Experience, ...." are all "subsets" of the term "education". Your training records, mentoring programs, anything you do to enhance the emplyees ability to perform tasks associated with his job, would all be "records of education".

Bill

Bill Ryan said:

IMO - "Training, Skills, Experience, ...." are all "subsets" of the term "education". Your training records, mentoring programs, anything you do to enhance the emplyees ability to perform tasks associated with his job, would all be "records of education".

Bill


6.2.2 Competence, awareness and training
The organization shall
a) determine the necessary competence for personnel performing work affecting product quality,
b) provide training or take other actions to satisfy these needs,
c) evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken,
d) ensure that its personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to
the achievement of the quality objectives, and
e) maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience (see 4.2.4).


The key word in all of this is "Competence". What you need to do is to be able to show that employees are competent based upon the totality of their education, training, skills and experience. Training, skills and experience are not subsets of education, they stand alongside education as equals with respect to the standard. Don't get all wrapped around the axel trying to educate or prove education, but rather look for methods of verifying competence.

I have to agree with Randy on this one. In some jobs, a person may have only a 5th grade education, but he may be more competent at that job than a Ph.D. Competence is, IMHO, indeed the key.

Indeed Mike, as is matching the right skills to the right jobs.

Randy said:
---X---
The key word in all of this is "Competence". What you need to do is to be able to show that employees are competent based upon the totality of their education, training, skills and experience. Training, skills and experience are not subsets of education, they stand alongside education as equals with respect to the standard. Don't get all wrapped around the axel trying to educate or prove education, but rather look for methods of verifying competence.

Right... If it was all down to formal education, few of our older blue collars would be able to keep their jobs. But they do, and the fact is that they actually run a good part of the show... The competence is obvious.

/Claes

I think

Education level low doesn't mean lower competence at all, to an employee the competence just mean that he/she is competent to the current job
:)

Dear ALL,

First of all, develop your Training Needs Analysis for all staff whose work can create impact on quality along the Standard reuqirements for education, knowledge, experience.

e.g Production Operator:
set your organisation criteria for it
education: minimum have vocational trade certificate
knowledge: know how to repair motors (3-Phase system);
experience: 2 years of it

The above is your organisation needs and having the above, you have demonstrated that you have defined competence required in your orgnanisation.

you can built on this later when the need arises.

Well having had ISO9002 for 14 years and QS9000 for three we have just managed to fail our transition audit. The clause that did the damage was 6.2.2. The registrar was only interested in looking staff competence this audit. Part of this requirement is fulfilled by biennial performance evaluations. One of the managers had neglected to do his evaluations and the HR Manager was aware of this but had not acted upon it (despite warnings that competence was going to be an issue this time round). If you can't be good, at least you can be is a horrible example :ko:

Well having had ISO9002 for 14 years and QS9000 for three we have just managed to fail our transition audit. The clause that did the damage was 6.2.2. The registrar was only interested in looking staff competence this audit. Part of this requirement is fulfilled by biennial performance evaluations. One of the managers had neglected to do his evaluations and the HR Manager was aware of this but had not acted upon it (despite warnings that competence was going to be an issue this time round). If you can't be good, at least you can be is a horrible example :ko:

The important thing here Neil, is that there was a failure in the system, and nothing was done. Even with TS performance evaluations are not required. They are just one way of meeting 6.2.2 c). But you call for bi-annual performance evaluations, and someone in the organization did not follow your own rules. This was further complicated by not acting on it, despite knowing about it. It sounds to me like a complete breakdown in the system.

BTW, the fix is not in performing the evaluations, that just addresses the symptom. The fix must be related to why no one reacted to the manager who failed to meet the requirement.

I agree with what Bill said, extending it like this:

It is your quality management system. You decide what records are "appropriate" to document the education/training/skills/experience that determine the competence of your people.

A quick review of ISO 9004:2000 shows that you determine the required competencies by the results of processes associated with quality planning (5.4.2), determination of necessary competence (6.2.2(a)), product/service realization planning (7.1), control of product/service provision (7.5.1), and ongoing measurement and analysis (8).

For what it is worth dB I agree with your assessment. Clearcut system breakdown and a deserved major and I never even argued it with the registrar. Why it was not acted upon can not be published in a public forum but suffice to say they probably extends beyond business life. It will be interesting to see if the QA is the fall guy for what is clearly a senior management problem. It is not necessarily a bad thing having to take down all of the signs. Maybe this will raise awareness and send out some strong wake up calls.

You mentioned other methods of demonstrating staff competency. What are these?

You mentioned other methods of demonstrating staff competency. What are these?

First, of all 6.2.2c) says you must evaluate the effectiveness of the actions (item b) taken. A very easy way is to have a matrix showing the required skills/competencies and showing who has what competencies. I have one client that determines the competencies and evaluates through the normal management processes. If I need a welder that can weld rubber to steel (determined the necessary competency), I hire a welder with that ability. To determine if the selected individual has the necessary competence, I (as his/her manager) observe the welder. This is no different than what I probably already do. Why develop some new system, when my current system works. You may need to formalize the observation with a record, but that is far easier than yearly performance reviews.

Help any?

Thanks for your response dB. That is pretty much what we do with all shop floor bargaining unit employees. It is specifically staff, supervisors and managers that were the issue. It is much more difficult to lay out all of the required competencies of say Metallurgy and QA Manager or Sales Manager. Because performance evaluations already play a role in identifying training needs and providing an overview of training effectiveness it seemed simpliest to use them as the record that the staff employee is fulfilling the requirements of the job description. A review is required within 6 months for any staff in a new position and then biennially thereafter. With so many eggs in one basket it is crucial that they get done on time. If there is an easy way to handle these requirements for staff I will be eternally grateful.

Thanks for your response dB. That is pretty much what we do with all shop floor bargaining unit employees. It is specifically staff, supervisors and managers that were the issue. It is much more difficult to lay out all of the required competencies of say Metallurgy and QA Manager or Sales Manager. Because performance evaluations already play a role in identifying training needs and providing an overview of training effectiveness it seemed simpliest to use them as the record that the staff employee is fulfilling the requirements of the job description. A review is required within 6 months for any staff in a new position and then biennially thereafter. With so many eggs in one basket it is crucial that they get done on time. If there is an easy way to handle these requirements for staff I will be eternally grateful.

You do not have to handle everything through the same process. If you already do it one way on the shop floor, use that. If you are already conducting performance evaluations, then use them. One way to keep them from stacking them up is to stagger them. A-E is this month, F-L is next month, etc.