In developing our TS program, we place a lot of emphasis on performance evaluations as a measure of employee competence. Raises the issue of what is auditable and what isn't. Fer instance: if I say our employee eval is a measure of competence to perform job duties, can an auditor get away with (whoa, hold off on the avalanche of responses to that - yes, I know auditors can get away with most anything! :p ) asking to see the content of the eval - or just the score, which is graded between, say, "Outstanding" to "Unacceptable" ???

I would say NO WAY! Anything that goes into a personnel folder needs to stay there. If they must see something show a blank form. You open yourself up to civil action by showing evaluations, even if the name was covered.

Audtors should know this.

I agree with Randy...and our auditor won't even touch the file...he has the department head pull out the training record (which contains no other personal info).


CarolX

I agree as well. I like to keep a training record and/or competence level summary matrix for all employees in my QA files. If an auditor would like to confirm (you know the type), HR removes and replaces a training cert, evaluation score, etc. from an individual employee record, under the ever vigilant gaze of the auditor, to satisfy the auditor.

Yuppers, ya'll are echoing where I was going anyway, but it just seems I'm hearing so much emphasis on this "competence" thing, and if we rely heavily (we do) on employee evals as a measure of that competence, it seems like an auditor'd have a rough time auditing that....

I would say NO WAY! Anything that goes into a personnel folder needs to stay there.

And I would agree too. As an auditor I would not ask to see those records.

/Claes

if we rely heavily (we do) on employee evals as a measure of that competence,
It's not the eval (paper) that you are relying on. It's the person doing the evaluation. This is the major issue I have with this stupid "competence" thingy! The company put a person in a position (manager) because they felt he was competent. That competent person evaluated a subordinate (who works for him and he sees all the time) and determined they were competent. Why should an auditor tell me that the system isn't "good" enough or that they (the auditor) don't see enough objective evidence? If the system you have in place fulfills the company needs, the auditor can't refute it. IMO

An auditor may ask to see these records and you simply hold them up and say they are confidential. As an auditor, I would more than likely then ask to see the approved competence evaluation form ( not filled out of course). Same way with Management Review.

I would more than likely then ask to see the approved competence evaluation form

Tell me why I need a form? Tell me why I need to prove to you (who may not have a clue what a press operator does) that they are competent? I see no "shall" for proof. It states that I have a documented procedure for "identifying training needs and achieving competence. I don't see where I have to prove, by record, anything!

I'm in absolute agreement with that Randy. Sometimes if we stare at something long enough we start see all sorts of non-existent things. This is one of them.

Tell me why I need a form? Tell me why I need to prove to you (who may not have a clue what a press operator does) that they are competent? I see no "shall" for proof. It states that I have a documented procedure for "identifying training needs and achieving competence. I don't see where I have to prove, by record, anything!
I don't mean to be confrontational here. A process doesn't qualify as a process (ergo same for procedure) unless there is a record of the activity involved in the process which demonstrates the requirements of the process were met.

I agree the auditor has no business looking at individual employee records, but he should have a right to see the blank form and to question the person or persons responsible for completing said form to determine those persons understand the process and their activity conforms to the process.

I don't mean to be confrontational here. A process doesn't qualify as a process (ergo same for procedure) unless there is a record of the activity involved

I don't think you are being confrontational. But I have to disagree. A process changes the input to produce an output, that's the purpose, not produce a record.
I assemble loose parts into a car door. The purpose of my assembly process is to changes loose parts into a useable door not to produce the weld checksheet or weld coupon.
Now I totally agree with you on the interview of the person performing the eval and the blank sheet. I might even show you the lack of injury reports and scrap record!

Tell me why I need a form? Tell me why I need to prove to you (who may not have a clue what a press operator does) that they are competent? I see no "shall" for proof. It states that I have a documented procedure for "identifying training needs and achieving competence. I don't see where I have to prove, by record, anything! Steel mentioned the content of the evaluation, so i assumed she had some type of form. My interpretation of 6.2.2 c) is that if we do not provide training and take other actions (what ever that might be) then we must evaluate the actions taken. To be in compliance with 4.2.4 then we must have a form/report that shows our evaluation. We use a yearly evaluation ( not linked to pay raises) to identify training needs and weak areas (in the area of training) of the employee. The supervisor and employee identify these areas together with the supervisor responsible to see that additional training is provided.

Further on this; evidence is not always in the form of a record. Sometimes it is a consistent reply on the part of several different people, or a lack of some negative consequence (like Randy's "injuries").

The standard (6.2.2 c, b, then a) says you must evaluate effectiveness of actions taken to determine competence. There are many ways of doing this.

Tell me why I need a form? Tell me why I need to prove to you (who may not have a clue what a press operator does) that they are competent? I see no "shall" for proof. It states that I have a documented procedure for "identifying training needs and achieving competence. I don't see where I have to prove, by record, anything!

But the auditor will have the option of reviewing whatever you put in the procedure.

Agreed Sam, but do they look at the "Business Plan"?

Our system is set up with an evaluation form and a training form. During the evaluation process if new training or additional training is required it is documented on the training form. It is the training form which we allow the auditors access too. Competency to the training is recorded on the training form at the next review.

Further on this; evidence is not always in the form of a record. Sometimes it is a consistent reply on the part of several different people, or a lack of some negative consequence (like Randy's "injuries").

The standard (6.2.2 c, b, then a) says you must evaluate effectiveness of actions taken to determine competence. There are many ways of doing this.
I really wasn't looking for this digression from the main question whether to show a form to an auditor.

If Randy assembles car doors, does anyone keep a record
of how many?
of the conforming ones versus nonconforming ones?
of the number with electric windows versus manual windows?
If there's no record, then how do we know and prove Randy assembled the doors? Does an auditor have a right to see how the organization records the activities (production, training, or results of competence tests) of its personnel?

The original question was NOT "do we keep a record?" It WAS "does the auditor have a right to see the record?"

Confidentiality is a contractual requirement for any registrar. If you say that the method you use to evaluate competance is the eval process then the auditor would have to see the process and the records that you say are required to effectively monitor the process measurables.

Just my two cents because I am on cloud nine right now about passing our TS2 audit last week. Hurray for me!

Just my two cents because I am on cloud nine right now about passing our TS2 audit last week. Hurray for me!

Congratulations :bigwave:

Our turn to go from TS1 to TS2 is the first week in December. Things are just getting "heated up" around here.

Bill

IMO the auditor does not have the right to see all records, i.e. Business Plan, Clay Models, Financials, etc.

If there's no record, then how do we know and prove Randy assembled the doors?

By managing your department Wes.

It's not a that I mind showing records, it's the intent here that I'm talking about. Now I understand that the auditor must prove that they did a valid audit, don't get me wrong. However, if I am making money, can "prove" on time delivery, show good customer sat scores, etc. You know the system works, why do I need to show a record of assembling doors? I don't get the need I guess.

I'll go back to the job descriptions. It was something the auditors wanted to see, but there was no requirement for them. It made it easier to audit, so everyone thought they needed job descriptions. It's a made up record to please auditors, just like competence records and Hallmark holidays.

The auditors job is to verify conformance to the technical specification. If your system limits evaluation of competance to employee evaluations then he has little choice but to ask to see them. If you refuse to show him objective evidence of compliance to a "shall" he has cause for a nonconformance. If you limit the objective evidence to a confidential form, the contract that was signed between the company and the registrar states clauses about confidentiality and thus the auditor would ask to see evidence of conformance to the requirements as established in your system knowing that the information is confidential. The auditor can not take your word for it. The problem might be that you do not have the flexability in your system. How do you address internal auditing of these records? Do the internal auditors have the right to see their co-workers evaluations?

Like all this things you cannot make a hard and fast rule for all instances.

Some personnel records are confidential but all auditors are bound by confidentiality clauses.

Competence is a very sensitive word so all auditors should tread lightly. It is however the right word when it comes to putting people in positions, I may have a list of qualifications as long as my arm but unless I can actually weld two dissimilar metal pipes together overhead then I am not competent to be putting together the pipework for that nuclear power station.

A scoring system may be used to demonstrate a person's competence. If that scoring is deemed too sensitive then, as an auditor, I am bound to accept it but might ask the question of the training (and / or competence) of the person deciding on competence, and if that is a manager then so be it (sensitively of course!). I might also dig a bit into the records of non conformance and see if there are any patterns that demonstrate the system is not working.

As has been mentioned earlier there is an obligation on a company putting itself up for assessment to demonstrate they meet the requirements of the standard by showing evidence in the form of records.

I'll post what happens during our surveillance today and tomorrow on Monday.
But, I think the key word here is achieve competence. To me it shouts of training plan, have goals been set and are they (the worker) achieving their goals. The last portion is for the the persons management to decide, not an auditor - internal or external. What the auditor is to decide, or rather grade upon, is whether the company has a proper method of establishing a training program where required.
Since we are no longer allowed to "test" our UAW employees the evaluation is vital. Our process says we do it, the employee maintains his job, the customer doesn't receive bad product and we have limited rework.
That validates the system.

Agreed Sam, but do they look at the "Business Plan"?

Yes. They do look at that portion of the business plan that contains the quality objectives and measurements.

It's a veribage thing, we show the measurables as "Management Review". FoMoCo holds our business plan, so it isn't available for review.

Randy Stewart said: "To me it shouts of training plan, have goals been set and are they (the worker) achieving their goals. The last portion is for the the persons management to decide, not an auditor - internal or external. What the auditor is to decide, or rather grade upon, is whether the company has a proper method of establishing a training program where required."

I'm the first to say we don't do ISO for the third parties but IF you choose to put your system up for third party audit then you must show them HOW you determine the competence of people. You can't just say "It's up to us."

Randy Stewart said: "To me it shouts of training plan, have goals been set and are they (the worker) achieving their goals. The last portion is for the the persons management to decide, not an auditor - internal or external. What the auditor is to decide, or rather grade upon, is whether the company has a proper method of establishing a training program where required."

I'm the first to say we don't do ISO for the third parties but IF you choose to put your system up for third party audit then you must show them HOW you determine the competence of people. You can't just say "It's up to us."
I absolutely agree with Paul.

The basics of a QMS, in my experience:
create a plan
set up procedures and processes to follow the plan
document that procedures and processes actually follow the plan
evaluate (on a regular basis) whether those procedures or processes accomplish the purpose of the plan (or can be improved) by comparing the actual outputs of the processes against the planned (theoretical) outputs

So, when an auditor checks an organization, he/she checks if
written plan is in place
written procedures to accomplish the plan are in place
written records are in place to document the procedures are followed
a process is in place to evaluate those records

The auditor does NOT make a value decision on the sufficiency of those plans or procedures or processes (PPP), ONLY that the organization, itself, has a system in place to evaluate PPP.

So, to echo Randy, the auditor does not evaluate the training, only whether and how the organization evaluates that training. To echo the rest of us in this string, the auditor has to see the records to confirm they exist (so blank out the names, if you want) and to examine a blank record form in detail to determine it matches the plan and the process for training.

Having audited many suppliers over the years, I can attest that often the practice is far removed from the plan on paper. If I don't look to see how records are kept, I'm merely relying on "anecdotal" info. (As we all know, anecdotes belong in a humor thread, because they usually generate a big laugh by someone.)

We made it through another round. We received 2 minors, 1 for not being able to produce the prototype control plan for a prototype job (removed from the book for some reason) and 1 for an inspector not knowing what the purpose of doing a Gage R&R was - how to apply the % finding.
This one really made me mad. The Department Manager was bow hunting so the supervisor was in charge plus the UAW contract expires at midnight tonight (Monday). Tensions have been a little high for the past few days. Anyway, the auditor was in the middle of asking questions when the buzzer went off ending the shift. So when he asked about the R&R the answer came "After that sound, I don't care what they mean" and he left. No one does GR&R's on second shift so the auditor was left with an I don't care answer. I didn't argue the finding so I can bring it up with the Deptment Manager and Management Review.

As for the compentence issue - we were not required to produce training records as they become part of the personnel file. We showed them the training matrix and that was enough.

We had 5 OFI's mainly for the feedback (i.e. how does prototype tooling repairs get fed back to design, etc.) but over all it went very well.

Tell me why I need a form? Tell me why I need to prove to you (who may not have a clue what a press operator does) that they are competent? I see no "shall" for proof. It states that I have a documented procedure for "identifying training needs and achieving competence. I don't see where I have to prove, by record, anything!

What you have to prove is you have a method (procedure) and you follow that procedure. I do not (nor have ever) like performance evaluations. I feel they are a total waste of time (in most organizations). I have maintained this before, and I will repeat it. In real terms, what is the "proof" of someone's competence? The output of their work. If I produce output of my process that is acceptable, then I must be competent. So, what methods do you use to show that the process is compliant? There is your proof of competence. I also would not make additional copies of reports to keep in the employee's training file. That too is a waste of time.

We often try too hard to fufill a simple requirement. The same can be applied to determining the necessary competence. You don't need job descriptions, or any other fancy thing. Just like you don't need process maps (a different thread).

Smaller is better.

Excellent points, Dave. I agree with them all.

A process doesn't qualify as a process (ergo same for procedure) unless there is a record of the activity involved in the process which demonstrates the requirements of the process were met.

Explain this please. I thought a process was nothing more than an activity that uses resources to transform inputs into outputs. Are you saying that unless I keep records, this isn't true? It sounds like we are keeping records for records sake. If it make sense to keep the records, then keep them. If records are meaningless, then don't. I for one feel that keeping records on employee competence is stupid! Part of management is to watch the output of employees. If their output is satisfactory, all is cool. I don't need to generate a record that tells me my people are cabable of doing their jobs! I see that all day everyday in their output.

Explain this please. I thought a process was nothing more than an activity that uses resources to transform inputs into outputs. Are you saying that unless I keep records, this isn't true? It sounds like we are keeping records for records sake.
. . .
I for one feel that keeping records on employee competence is stupid!
. . .
I don't need to generate a record that tells me my people are cabable of doing their jobs! I see that all day everyday in their output.
Yeah, right, Db. The curse of trying to compress info in short space.
For Quality auditing purposes, A process doesn't qualify as a process . . . unless there is a record of the activity . . . .

The point being an auditor cannot confirm a QUALITY procedure or process exists and has been pre-planned by the organization, unless there is some documentation. (The ISO bugaboo about "anecdotal" info not being sufficient.)

The activity record can be subtle, but it exists in some form.
If Randy assembles car doors, someone checks off how well they are assembled, at several steps before they are shipped to a customer. There is always Somebody who checks and records whether they were assembled correctly.

If Randy is a unionized employee, someone is checking the quantity to use for or against him and his fellows the next time the contract comes up for renewal, but that is NOT part of the Quality process or record.

From a Quality standpoint, someone may note how many Randy assembles, but only for future evaluation of the efficiency of the Procedure and Process Randy follows. They do that to determine whether to modify the process as part of continuous improvement (NOT whether to retain Randy as a worker.)

Obviously, the organization using an ISO Standard has leeway in deciding what records are necessary for its Quality operation.

A small organization of 20 people may not have a printed record form for janitors to note the frequency of checking bathroom cleanliness and supplies, but a giant corporation may in order to conform to ISO 6.3 Infrastructure (facilities) and 6.4 Work environment procedures.

However, we are discussing records for auditing Quality Activities. If the Activity is included in the QMS, it probably should have a record of completion of the activity.

If John Doe's Work Instruction says zero out his micrometer before each shift, he should have to record whether it was necessary to adjust the micrometer to reach zero. If it did need adjustment, then perhaps it went out of adjustment during his previous shift and should be zeroed more frequently or sent for repair. If it did go out of adjustment during his previous shift, how did that affect his readings? was the work conforming? did nonconforming product go to next stage in production? did conforming get scrapped? All pretty valid types of questions to be covered in evaluating the process, don't you think?

In specific, I think "performance" reviews and records (scaled from good to bad) for employee retention purposes are loaded with political venom in most organizations. Deming was dead set against performance reviews of workers (versus review of PROCESS) because in his opinion, management was responsible for the process (Red beads, anyone?)

I think a standard review of MINIMUM ability to perform a task (competence) is necessary. To get a driver's license, the state tests minimum competence to drive. It does not determine the candidate can rank well in a NASCAR event. Can we let an employee drive a delivery truck if he is unlicensed? Similarly, an employee shouldn't "drive" expensive or dangerous machinery or anything which affects the quality of the product or service unless he has a "license to drive" in the form of a competence test. If the equipment is in the Quality system, that license should be part of the record.

Similarly, the organization "Quality record" might show John Doe can operate a CMM for inspection purposes (competence), NOT whether he is better at it than Mary Jones. Continued employment may be dependent on another evaluation, but that would NOT be part of the Quality record.

I apologize for describing how to build a watch when you only asked for the time!

The point being an auditor cannot confirm a QUALITY procedure or process exists and has been pre-planned by the organization, unless there is some documentation. (The ISO bugaboo about "anecdotal" info not being sufficient.)

Here is what I am having trouble with. There are three methods of obtaining objective evidence:
1) Examination: I look at the evidence. This is records come in.
2) Observation: I watch the process. If you have a procedure that states that everyone must open the door with their left hand, I don't need a record of everyone opening the door. It might be sufficient for me to observe the activity to see if the operators are complying.
3) Interviewing: I ask questions. I look for trends in answers as well as contridictory answers.

The point is even without "some documentation", I can easily confirm a "QUALITY procedure or process". Part of the problem with "records only" auditors is they tend to audit from the conference room. Records are the least trustworthy method because they are easily "manipulated". In reality, which method you choose will be based on the circumstances. I heard of an auditor that would not accept employees knowledge of the quality policy. He wanted to see some record where they acknowledged they read and understood the policy. To me, that was absolutely stupid!

Records are good, and where they are necessary, then do them. But don't generate records just for the auditor's sake.

Records are good, and where they are necessary, then do them. But don't generate records just for the auditor's sake.

Too often they are for the auditor only. I was working with a company last year that had volumes and volumes of old procedures. When I asked why I was informed that the auditor required them to record changes to the procedures. They had 3 years worth of organization charts, every time someone quit (even part timers) or transferred they update the charts (not a bad idea) and archived the old ones!

IMO actions speak louder that records, if I get the same discription of a process from 3 different people, I think it's being followed and I don't need a record to prove it. But that's my take on it.

Let's go back to the opening question:
should auditor see "performance" records?
Answer by consensus - NO! [if we mean by performance records, someone's assessment of the comparison between various folks on how well a task is performed - that's not quality] (only the facts about conforming, nonconforming results on product or service are quality records, the rest is for a boss's evaluation of the employee, not the process.)

An activity an organization considers a Quality activity which needs to be recorded is the organization's choice, not auditor's. There is a difference between an organization with 50 people and one with 5,000. With 50, everyone is known to supervisor and whether or not company quality policy is received and subsequently adopted as the empoloyee's own. In an organization of 5,000, that can be problematic.

An organization which does not have a business purpose for maintaining a record is defeating the aim of ISO by maintaining records "just for the auditor." Of course, these may be the same organizations which have applied for registration only because some customer coerced them into applying, not because they embrace the concept of following a Standard.

Normally, I try to be polite and use polite language when I participate in a discussion forum. I don't think words like "stupid" carry the discussion forward. Perhaps it may even be more accurate to say "probably should consider engaging in a little more research on the topic." It's also nonconducive to a Discussion Forum to make flat statements of opinion as if they were fact.

A company had a standard evaluation in place. When analyzing the training requirements, it was determined that to add a form didn't make sense. There were several performance categories. In addition to "attendence" and various other qualities, 2 categories were "knowledge of job" and "quality of work." It was decided if either one was rated Fair or lower, then training is required (if employee is retained), and documented on the evaluation. Then next years evaluation the old one is reviewed, hopefully the training took place, and the subsequent evaluation indicates effectiveness, or not.

In this case, they would have to show the evaluations. Now, to be honest, during the pre-assessment, the auditor exhibited such professionalism with regard to the records, that I do not think the HR manager had any concerns. In reality - if an auditor really memorizes a name and evaluation, what does it benefit them? The confidentiality agreement does it for me. If the auditors integrity is in question, I'd be worried about other aspects of the audit as well.

...(only the facts about conforming, nonconforming results on product or service are quality records, the rest is for a boss's evaluation of the employee, not the process.)...

I think this is the long and short of it.

Let's go back to the opening question:
should auditor see "performance" records?
Answer by consensus - NO!
If an organization chooses to have performance records, then absolutely. There is no need for the auditor to review the record, other than to ensure they are not just mumbojumbo and are generated just to show the auditor.

[if we mean by performance records, someone's assessment of the comparison between various folks on how well a task is performed - that's not quality] (only the facts about conforming, nonconforming results on product or service are quality records, the rest is for a boss's evaluation of the employee, not the process.)
This is an interesting remark. Please explain.

An activity an organization considers a Quality activity which needs to be recorded is the organization's choice, not auditor's. There is a difference between an organization with 50 people and one with 5,000. With 50, everyone is known to supervisor and whether or not company quality policy is received and subsequently adopted as the empoloyee's own. In an organization of 5,000, that can be problematic.
This is so true. Marc often says that one size does not fit all. Not only size will make a difference, but also the makeup of the organization. What works for one 50 person company, might be a disaster for another of the same size, doing the same type of work.

An organization which does not have a business purpose for maintaining a record is defeating the aim of ISO by maintaining records "just for the auditor." Of course, these may be the same organizations which have applied for registration only because some customer coerced them into applying, not because they embrace the concept of following a Standard.
This is my constant struggle. I also hear it on occasion here. Folks say that ISO (or TS) requires this, or that, when in reality neither do. Performance evaluations are just one of them. Hence, "Where is the Shall?"

Normally, I try to be polite and use polite language when I participate in a discussion forum. I don't think words like "stupid" carry the discussion forward. Perhaps it may even be more accurate to say "probably should consider engaging in a little more research on the topic."

I probably use the word stupid far too often. But in many cases it might be crude, but it fits. In the case of generating records just for the purpose of showing an auditor your employees are competent is, in fact, stupid. It uses resources for no gain. There are probably a hundred words that are more acceptable than "stupid", perhaps "counterproductive", or "wastful", but with "stupid" the point is consise and everyone knows what you mean.

It's also nonconducive to a Discussion Forum to make flat statements of opinion as if they were fact.

"The point being an auditor cannot confirm a QUALITY procedure or process exists and has been pre-planned by the organization, unless there is some documentation. " -- Fact, or opinion?

The funny thing about a discussion forum, is this is exactly what we do. This is exactly what you do. We post based on our experiences. In real terms what separates fact from opinion. I've worked in large multi-national organizations, very small family businesses, and nonprofit organizations. I have worked with organizations from almost every sector, size, culture and everything else. I have never seen a worthwhile employee performance evaluation program. Perhaps somewhere there is a system that works, but in the hundreds of companies I've worked with (that have performance evaluations), all were basically useless.

I don't think we are too far apart on things. I think our words are getting in the way of our ideas.

A company had a standard evaluation in place. When analyzing the training requirements, it was determined that to add a form didn't make sense. There were several performance categories. In addition to "attendence" and various other qualities, 2 categories were "knowledge of job" and "quality of work." It was decided if either one was rated Fair or lower, then training is required (if employee is retained), and documented on the evaluation. Then next years evaluation the old one is reviewed, hopefully the training took place, and the subsequent evaluation indicates effectiveness, or not.
How often did the evaluation take place? Yearly? So I could work a year with sub-standard "quality of work" before I was trained? This is one reason I dislike performance evaluations. (I also have an issue with "training is required") Performance evaluations need to be on-going. Performance evaluations need to be dynamic. If my output is satisfactory, then try to improve efficiency. If my output is unsatisfactory, then affect corrective action at the time. A yearly performance evaluation only demoralizes the employee and serves no added benefit.

A yearly performance evaluation only demoralizes the employee and serves no added benefit.

While I have seen evaluation systems like this, unfortunately more often than not, the statement is too "blanket" for me. I have pushed the limits of the yearly eval system when this was the only system our company had and made it serve some benefit (as determined by the employees). Of course any issues, good or bad, that came up during the year were addressed immediately. There were regular group and/or individual meetings at least every 4-6 weeks when things were "normal". The "yearly" eval was a chance to summarize the last year, make goals for the next year, and address raises (though sometimes this happened "out-of-cycle" during the year if warranted). There was never any surprizes. I always took evaluations seriously, treating my employees as I would like to be treated, and we both (and the company) benefitted from it.

While I have seen evaluation systems like this, unfortunately more often than not, the statement is too "blanket" for me. I have pushed the limits of the yearly eval system when this was the only system our company had and made it serve some benefit (as determined by the employees). Of course any issues, good or bad, that came up during the year were addressed immediately. There were regular group and/or individual meetings at least every 4-6 weeks when things were "normal". The "yearly" eval was a chance to summarize the last year, make goals for the next year, and address raises (though sometimes this happened "out-of-cycle" during the year if warranted). There was never any surprizes. I always took evaluations seriously, treating my employees as I would like to be treated, and we both (and the company) benefitted from it.
Your example goes much further than yearly performance evaluations. I fully agree that if you are going to have "goals" for the year and reveiw "overall" performance against those goals, then you need to have a yearly review. But as you stated you also had regular group meetings, and immediate addressing of issues when warranted. It sounds like the system you describe is a mixture of a dynamic responsive system and a yearly performance system. I think a very important key is: "There was never any surprizes".

Yep. It has always been a pet peeve of mine at how poorly evaluations are done at many companies. I've had it out with HR departments many times over this. You hear the talk "people are our most important resource", but when it comes to matching the actions with the talk there is a big disconnect. Yet the benefits of doing it right can be great. Kinda like with ISO 9001 sometimes, huh? :frust:

How can you demonstrate competence without records of a process to sign off as competent? I was trying to think how that might be done to satisfy the general requirement without some sort of auditable record that an individual had been through the process and the only one I could think of was having a record of those who were not deemed to be competent until someone approved them ... and then take them off the list!

Yours, tongue firmly in cheek.

P.S. I also agree that compteence assessments aren't worth the paper they're written on generally but if that's the documented process .....

How can you demonstrate competence without records of a process to sign off as competent? .....

It is simple. Pick a job. In a different thread I used the following scenario. It is for an office job, but it can easily apply to others as well.


If I am processing orders, I would expect that I have to process them without error. There is your competency (6.2.2a). Because I have demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) my ability to process orders without error, you have met the needs (6.2.2 b) and you have evaluated (and are continuing to evaluate) my work, you have determined the actions taken are effective (6.2.2 c). I know how important getting the orders processed correctly is (because you told me), so we filled 6.2.2 d). You have plenty of records of properly processed orders, so you have records of the evaluation (although none are required).
That leaves 6.2.2 e. What are the appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience? I submit that there are no records necessary, in this case. If you sent me to training to learn the software, then it would be appropriate to maintain a record of that.

Now, what if you had to hire me (because I won the lottery). The same rules apply. You determine what compentency you need. You hire someone who can achieve those competencies, and you evaluate their work. You let them know the importance of their job and you have just met 6.2.2 a-d. Once again, as far as 6.2.2 e, you decide what (if any) records would be appropriate.

You can meet the standard just by doing your work. Don't make this harder than it needs to be.

How can you demonstrate competence without records of a process to sign off as competent? I was trying to think how that might be done to satisfy the general requirement without some sort of auditable record that an individual had been through the process and the only one I could think of was having a record of those who were not deemed to be competent until someone approved them ... and then take them off the list!

Yours, tongue firmly in cheek.

P.S. I also agree that compteence assessments aren't worth the paper they're written on generally but if that's the documented process .....
Db also asks:
Quote: [if we mean by performance records, someone's assessment of the comparison between various folks on how well a task is performed - that's not quality] (only the facts about conforming, nonconforming results on product or service are quality records, the rest is for a boss's evaluation of the employee, not the process.) This is an interesting remark. Please explain.

I'm not sure whether this is material for a new thread or not. I bow to determination of moderators in any decision (perhaps take a copy and start a new thread?)

Demingites everywhere will recognize this as one of the more difficult concepts the good doctor had to get across to managers.

A "competence" test is like a driver's license.
Do you know how to start the car? operate the lights, wiper, gears, brakes, accelerator, etc.?
Can you park, drive, obey traffic signs and signals, stop, turn, reverse?
It does NOT give you any grade other than PASS or FAIL.

In a quality record sense, the organization should record whether folks operating machinery, inspecting goods, or any other activity under the Quality Management System have demonstrated MINIMUM competence to perform the activity. Otherwise, why let them perform the activity?

Who determines the criteria for competence? Management is ultimately responsible, but in some cases they may require a third party certificate (driver's license, passing grade on third party education course, etc.) in lieu of creating their own exam.

An evaluation or "performance" test, on the other hand, in Deming's opinion (and mine), is a venal method of putting blame for inefficency of a process on the person least able to adjust the process (red beads.)

These evaluations or performance ratings have no business being included in a Quality record. If they exist at all, they should be strictly private personnel files with viewing restricted to the subject and the management.

I am always surprised by how many otherwise knowledgeable Quality folk accept the concept of a performance evaluation applied to a human rather than to the Process.
So, here's what I consider a bogus argument for "performance":
"Jon can't lift 100 pounds. He's defective!"
In my view, I'd question why the process should require lifting 100 pounds. How about levers? pulleys? hydraulic lifts? smaller package? In all those cases, the change in process is beyond the employee's power to accomplish.
MY OPINION: management has failed the performance test, not the employee!

Don't you agree that if a company says that they meet a requirement of the standard that they are trying to get registered to through only using employee appraisals, that to verify conformance to the requirement the effectiveness of the process for competance should be reviewed?

That was the original content of the question. The company uses the appraisals as their method of evaluating competance. That requirement needs to be verified. Auditing to the system that is set up is sometimes the biggest challange. If the company says they are doing it, they must provide evidence. In this case conforming product is not direct evidence that competance is being evaluated and is effective. The company should have a method to provide evidence that competance is evaluated that does not include confidential records if they do not want the confidential records looked at.

Again, I pose the question on how this is handled by internal auditors, or is it just taken for granted that the company does the competance evaluation?

Thus this requirement is never audited????

In developing our TS program, we place a lot of emphasis on performance evaluations as a measure of employee competence. Raises the issue of what is auditable and what isn't. Fer instance: if I say our employee eval is a measure of competence to perform job duties, can an auditor get away with (whoa, hold off on the avalanche of responses to that - yes, I know auditors can get away with most anything! :p ) asking to see the content of the eval - or just the score, which is graded between, say, "Outstanding" to "Unacceptable" ???
Tom W writes:
Don't you agree that if a company says that they meet a requirement of the standard that they are trying to get registered to through only using employee appraisals, that to verify conformance to the requirement the effectiveness of the process for competance should be reviewed?

That was the original content of the question. The company uses the appraisals as their method of evaluating competance. That requirement needs to be verified. Auditing to the system that is set up is sometimes the biggest challange. If the company says they are doing it, they must provide evidence. In this case conforming product is not direct evidence that competance is being evaluated and is effective. The company should have a method to provide evidence that competance is evaluated that does not include confidential records if they do not want the confidential records looked at.

Again, I pose the question on how this is handled by internal auditors, or is it just taken for granted that the company does the competance evaluation?

Thus this requirement is never audited????

I do NOT agree the effectiveness of the process is EVER in the auditor's purview. The auditor's job is to determine the process is in place and operating according to the organization's plan. To demand otherwise of the auditor would be like asking him to take a micrometer and measure finished workpieces to determine the inspector made an accurate record.

I do NOT agree the effectiveness of the process is EVER in the auditor's purview. The auditor's job is to determine the process is in place and operating according to the organization's plan. To demand otherwise of the auditor would be like asking him to take a micrometer and measure finished workpieces to determine the inspector made an accurate record.
I completely disagree. As stated in 8.2.2, the two things an auditor is required to do is to determine if requirements have been met, and are effectively implemented and maintained. If auditors aren't verifying effectiveness of a quality system, then they are a waste of time.

I completely disagree. As stated in 8.2.2, the two things an auditor is required to do is to determine if requirements have been met, and are effectively implemented and maintained. If auditors aren't verifying effectiveness of a quality system, then they are a waste of time.


It is scary to think that someone out there agrees with me. It has always been the job of the internal auditor to look for systems in place and to ensure that they are being followed. If the issue is confidentiality of the employee appraisals, then how comfortable is the organization of letting internal auditor look at personnel files.

To me this seems like a company that didn't know how to do this or didn't want to do this any other way so they went the route of employee appraisals. This could also being in the legality of information in the appraisal when the liability issues arise for field failures or returns.

Tom, I disagree with your assertion that, "To me this seems like a company that didn't know how to do this or didn't want to do this any other way so they went the route of employee appraisals." Our company utilizes the performance evals as a measure of competence because THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE - it's an annual/semi annual sit-down to review how capable you are of doing your job, with criteria on the evals that measure on scales how good you are at doing certain aspects of the job. I'm a huge fan of NOT reinventing the wheel or INVENTING a new system purely for the sake of meeting someone's interpretation of the standard. Our MRT reviewed this particular requirement (the competence issue) from the standard, as part of our TS planning, and universally agreed our evals meet that need. So why create ANOTHER, additional program that checks off competence in a way that makes an auditor happier?

While I apologize about making the assumption about your company, you answered your own question. If everyone agrees that the employee appraisals are the method that adresses the evaluation of the actions taken to assure competence, then you would have to show the auditor the evals, not necessarily the detail on the employee but maybe just the section related to competence. If you are using the overall appraisal as evidence of competence, you might have other issues.

Employee apprasials are an ongoing evaluation of how the employee is doing for that period of time, usually beign used to determine wage increases. This does show competence, but do you have a system in place to address (corrective action) when someones rating is lower than the previsous review? The standard requires that you determine the competence required for the job, then take actions to make sure people meet the competence criteria. If you are using the employee appraisal as the only tool to measure competence, then A - it would have to be available for the auditor to review for conformance to the requriements that you established, and B - you would have to have a corrective action system that would address the competence issue directly if evidence showed a decrease in the competence, or even a lack of improvement.

Since this is your situation, I would pose the internal auditor question to you. Has an internal audit ever been done on the competence issue? Did the internal auditor get to review the records? Objective evidence is required, not just hear say. Your system can not say you do something then you as a company take the approach that the auditor is not allowed to verify it based on confidentiality. (Unless there is health realted issues in the employee appraisal form, then confidentiality of the employee is legally required).

Employee ratings on appraisals can go down from time to time based on a lot of different reasons, some may have nothing to do with competence of personnel performing work affecting product quality. This however would still require corrective action based on the measurement of competence being tied to the appraisal.

I am not saying your method is wrong, I do however think there are easier methods to do this without recreating the wheel.

This obviously is a good topic, thanks for bring it up - you have gotten a lot of people interested. :)

In previous audits, both internal and external, we were under QS9000 and the glance at our eval procedure was in relation to "effectiveness of training" - now we're headed toward TS and everyone's making so much of the "competence clause", but it's really not THAT different. In past audits auditors have asked to see evidence that we DID reviews, had training records, and that something was in place for a supervisor to offer/suggest further training if the eval was poor. We actually deliver WRITEUPS with poor evals, and those entail specifc corrective actions that must be taken, along with a re-review date to check effectiveness of the actions. So, yes, those kinds of things are already in place.

In a quality record sense, the organization should record whether folks operating machinery, inspecting goods, or any other activity under the Quality Management System have demonstrated MINIMUM competence to perform the activity. Otherwise, why let them perform the activity?

Why would I need to record this information? If I see that an employee is able (or not) to perform the task I make decisions based on that observation. Why must I generate a record for this, when generating a record is not required, and really serves no purpose?

In previous audits, both internal and external, we were under QS9000 and the glance at our eval procedure was in relation to "effectiveness of training" - now we're headed toward TS and everyone's making so much of the "competence clause", but it's really not THAT different. In past audits auditors have asked to see evidence that we DID reviews, had training records, and that something was in place for a supervisor to offer/suggest further training if the eval was poor. We actually deliver WRITEUPS with poor evals, and those entail specifc corrective actions that must be taken, along with a re-review date to check effectiveness of the actions. So, yes, those kinds of things are already in place.


We just went through our TS2 audit a couple of weeks ago, and they looked into the competence issue a little, but I think they looked more at the workmanship and knowledge of the people interviewed to determine competence. It was not a very detailled look at our system to measure the competance or the effectiveness of the system for competence, so it sounds like based on what you have said that you should be fine as long as your organization is comfortable with it. Thanks for the topic.

In the audit we just completed this very issue was addressed and here is what transpired.
Competence is based upon employee evaluations and there are 2 different paths that these take. First, if it is UAW it is covered by the contract and recorded on a training matrix. Second, all admin and salary personnel are evaluated annually, engineering and program managers have career paths based upon a training matrix. IT and Quality & Ops Eng personnel have specialized applications and have generic training paths.
To show that the reviews are being completed one of the Management Review measurables (monthly review) is "On Time Evaluations".
I did not have to show any reviews and did not have to produce any record other than our Measureable Review Agenda.

Db said: “If I am processing orders, I would expect that I have to process them without error. There is your competency (6.2.2a). Because I have demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) my ability to process orders without error, you have met the needs (6.2.2 b) and you have evaluated (and are continuing to evaluate) my work, you have determined the actions taken are effective (6.2.2 c). I know how important getting the orders processed correctly is (because you told me), so we filled 6.2.2 d). You have plenty of records of properly processed orders, so you have records of the evaluation (although none are required).
That leaves 6.2.2 e. What are the appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience? I submit that there are no records necessary, in this case. If you sent me to training to learn the software, then it would be appropriate to maintain a record of that.”

Thanks for the example db. I would answer as follows: It is not my responsibility to demonstrate competence it is for the organization to determine what competence is, they set the standard and then evaluate that the person in post meets the requirements.

As such there is a process in place that states what the requirements are and there is evidence that shows that the person meets it. How they set the standard and what form of evidence they require is up to them but there has to be a record to show that Jo meets the competency criteria.

...but there has to be a record to show that Jo meets the competency criteria.
Where is the requirement for a record? However, in my example the record is the "You have plenty of records of properly processed orders, so you have records of the evaluation (although none are required)." My argument is that you can use normal production records to show the action taken to meet the competency requirement was adequate.

I’m not a great one for quoting clause numbers but it seems this thread is coming down to it, so here goes. The responsibility is for the organization to define competence requirements (6.2.2a). So somewhere if the system there needs to be a record that says what those requirements are for a given job.

Then Jo is taken on and, not being competent when they joined, has been through a process of education, training, providing skills and / or experience to become competent at this role. At some point in the process somebody in the organization has decided they meet the criteria. As evidence of the effective operation of this part of the quality system (4.2.4) a record is created.

The responsibility is for the organization to define competence requirements (6.2.2a). So somewhere if the system there needs to be a record that says what those requirements are for a given job.
Where does it say I have to have a record? Where does it say that all "shalls" must be accompanied by a record?

In my scenario, I stated that "If I am processing orders, I would expect that I have to process them without error." Does this need to have a record attached? If so, then wouldn't every decision require some form of documented record? We would spend so much time generating records that we would not have time to make the product!

Db said:”Where does it say I have to have a record? Where does it say that all "shalls" must be accompanied by a record?”

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If you choose to have a third party in to assess a management system their role is to evaluate a system is in place using the records of systems implementation. If you can’t see that in the wording of the standard then there is no point in continuing this debate.

Paul,
Okay we disagree. I just went through a 3rd party audit and passed this area with flying colors - without producing "records".

Hmmm..... I very rarely disagree with both Stew and db. Makes me feel like I'm arguing relativity with Einstein. Maybe I'm not reading the standard or this thread carefully enough (it is looooong). But here goes...

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey
In a quality record sense, the organization should record whether folks operating machinery, inspecting goods, or any other activity under the Quality Management System have demonstrated MINIMUM competence to perform the activity.

db replied..

Why would I need to record this information? If I see that an employee is able (or not) to perform the task I make decisions based on that observation. Why must I generate a record for this, when generating a record is not required, and really serves no purpose?

Stew said, "I just went through a 3rd party audit and passed this area with flying colors - without producing "records".

As I read the standard, competence is based on "education, training, skills, and experience" (6.2.1).

6.2.2 (e) says I "...shall maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills, and experience."

Could I have competent employees even if I do not have these records? Sure. Are such records easily fudged? Yes. Does it mean more to me to see the actual work being done correctly (or proof the work was done correctly) than to see "competence" records? Yes. But does ISO require a competence record of some type anyway? Yes, IMO. Somewhere I expect to see a record showing how much formal education a person got, what training they got, what their skills are, and how much experience they have. If you have no such records, or no records beyond "see, this correctly completed order form proves she is competent", how do you meet 6.2.2 (e)?

Make it easy for a dense guy :bonk:

But does ISO require a competence record of some type anyway? Yes, IMO. Somewhere I expect to see a record showing how much formal education a person got, what training they got, what their skills are, and how much experience they have.

I feel like I'm jumping into a crate full of scorpions, but here goes: The amount of education, training, or even experience a person has does not imply competence. We've all seen people with awesome resumes indicating all of those things, only to find they couldn't tie their shoes properly on the job. So none of those records indicate that a person is competent. There are only two things that indicate competence: 1) the presence of success, and 2) the absence of failure.

Almost always, training is provided to promote productivity (which is measureable) or prevent mistakes (which are also measureable). To determine whether recent training or previous abilities make an individual competent, there is almost always some tangible measure - but it most likely ALREADY EXISTS as a "record" somewhere.

What some of our distinguished posters point out is true: you do not need to DUPLICATE an existing record - you can simply point to it. And in the few cases where there is NO RECORD AT ALL, there is usually something you can point to as proof (e.g. a supervisor takes a class in getting along with others; then interviews with several of his peers - with NO WRITTEN RECORD - substantiate whether his training was successful). IMHO :rolleyes:

The amount of education, training, or even experience a person has does not imply competence. We've all seen people with awesome resumes indicating all of those things, only to find they couldn't tie their shoes properly on the job. So none of those records indicate that a person is competent. There are only two things that indicate competence: 1) the presence of success, and 2) the absence of failure.


ISO says people are competent on the basis of education, training, skills, and experience. Sure, I might be all of the above and still make a mistake, or screw-up a task on purpose or due to negligence. If I have done task "X" 10,000 times a year for 3 years, and done it correctly 99.999% of the time, most would say I was competent to do that task. But I could still do it wrong 20 times in a row. So, yes you can be competent and still make bad stuff. But, regardless, it is ISO that says I "shall maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills, and experience". Not just that I could do the job correctly.

The only thing I can think of to validate Stew's and db's opinion is this, mathematically:

competence = education + training + skills + experience (ISO)
competence = doing the task correctly (practicality)
therefore...
education + training + skills + experience = doing the task correctly
Therefore, all I need to show is that someone is doing the task correctly.

Or am I missing the point?

In practice, we do indeed keep records of all employee's education, training, and/or experience (we have a fabrication shop where almost all of their competence is based on years of experience alone); and as far as our auditor is concerned, that was enough to demonstrate competence.

But I have seen engineers with an alphabet soup of degrees and certifications that were so incompetent they couldn't make one design without some serious flaw. But perhaps that may be defined as being "ineffective" and not "incompetent", or "not able". I guess that is just a matter of definition.

Much of my previous post may apply more to "effectiveness" than to "competence". For demonstrating effectiveness, our supervisors (at all levels) simply complete a one page assessment, in their opinion, for all of their employees collectively. They may highlight strengths of certain employees and weaknesses (ineffectiveness) of others. That method also flew well with our auditor.

This string is obviously bring out the opinions, so here is mine for what it is worth (about 2.34 cents according to my boss). The QSA for TS2 (which some auditors use as a basis for the registration audit) addresses this by suggesting to the auditor that they look for;

Training records complementing the type of work that the personnel perform on the product.
"Personnel" records
Interviews with the personnel.

It continues to suggest - job descriptions, qualifications for each position, training plan, and training records.

While I agree that you could accomplish this topic with little or no record, (as in db's note), I would think that that position is in difference to the interpretation of the standard. It sounds more to me that there is a challenge being presented that bucks the traditional look at quality management system documentation.

db gave the example of job performance being a measure of competence, what if bad work is done, like an isolated instance of nonconforming product, are the employees incompetent? What type of corrective action would you do to address the cometence?

ISO says people are competent on the basis of education, training, skills, and experience. Sure, I might be all of the above and still make a mistake, or screw-up a task on purpose or due to negligence. If I have done task "X" 10,000 times a year for 3 years, and done it correctly 99.999% of the time, most would say I was competent to do that task. But I could still do it wrong 20 times in a row. So, yes you can be competent and still make bad stuff. But, regardless, it is ISO that says I "shall maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills, and experience". Not just that I could do the job correctly.

The only thing I can think of to validate Stew's and db's opinion is this, mathematically:

competence = education + training + skills + experience (ISO)
competence = doing the task correctly (practicality)
therefore...
education + training + skills + experience = doing the task correctly
Therefore, all I need to show is that someone is doing the task correctly.

Or am I missing the point?

I'm not sure about the math part (I can't deal with math with no numbers :vfunny: ), but I think your conclusion (Therefore, all I need to show is that someone is doing the task correctly.) is correct.

...what if bad work is done, like an isolated instance of nonconforming product, are the employees incompetent? What type of corrective action would you do to address the cometence?

How do you handle nonconforming product? If the nonconforming product is being cause by incompetence, then you address that issue. If it is caused something else (common cause/special cause variation), then you address that/those issue(s). Once again, don't make this a monster you can't feed!

It must be just me, but I don't understand how you can say that conforming product = competence; yet nonconforming product /=/ incompetence. I agree that the nonconformance can be for many different reasons, however you are saying that conforming product is a measure of competence. Therefore nonconforming product must be a measure of incompetence, requiring some type of action to correct. Even the most incompetent person can make conforming product, it goes further than conforming product. It goes to productivity and effective production, reduced waste and value-added work; knowing the system and improving it.

I would think it would be very difficult to document corrective actions for competence if the evaluation criteria is conforming product. If a company has a 3% scrap rate - Does that mean there is also 3% incompetence? :confused:
If not then how competent is the work force if there is a 3% scrap rate. It would not matter what the scrap rate is caused by. Isn't that like saying "when we have conforming product we have competent people, when we have nonconforming product it is not the people"? You would now have to have a root cause analysis showing that it was not the people's competence or lack there of.

Sometimes a well fed and controlled monster is better than a starving and uncontrolled one! :biglaugh:

It must be just me, but I don't understand how you can say that conforming product = competence; yet nonconforming product /=/ incompetence. I agree that the nonconformance can be for many different reasons, however you are saying that conforming product is a measure of competence. Therefore nonconforming product must be a measure of incompetence, requiring some type of action to correct. Even the most incompetent person can make conforming product, it goes further than conforming product. It goes to productivity and effective production, reduced waste and value-added work; knowing the system and improving it.

I would think it would be very difficult to document corrective actions for competence if the evaluation criteria is conforming product. If a company has a 3% scrap rate - Does that mean there is also 3% incompetence? :confused:
If not then how competent is the work force if there is a 3% scrap rate. It would not matter what the scrap rate is caused by. Isn't that like saying "when we have conforming product we have competent people, when we have nonconforming product it is not the people"? You would now have to have a root cause analysis showing that it was not the people's competence or lack there of.

Sometimes a well fed and controlled monster is better than a starving and uncontrolled one! :biglaugh:
Dr. Deming would have argued that nonconforming product is more likely the product of a bad system, out of the control of the individual operator.

For my part, I think the organization has a right and responsibility to determine the competence of a person to perform a given task. If the organization considers that task part of its QMS, then it should keep a record of the determination. In some cases, this can be as simple as a checklist signed by a supervisor or trainer who watched employee perform task, but it IS a record.

I'm not sure about the math part (I can't deal with math with no numbers :vfunny: ), but I think your conclusion (Therefore, all I need to show is that someone is doing the task correctly.) is correct.



db,

Your mantra, which I like so much I have copied, is "show me the shall". Here it is: "...shall maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills, and experience". What do you tell the auditor who says "where are your records of education for Sam in the Manufacturing Dept. over there"?

NOTE: I'm not saying your idea doesn't make sense from a practical or common-sense standpoint, I'm only debating ISO's requirements.

Dr. Deming would have argued that nonconforming product is more likely the product of a bad system, out of the control of the individual operator.

For my part, I think the organization has a right and responsibility to determine the competence of a person to perform a given task. If the organization considers that task part of its QMS, then it should keep a record of the determination. In some cases, this can be as simple as a checklist signed by a supervisor or trainer who watched employee perform task, but it IS a record.

I have to agree Wes. Competence should be the analysis of an individual's education, background, training and (where practicable) observed ability (may not be practicable when interviewing a possible new hire).

Compliance or non-compliance of product/service is a function of the system. As I stated in a different thread related to dealing with high employee turnover, the "robustness" (as defined by Dr. Genichi Taguchi) of our product and/or processes can be adjusted as necessary to ensure that the employee can consistently provide a compliant product/service.

db,

Your mantra, which I like so much I have copied, is "show me the shall". Here it is: "...shall maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills, and experience". What do you tell the auditor who says "where are your records of education for Sam in the Manufacturing Dept. over there"?

NOTE: I'm not saying your idea doesn't make sense from a practical or common-sense standpoint, I'm only debating ISO's requirements.

There are two "keys" here. First, is the word "appropriate". I would argue that to generate a record just for the sake of generating a record is not "appropriate". If Sam attends some "appropriate" training, then I would have a record. If he doesn't then there will be no record. The second key is "experience". Why could I not use normal production records to show Sam's "experience"? I have to generate these records anyway, and they do, in fact, show Sam's performance.

I have to agree Wes. Competence should be the analysis of an individual's education, background, training and (where practicable) observed ability (may not be practicable when interviewing a possible new hire).


I would tend to agree as well, with the only exception being the record generation part.

There are two "keys" here. First, is the word "appropriate". I would argue that to generate a record just for the sake of generating a record is not "appropriate". If Sam attends some "appropriate" training, then I would have a record. If he doesn't then there will be no record. The second key is "experience". Why could I not use normal production records to show Sam's "experience"? I have to generate these records anyway, and they do, in fact, show Sam's performance.


Don't know if this makes the discussion any easier or not, but ISO's document "Guidance on the Documentation Requirements of ISO 9001:2000,
Document: ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N525R March 2001" says:
___________________
Clause & Record required

6.2.2 (e) Education, training, skills and experience

___________________

I would say that "appropriate" in 9001 means that you decide how detailed the records are, and in what medium (paper, computer, etc.) -- stuff like that. But since it does not say "or" there had better be some record of all 4 items - education, training, skills, and experience.

Again, I'm talking only about ISO's shalls -- not what would work in the real world. But, hey, I'm no registrar auditor and I'm not an ISO bigwig, I'm just a dummy trying to interpret another of the (IMO) ambiguous clauses of 9001.

No offense is intended toward anyone or their opinion! :truce:

Clause & Record required

6.2.2 (e) Education, training, skills and experience

No argument here, it is the competence issue that I have a real problem with. I do not see a requirement for a "record" to show competence. The records required are what has been deemed necessary to show "achievement of competence". And as stated prior - it doesn't ensure competence.

Dr. Deming would have argued that nonconforming product is more likely the product of a bad system, out of the control of the individual operator.
Agreed!

The Toyota View
"We get brilliant results from average people managing brilliant processes. We observe our competitors often get average (or worse) results from brilliant people managing broken processes." - source - Dr. James Womac

So the true question becomes - where do you want to focus your resources?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Deming would have argued that nonconforming product is more likely the product of a bad system, out of the control of the individual operator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________
QUOTE:

Agreed!

The Toyota View
"We get brilliant results from average people managing brilliant processes. We observe our competitors often get average (or worse) results from brilliant people managing broken processes." - source - Dr. James Womac

So the true question becomes - where do you want to focus your resources?[/_________________________________________________________________
I would also agree if you were getting registered to Dr. Deming's philosophy or to Toyotas'; however TS2 requires you to have both a continually improving system, and competent work force.

We can debate all day (or weeks) about if a record is needed or not. There is no right or wrong answer, just which battles you are willing to fight with your registrar. If the registrar doesn't ask for a record for this, then you have succeeded in the step that you do not need a record. But again I would caution those who think that competence is measured by conforming product. This is simply not correct as stated by several posts, competence of the employee can only get you so far. The system is what produces conforming product on an ongoing basis. Take one employee out and replace him with another and they should be able to continue to produce conforming product if the system is solid. (I think it would also help if the employee can chew gum and walk at the same time as well).

The original comment delt with a system that a company uses employee reviews as the RECORD for competence, yet wasn't sure about showing this type of record to the auditor. Staying in that context, can you say you measure competence, yet not show evidence of it. I would think that you could line out any confidential information on a couple of the reviews and show them the evaluation of competence topics.