We have a Controlled Documents - Records Master List here which was created in Microsoft Excel. As the name implies, it is the master list of all controlled documents!

My question: we have EACH and every job description listed separately. This takes up approximately 50 rows of my spreadsheet.

I've searched, but cannot find, why this was created in this manner. It seems to me that I could just list "job descriptions" as one item and put who controls it (HR Manager controls all). Does anyone see any problems with lumping all 50+ job descriptions under one heading?

Thanks.

We have approved a pre-defined format for all job descriptions and that is on the master list. The format is controlled by the active date and format #, the contents are controlled by the job title and the issue date. This works for us. I am attaching an example.

Hope this helps.

Does anyone see any problems with lumping all 50+ job descriptions under one heading?
.

Little_cee,

The short answer is NO -I don't have a problem with it, because that is exactly what we do. It's your system. If HR is in the scope of your registration then when you audit them you can audit the JDs - if you find them to be astray slap a NC on the HR department. I think too mnay people dump their unwanted Documents on QA and think they will look after it - they will be the master and publisher. I find if people don't take responibility for their documents they tend to let the rest of their system slide (JMHO)

Greg B

My question: we have EACH and every job description listed separately. This takes up approximately 50 rows of my spreadsheet.

I've searched, but cannot find, why this was created in this manner. It seems to me that I could just list "job descriptions" as one item and put who controls it (HR Manager controls all). Does anyone see any problems with lumping all 50+ job descriptions under one heading?

Thanks.I wonder if the separate listing for each job description was to facilitate revisions of only one job description without having to issue new revision for all. Is there a field on the spreadsheet for listing the revision number? Heck. This is an Excel spreadsheet. What difference does it make whether it is one line, or 50, or 500?

We have a Controlled Documents - Records Master List here which was created in Microsoft Excel. As the name implies, it is the master list of all controlled documents!

My question: we have EACH and every job description listed separately. This takes up approximately 50 rows of my spreadsheet.

No problem... though I must have mentioned before that I like databases? Your master list could then point to the database. That works for us...

/Claes

You're right of course that in an Excel spreadsheet it makes no difference if its 50 rows or 150 rows.

I'm finding that this ISO system was set up in an extremely cautious fashion. Some of that cautiousness has lead to more opportunities for the external auditor to "ding" us because of the way we set things up.

I agree with the thought that if we'd revise one, only that one would change and not the other 49 so that makes sense to me.

I am digging into our system and trying to make it more user friendly. You're all thinking "good luck" and I understand that its never going to be easy but some of this was made A LOT harder than it needed to be!

Want an example? There was a hanging file folder marked "internal audits". Each and every audit was crammed into this folder. When an internal auditor asked to see the last Purchasing Procedure audit, I had to dig through a mountain of paperwork to find it. Only once! I created manilla folders with each procedure name clearly noted and now when I need to pull an audit I can go right to that folder. I know there's nothing in ISO to state that you NEED to do it this way but it sure makes things easier on me!

We have one masterlist for job descriptions which is also in excel spreadsheet. The file includes the usual document name (job title), rev no., effectivity date, process owner and approving authority and of course the copyholders of the job description.

This is the same throughout all the other masterlist of controlled documents.

/marla

As Quality co-ordinator, I would tend to control the format ( e.g. headings, org chart etc. ) so that all jd's are written in the same style. As far as controlling content, I would argue that this is down to individual dept. managers to ensure accuracy & that they are kept up to date.
;)

As Quality co-ordinator, I would tend to control the format ( e.g. headings, org chart etc. ) so that all jd's are written in the same style. As far as controlling content, I would argue that this is down to individual dept. managers to ensure accuracy & that they are kept up to date.
;)

I would agree, although :topic: I really question the value of job descriptions.

DB - there's a whole new thread in your comment. I'm keen to hear how you define what people are there to do without job descriptions ? I've met this for low level task type activity where people understand what they are to do by some validated training and a (very) detailed instruction sheet, but not yet seen an approach once you get into the "manage resources to deliver an outcome" type job roles. I'm curious...?

teknow - what value do you get from controlled formats and Jd's all in the same style ?

Al.

DB - there's a whole new thread in your comment. I'm keen to hear how you define what people are there to do without job descriptions ? I've met this for low level task type activity where people understand what they are to do by some validated training and a (very) detailed instruction sheet, but not yet seen an approach once you get into the "manage resources to deliver an outcome" type job roles. I'm curious...Al.

We've beat this around in several threads, however...

The requirements are really quite simple:

1) determine the competence
2) take action
3) verify action

Very rarely do I find job descriptions adequately spelling out the required competency. They are normally too vague to give appropriate levels of competence. Job descriptions can be valuable, especially in larger and more complex organizations. Having a job description stating that an order entry clerk must be able to type 600 words a minute does little good if the data is entered incorrectly. Having a job description for a welder to be able to change wire in the welder does little good if the job is rushed and sloppy. What kind of job discription works with an Executive VP?

How you determine the competence is a management thing. Managers know what outputs are required, and they should know which people are best matched with which tasks to achieve the required outputs. The verification is the output matching requirements. No job descriptions, nor annual performance reviews necessary.

The requirements are really quite simple:

1) determine the competence
2) take action
3) verify action

What kind of job discription works with an Executive VP?

That's easy! Does he know which end of a telephone to talk into? If not, use preventive action and get him a headset. Verify he wears it so earpieces are on ears and mouthpiece is somewhere near his mouth.

We've beat this around in several threads, however...

The requirements are really quite simple:

1) determine the competence
2) take action
3) verify action

Very rarely do I find job descriptions adequately spelling out the required competency. They are normally too vague to give appropriate levels of competence. Job descriptions can be valuable, especially in larger and more complex organizations. Having a job description stating that an order entry clerk must be able to type 600 words a minute does little good if the data is entered incorrectly. Having a job description for a welder to be able to change wire in the welder does little good if the job is rushed and sloppy. What kind of job discription works with an Executive VP?

How you determine the competence is a management thing. Managers know what outputs are required, and they should know which people are best matched with which tasks to achieve the required outputs. The verification is the output matching requirements. No job descriptions, nor annual performance reviews necessary.

I fully agree with you that most job descriptions (that I've encountered anyway) are lightweight on defining competencies required to do the job. But are we just in semantics here - as you point out, there is a need to identify the competencies required, and my experience of audits of all varieties are that at some time i'm going to be required to show what I have (as a manager) determined these competencies need to be i.e. I've got to have a record of them. Maybe this is within a job description, or an addenda to it or completely separate - I just think they add up to the same thing.

We also use job descriptions and appraisals for protecting our backsides on employment law (in the EU). That's so that when a person takes the company to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal we can demonstrate what they were asked to do, and have records of how they performed. I agree that most managers already "know" who is competent and delivering good performance - but in our case (of chemicals manufacture that can take weeks or months) the measure of outputs meet requirements is too crude.

On the Executive VP's job description point, anything that reminds them that they are to lead the organisation, not micro manage every aspect would be helpful - but you're getting me onto a pet irritation. :bonk:

Cheers, Al.

...
We also use job descriptions and appraisals for protecting our backsides on employment law (in the EU). That's so that when a person takes the company to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal we can demonstrate what they were asked to do, and have records of how they performed...

Cheers, Al.

I intentionally did not venture down this road. In some cases, like with unionized workforce, and situations like which you described, job descriptions are required for reasons other than "ISO says so".

As far as "...and my experience of audits of all varieties are that at some time i'm going to be required to show what I have (as a manager) determined these competencies need to be i.e. I've got to have a record of them" The record of the competencies might be found in work instructions, control plans, and other documentation (although I would argue that records are not required for this).

I kinda look at job descriptions much the same as FMEAs if done properly, they can be a tremendous asset. Most aren't at that level.

Hello mshell,

Thanks for the JD format. :thanx: Its a multiple in one.

Best regards,
Raffy

Questions for the group:

How much emphasis do you place on your job descriptions?

With increased emphasis, would this reduce the verbiage in existing procedures/instructions or eliminate some?

I agree with Dave in that for most organizations, they aren't very useful documents, many just created by folks needing to place an add in the "Help Wanted" section of the local rag. They lack real thought or detail necessary to have a standard necessary to determine shortfalls in employee/candidate abilities. They can be better written.

As for the control, I think that as you place an increased emphasis on the usefulness of the Job Description, you may need to better control aspects of the document. In general, my experience has shown the control to be by date of creation with initials and date of the responsible authority on the hard copy maintained in a master log, independent of other more general Doc Control activities or listings. My favorite way to organize these documents was in an Access db where input forms display job requirements and descriptions as well as having subforms recording history of changes made. I connected Job Descriptions to the Training Records table to capture the individuals ability to meet established requirements, either through previous experience/knowledge/education or subsequent training done for recognized omissions/deficiencies.

Just some thoughts...

Kevin

I'm surprised no one has responded to this question!

Marc - thanks for the gentle nudge to us all...

Kevin - I've spent a lot of time convincing people that under 9K-2K the old mantra of "write down what you do and then do it" can be replaced in places by demonstrating that staff are competent. But to do this, I've then got to be able to demonstrate that I have planned what competence means (in the light of the work that someone is to do) and that I have evidence to show that I have assessed that the competence is effective at ultimately achieving the business objectives/customer requirements. The key advantage here is that for example if the process someone is doing is to pack product into pink bags, I don't need to update detailed instructions when I change the process to packing in blue bags. I've used the fact that we must have Job descriptions (for legal protection) as a vehicle to help describe the competency requirements. We then have an appraisal system to measure how well someone matches up. Are we good at this - not particularly, but it's a long journey ! So I guess an answer to one of your questions, IMHO is yes - with increased emphasis, it can reduce the verbiage in existing procedures/instructions or eliminate some.

In the issue of job descriptions being controlled, I say yes - why not ? Assuming they have a value to the organisation - if they are simply job ads as Kevin highlights, then probably the best place for them is the (personnel) file for the recruited individual. That they may create long lists for little_cee can be solved by making subsets or referencing out as others have indicated.

Cheers, Al.

I'm surprised no one has responded to this question!
Agreed. We have had a look at the subject in other threads, though. Some examples:

Physical / Mental Capabilities and Working Conditions in Job Description? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6782&highlight=Job+Descriptions)
Job Descriptions for Internal Auditors (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6407&highlight=Job+Descriptions)
Job descriptions (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5901&highlight=Job+Descriptions)
ISO 9001 Job Descriptions (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4050&highlight=Job+Descriptions)
Training Records and Competency (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1720&highlight=Job+Descriptions)
job description help (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3064&highlight=Job+Descriptions)

Job descriptions seem to be a very popular subject for discussion, to say the least

/Claes

DB - there's a whole new thread in your comment. I'm keen to hear how you define what people are there to do without job descriptions ? I've met this for low level task type activity where people understand what they are to do by some validated training and a (very) detailed instruction sheet, but not yet seen an approach once you get into the "manage resources to deliver an outcome" type job roles. I'm curious...?

teknow - what value do you get from controlled formats and Jd's all in the same style ?

Al.
Consistency - if we left it to individuals to come up with JD's they probably would be vastly different. (Consistency is also our main reason for controlling Work Instruction formats - we like to keep 'em simple rather than having endless pages of text!)
:o Sorry for the long delay in replying, not been back to this thread for a while.

Wes,

Whole-heartedly agree! It is a document that is already in place and easy to revise when needed.:agree:

Al...

Been reading this post carefully and am surprised - am I the only organization that does NOT have their job descriptions as Controlled Documents? We have never had them as controlled documents, not under QS nor under TS. And it's never been an issue in an audit at all.

We have job descriptions that generically list the competencies associated with jobs, but per our procedures we gauge competency through employee evaluations. I personally don't put a lot of weight in job descriptions because my experience with them has been that the only part of ANY job description that matters is the last line.... "Other duties as assigned." Have you EVER taken on a job where the job description for your position is an accurate accounting of all the tasks and competencies associated with that position? I haven't, not in all my many years of working (including the brief stint as a Paper Girl at age 11). Forgive my never-ending pessimism one more time, but job descriptions are not unlike a Quality Policy statement (covered in another thread) - a nice document you have to have in place but what is the value in the end? We provide training for everyone in how to do the duties associated with their job, but I've yet to see ANY supervisor use a job description to do that. It's window-dressing.

Let the onslaught begin! :argue:

WHAT job descriptions? :) We don't have any yet! But they're workin' on it -- 2 years is not quite enough time you know!

I had a pretty accurate job description in my last job. But then again I mostly wrote it myself! And it did include that "other duties as required" catchall phrase (don't they all?).

Once we get job descriptions I don't think they will mean much. And like Steelwoman, I hope to not make them formally controlled documents. If someone bothers to ask, I will suggest they put a doc. number and creation date on them, but that's about it.

Our facility has always been against job descriptions. But to help solidify some links in our training process, we started using a database that already existed (but was never populated) in our Document Control software package. What the package calls job descriptions is more like reponsibilities. It helps to tie in the necessary document training to our training modules to the skills necessary to perform a specific job.

The verification is the output matching requirements. No job descriptions, nor annual performance reviews necessary.
This might be a stupid question but here goes...
Can you give some examples of outputs, or examples of objective evidence?

Right now we use Job Descriptions but do not do performance reviews. We measure defects by area not by person. We hold training sessions and have evidence of attendance. Am I missing something?:confused:
Paula

I believe that 1 thing overlooked is the fact that this "training" requirement is so open ended that a company can define any methodology they choose that works for them. This is a true case of say what you do and do what you say!

There are so many measurables available for validating training:

-Scrap Rates
-Defect Rates
-PPM
-Computer entry logs
-Time Cards
-Retests
-Shop Cleanliness
-Operator/Machine downtime
-Shipping/Receiving logs
-Performance reviews

That's 10 of the top of my head! Input some more you impressive Cove members!!!:applause:

. I know there's nothing in ISO to state that you NEED to do it this way but it sure makes things easier on me!

Actually, if control of those records is a process of yours, then you might have helped out in making the retrieval of records more efficient. . an improvement. :applause:

Actually I find a database in MS Access a very usefull tool to handle lists especially when it comes to document control. Set up your tables and reports. . .and off ya go. . .

As for maintaining those hardcopy files or records, ever think of scanning them onto a controlled / backed-up network drive? Can also be hyperlinked in Access for quick retrieval. . . let the computer do the work. . . you have more important tasks to perform.

Necessity was the mother of invention. . . but laziness was it's father. . . No digs intended here gang. :bigwave:

This might be a stupid question but here goes...
Can you give some examples of outputs, or examples of objective evidence?

Right now we use Job Descriptions but do not do performance reviews. We measure defects by area not by person. We hold training sessions and have evidence of attendance. Am I missing something?:confused:
Paula

When you describe your process (read map the process), you determine what the necessary competence is. This is based on the required process outputs. See 4.1 c) and e). What is the criteria for good and bad parts? How many parts are going to be run? Questions, such as these help to determine necessary competence. As, I have maintained, normal production records can constitutepart of 6.2.2 c). But Al's list is also a good partial list of things that can be used to show effectiveness. In short, what are the measurable of the process? If you are able to meet the process metrics, then you probably have a good handle on meeting 6.2.2c).

There are so many measurables available for validating training:

-Scrap Rates
-Defect Rates
-PPM
-Computer entry logs
-Time Cards
-Retests
-Shop Cleanliness
-Operator/Machine downtime
-Shipping/Receiving logs
-Performance reviews

When you describe your process (read map the process), you determine what the necessary competence is. This is based on the required process outputs. See 4.1 c) and e). What is the criteria for good and bad parts? How many parts are going to be run? Questions, such as these help to determine necessary competence.

I see where you guys are coming from with regard to these being indicators of competence, but couldn't each one of them be an indicator of systemic problems as well? I would be cautious reacting to any of these indicators as if they were strictly depicting a person's performance/competence, they may in-fact be indicating that there is a problem within the system that is preventing the person from performing as required.
:2cents:

I see where you guys are coming from with regard to these being indicators of competence, but couldn't each one of them be an indicator of systemic problems as well? I would be cautious reacting to any of these indicators as if they were strictly depicting a person's performance/competence, they may in-fact be indicating that there is a problem within the system that is preventing the person from performing as required.
:2cents:

Absolutly correct (as usual). I have often spoken of the DK (Deficiency in Knowledge) versus DE (Deficiency in Execution) battle. The "competence" thinking over the "training" thinking does a lot to move into this direction.

Of course this brings up another question. Why is 6.2.2 always applied to the individual? Could we not apply this on the process, or even system, level?

Of course this brings up another question. Why is 6.2.2 always applied to the individual? Could we not apply this on the process, or even system, level?

Not disagreeing with you, Dave, but there has been some discussion before on the overlaps in ISO 9001:2000. Could one not say that "comptence of processes" is assessed 8.2.3 where we wish to "...demonstrate the ability of the processes to achieve planned results"?

Just as with a person in 6.2.2 who found to be lacking in competency, in 8.2.3 action will be taken to ensure conformity (aka competency).

Not disagreeing with you, Dave, but there has been some discussion before on the overlaps in ISO 9001:2000. Could one not say that "comptence of processes" is assessed 8.2.3 where we wish to "...demonstrate the ability of the processes to achieve planned results"?

Just as with a person in 6.2.2 who found to be lacking in competency, in 8.2.3 action will be taken to ensure conformity (aka competency).

I wouldn't be upset if you were disagreeing with me. That is what gets our thinking going. Taking your example a bit farther, we meet 6.2.2 a), an a process level during 7.1. 6.2.2 b) is a bit tougher. It would encompass all of clause 6 and 7., then 6.2.2 c) would be met in the way you described.

But I think I've steered us :topic: Sorry.

I wouldn't be upset if you were disagreeing with me. That is what gets our thinking going. Taking your example a bit farther, we meet 6.2.2 a), an a process level during 7.1. 6.2.2 b) is a bit tougher. It would encompass all of clause 6 and 7., then 6.2.2 c) would be met in the way you described.

But I think I've steered us :topic: Sorry.

Not being on TC176, I can't say what these boys and girls were thinking when the Standard was written. But it would appear like they've tried to keep the various aspects of a process separate.

People - the whole competency thing
Machine - processes, infrastructure
Environment - its own clause
Method - processes, QMS
Measurement - bunch of clauses
Material - Ummm..purchasing and traceability, product realization