Mornin' everyone...

Here's my rub - I'm having a bit of a challenge with figuring out how to address training in my process docs. Background: my doc system consists of the 6 required docs, plus a set of "process" SOPs - ordering process, R&D operations, purchasing operations, and so on, up to shipping operations. These SOPs are broken up into "auditable" processes. The only process doc that I'm writing that *isn't* from clause 7 is a management review SOP - because the management responsibility clauses can only be fully audited by a few of our internal auditors (for confidentiality reasons).

Anyway, sorry about the ramble - our internal auditors have been trained, and advised that when they audit, they now have to take into account a number of issues (not just their main processes): they also have to account for training, for QA, for infrastructure, for control of NCP, and so on. I don't want to write docs for these clauses (except for 8.3, of course), because they should be audited with processes and not as stand-alone issues - but I also don't want to dumb down my system by writing "all employees must be trained" in every single SOP. Has anyone come up with a way to "gently remind" their auditors of the need to audit all peripheral processes? I'm sure that it'll become second nature, but for this painful transition period it's got to be emphasized...

(Sorry if this seems like a silly question - I'm reading it over now and it seems a little dumb, but I'm seriously struggling with this...) :frust:

Cheers,
-R.

PS: Has anyone seen the new "Mr. Pareto-Head" cartoon in this month's "Quality Progress" magazine? I knew I'd reached a new geeky low when I found myself laughing at a joke with the words "standard deviations" in it... :o

Has anyone come up with a way to "gently remind" their auditors of the need to audit all peripheral processes?

Can you just ensure that the related questions are included in their audit checklists?

You're missing the boat Rachel....training isn't the real or even important issue, you can get evidence of training by looking at records, schedules, plans and all that gibberish. Your auditors should be looking for evidence of "competence" of which training is a component.

Too much focus and time is expended with this training issue. I've seen people with literally hundreds of hours of training that can't even tell you what it was about. We need to focus on the competence of employees and toss off the metrics producing "training hours per emplyee" yoke.

You can send a dog to obedience school, spend thousands of dollars, and still have a dumb dog.


"There is no failure except in no longer trying." ~~Elbert Hubbard

Too much focus and time is expended with this training issue. I've seen people with literally hundreds of hours of training that can't even tell you what it was about. We need to focus on the competence of employees and toss off the metrics producing "training hours per emplyee" yoke.

Right on, Randy,:agree1:

I look for, and often ask people: -Have you got everything you need to be able to do your job? The necessary competence is one of the things I want to find...

/Claes

You're missing the boat Rachel....training isn't the real or even important issue, you can get evidence of training by looking at records, schedules, plans and all that gibberish. Your auditors should be looking for evidence of "competence" of which training is a component.


Yes, I understand that, Randy. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. My problem is that I need a foolproof way to make sure that the issues in 6.2.2 are addressed. Call it what you want - a training audit, a competence assessment - call it a Macintosh or a Granny Smith, they're both still apples.

Competence and training are not both apples, there is a very distinct difference.

Training is having rubbish, trash and junk poured into your head...

Competence is taking all that has been poured into your head, along with some experience and education mixed in, and being able to actually do something with it in a consistant manner to reach a desired conclusion or result.

You have to decide what you want to do before you can develop your plan to do it!

Do you want to audit training? If so, develop the necessary measure to verify it is happening in the appropriate manner to achieve expectations, customer or otherwise..

Do you want to audit competence? If so, you must 1st determine whether competence has been defined by your organization and then develop the methodolgy to verify the achievement of it.

As I stated...Competence and Training are two entirely different creatures and they require a different approach.

Competence and training are not both apples, there is a very distinct difference.

Training is having rubbish, trash and junk poured into your head...

Does anyone else find the irony in this comment from a super trainer?

Has anyone come up with a way to "gently remind" their auditors of the need to audit all peripheral processes?
I don't know if you've seen the thread "Ten essential ISO 9001:2000 audit questions" by Craig Cochran. There's also a great chart by /Claes, as well as different versions of how the questions may be put forward. I don't want to steal anyone's credit.



We have a specific QMS for training which was left as is from the ISO 9002:1994 version and addresses competence, awareness and training( including re-certification). Competence is presumed to be achieved after the necessary training has been given and the individual passing a test.
We monitor compitence through the individual's awareness by assessing the level of performance ( on going) namely by supervisors and managers.
Re certification is performed for key roles.

I was using those words in a symbolic fashion only Wes.... :D

"Competence is presumed to be achieved after the necessary training has been given and the individual passing a test."

I can pass any test I need/have to pass..that doesn't mean that I would be a competent brain surgeon or whatever.

Passing an exam does not prove or validate competence, it just shows that something sunk in and was remembered at the most.

Can the training/education be applied in such a fashion that what is desired actually and consistently happens? This is normally only achieved as experience is gained. If you have defined competence as just passing a test...you lose.

You can modify the information in this link to apply to this topic

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=70634#post70634

As has been pointed out, training is simply the first step, Rachel...now what do you wish to find out?


Was the training effective? or
Is the person competent at what they do?


I'm assuming the latter. Based on that assumption, ask yourself what tools or methods does your Organization have in place as a means of demonstrating competency?

At my Organization there is a whole multitude of tools and methods:


Nonconformance Reports
Abnormality Reports
Customer Complaints
Key Indicators
Adherence to action plans and schedules
Performance assessments
Job observations
Audit findings
and so on...


Personally, I do not wish to see anyone's Performance Appraisal...nor do I allow any of the other Internal Auditors to go down that route. I do, however, expect HR and Management to explain to me the process for assessing competency, which should also include explanations on how all the other tools are used in that assessment.

Is this the kind of information you were looking for?

Rachel,

Here is my Competency Slide and Training flow chart I show our supervisors when discussing training and competency. Personnel must prove competency against their skills matrix as dictated by their job description. Work Instructions are part of the skills needed for competency to be achieved above their normal Training and Life skills. There is a Competency Checklist in the back of all of the Work Instructions and the candiate must prove competency to his/her supervisor before being signed off as competent and then progressing onto another skill requirement.
The Skills Table shows the levels an opertaor can achieve and each of those levels have a skills matrix that they must prove competency in.

When we do audits we only have to worry about the skills table in each department (have not got a copy) being signed off and upto date.

Please review all of the attached files and if you have any questions then just ask away.

Greg B

Randy,

I wrote "competence IS PRESUMED...............", I also read your link..
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread...70634#post70634......thank you

A sentence that really attracted my attention was the following,
Therefore the focus should be on how can we prove our auditors are competent and how can we develop competence in them?

I couldn't agree with you more.

I would say awareness, training, testing, assessments, and re-certification.

I would say "let them audit"

Thanks for the comment. :)

I was using those words in a symbolic fashion only Wes.... :D

"Competence is presumed to be achieved after the necessary training has been given and the individual passing a test."

I can pass any test I need/have to pass..that doesn't mean that I would be a competent brain surgeon or whatever.

Randy is absolutely correct, but only when the person constructing the test has not studied Bloom's Taxonomy (Google this phrase for more info than I give here.) Most test constructors have very shallow understanding of a topic themselves and so the test they construct does NOT fully challenge "competency."

Here's a nutshell summary, adapted from the introduction to the ASQ Body of Knowledge for the Certified Quality Manager Exam:
In addition to content specifics, the subtext detail also indicates the intended complexity level of the test questions for that topic. These levels are based on "Levels of Cognition" (from Bloom’s Taxonomy, 1956) and are presented below in rank order, from least complex to most complex.

Knowledge Level
(Also commonly referred to as recognition, recall, or rote knowledge.) Being able to remember or recognize terminology, definitions, facts, ideas, materials, patterns, sequences, methodologies, principles, etc.

Comprehension Level
Being able to read and understand descriptions, communications, reports, tables, diagrams, directions, regulations, etc.

Application Level
Being able to apply ideas, procedures, methods, formulas, principles, theories, etc. in job-related situations

Analysis
Being able to break down information into its constituent parts and recognize the parts’ relationship to one another and how they are organized; identify sublevel factors or salient data from a complex scenario

Synthesis
Being able to put parts or elements together in such a way as to show a pattern or structure not clearly there before; identify which data or information from a complex set is appropriate to examine further or from which supported conclusions can be drawn

Evaluation
Able to make judgments regarding the value of proposed ideas, solutions, methodologies, etc., by using appropriate criteria or standards to estimate accuracy, effectiveness, economic benefits, etc.
In my experience, very few tests go deeper than the first three levels. (Nor do most tests need to, but then don't expect a person passing a shallow test to give good insight in how to improve a process he is "competent" to perform, but does not have "mastery" of to properly evaluate a design of experiments for improvement.)

Consider it like the difference between a spelling test and writing an essay. Little kids in grammar school routinely amaze us with the ability to spell words in spelling bees. (What most folks don't know is that the kids start with a list of 2500 to 5000 words from which the test will be given.) The trick is just studying the list and regurgitating.

The test of comprehension and competency would be to write essays which not only use the words correctly, but convey a substantive message (synthesis and evaluation.) For brain surgery, I guess you'd have to diagnose a condition and perform a successful operation.

TELL ME AND I FORGET.
TEACH ME AND I REMEMBER.
INVOLVE ME AND I LEARN.

Benjamin Franklin

Kindly refer to BS 7229 Part 1 & 2, ISO10011-1
The following site is interesting
www.victoriagroup.com/ontargetdb/auditsyst.htm

Kindly refer to BS 7229 Part 1 & 2, ISO10011-1
The following site is interesting
www.victoriagroup.com/ontargetdb/auditsyst.htm


Thanks - this is *exactly* what I'm looking for! :D
Cheers,
-R.

Hi Greg B,
Thank you for the attached file(s).
Concern:
On your WI Competency Checklist, does the objectives is the different task of the operator? Please enlighten me. :thanx:
On the Competency.ppt, does a skills matrix is a need to identify competency of a personnel? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy :cool:

Hi Greg B,
Thank you for the attached file(s).
Concern:
On your WI Competency Checklist, does the objectives is the different task of the operator? Please enlighten me. :thanx:
On the Competency.ppt, does a skills matrix is a need to identify competency of a personnel? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy :cool:

Raffy,

In the WI Competency Checklist (see link to previous post below) the operator must be deemed competent in each of the objectives by a supervisaor/mentor before they can be signed off. The objectives are the same for each operator undertaking the tasks of the work instruction. The teams involved with the WI are the people that decide the objectives. They review them annually along with the WI.

Each operator has a skills matrix that is decided by the position in which they are employed eg: A shift electrician in our Deadburn plant will require a license to act as an approved electrician, a set of WI, certain machinery and plant tickets, Safety topics etc that they must be deemed competent in before they are deemed proficient in their area. They will then gain skill points for their competency and be available for advancement, supervisor/management training and/or pay increases.
See the Magnesia Production Units and Skills Table in the link below as these show the different levels an operator can obtain (skill levels) and ALL of the units an operator can obtain if they eventually cover the entire plant and mines.

I hope this answers your questions :)

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=73421&postcount=11
Greg B

Somewhere along the line I think I got off track from what I thought was Rachel's original subject: "...how to address training...", "...to account for training..."

I wrote a procedure for Human Resources to implement, "Training of Personnel", which addresses the following topics.

• Establishing Need for Training (outlines when and what type of training)
• Competence for Training (to determine a person's abilities and skills)
• Training Methods (according to the subject of the training)
• Training Duration and Frequency
• Effectiveness of Training (evaluate training success based in part on job performance)
• Training Records

Each department is responsible for training their employees, and Human Resources is responsible for keeping and maintaining the training records (in the personnel files) and for the initial orientation training.

Am I off base with this approach?

BTW, I address the qualification requirements, including training, for our internal auditors and lead auditor in our Internal Audit procedure.

Thanks -

Alex

Going back to the original question, I have on my audit schedule all the processes listed down the left hand side, and all the major ISO9001 clause references across the top. The grid beneath is checked to show which clause needs to be addressed for each process.

Neadless to say the 'competency' related clauses are checked for all processes.

Am I off base with this approach?
:agree1: I think you are right on target with your approach... We are trying the same thing here, but have found some disconnect with some of the individuals who should be providing our HR department with updates to employee records (the evidence of training and the assessments of competence).

ERL