One of the managers asked a couple of days ago if everyone in his department had to 'know' what the procedures said (as far as their work was concerned). I told him that they needed to be aware of what the procedure(s) said, but not verbatim.

This got me thinking… Should every employee read the procedures, or the portions thereof, that are applicable to what they do? I don’t think it would be a problem here, as we have ~100 employees and more than likely anyone of them would have to read about a page, or two at the most, provided that the manager (or I) select the appropriate sections.

What has been your approach? Have you had everyone read the procedures? Do you have a sign-off sheet indicating those who have read the procedures?

Thanks!

Alex

This got me thinking… Should every employee read the procedures, or the portions thereof, that are applicable to what they do?
Thanks!

Alex

Alex:

While I don't think it is a requirement, and you could make a case for not having them read the procedures applicable to them, the best way to make sure that the employees have seen ALL of the parts of the procedure, and all employees have been exposed to the same thing would be to have them read the related document.

How do you train? Make reading the applicable procedure part of the training, and have the employees sign a form that states that they have been trained to that procedure. At least, that's how we do it.

Hope this helps.

Craig

Hello all,
All of our QMS documentation is in English, and a good portion of the workforce cannot read English 100%, but they can easily give the right answer in our language what the QMS documentation requires, be it Policies, QM, QMSs, Work Instructions.....etc,.I also make certain that I cover this situation in my audits by asking the person/s to demonstrate to me how a particular activity is performed. So far it has worked extremely well for us.

I guess if I had to swear on a stack of Bibles that every employee has read every procedure, I'd have to say that I doubt it. But, our document control system is set up to notify every employee that a procedure change or implementation has been made. If they do not open the document and click the button that says they have reviewed it they cannot sign their time card. (work instructions are notified only to those whose jobs are affected) And so, I can say without a doubt that every employee was notified and looked at the document :lmao:

I guess if I had to swear on a stack of Bibles that every employee has read every procedure, I'd have to say that I doubt it. But, our document control system is set up to notify every employee that a procedure change or implementation has been made. If they do not open the document and click the button that says they have reviewed it they cannot sign their time card. (work instructions are notified only to those whose jobs are affected) And so, I can say without a doubt that every employee was notified and looked at the document :lmao:When I was in the precision machining business, reading, knowing, and comprehending Procedures and Work Instructions was on an "as needed" basis. Therefore, my shipping department did not read or learn Work Instructions for running a Swiss Screw Machine.

Procedures and Work Instructions associated with processes were a joint creation with the folks who actually had to do the task. The Procedure or Work Instruction did not get approved and incorporated into our system until those who had to work with it were in agreement. We definitely did not have Procedures or Work Instructions written solely by some nerd who had never touched the process under consideration.

I seldom fret about such things, and deal with knowledge of procedures by exception.

First of all, most of our procedures and work instructions are written based on what is current practice, so most of the time there is no issue.

We highly rely on auditing, both formally and informally (every day) and try to extract from the common banter around the place where inefficiencies exist. For example, if a certain checklist is not turned in to a certain department after machine shipment, I investigate the cause. If it truly was someone not following a procedure, I sit down with him/her and go over it step by step.

So all of the "exceptions to the rule" must read and verify their comprehension of the procedure. Whether the other 95-99% have actually read their procedures or not matters not to me, as long as what they are DOING meets the spirit of the procedure.

BTW, We keep our "procedures" as lean and spare as possible; very little i dotting and t crossing.

When I was in the precision machining business, reading, knowing, and comprehending Procedures and Work Instructions was on an "as needed" basis. Therefore, my shipping department did not read or learn Work Instructions for running a Swiss Screw Machine.

Procedures and Work Instructions associated with processes were a joint creation with the folks who actually had to do the task. The Procedure or Work Instruction did not get approved and incorporated into our system until those who had to work with it were in agreement. We definitely did not have Procedures or Work Instructions written solely by some nerd who had never touched the process under consideration.

What Wes has mentioned is the most ideal approach. We are trying to get there. This is more of a preventive approach. :agree1: Also provides a sense of ownership to the employees who contributed to the preparation of the document.

Steel Maidens organization has put a system that would ensure the relevant employees atleast look at the released document and provides an objective evidence that did look at the document. This is Good. But,from my experience there is no guarentee that the employees actually read and understood the document.

We have an Oracle ilearning module which actually time the review duration. We see from the time statistics that there are cases where employees have just opened and scrolled through the document in 12 seconds! (while the review typically should have taken 45 min).

Didn't we hear a proverb from the past, we can only bring the horse to where the water is..(some one finish this..)

Bottom line is whatever the robost way we put a system in place, unless the employees who perform the work are involved, implementation is less likely to succeed.
Regards,
Govind.

I have used flowcharts that have visuals attached as motivators. IMO, I believe work procedures are most effective when kept simple.
Flowcharts work well indeed.
Wallace.

We have an Oracle ilearning module which actually time the review duration. We see from the time statistics that there are cases where employees have just opened and scrolled through the document in 12 seconds! (while the review typically should have taken 45 min).

Didn't we hear a proverb from the past, we can only bring the horse to where the water is..(some one finish this..)
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Anyway, you must be in a much more precise industry than I, sometimes 12 seconds might be plenty for the employee to go to the revised area and see what changed. I don't think we have any document within our system that would take more than 3-5 minutes to read.

You are absolutely correct in saying that our system does not ensure they read it. (which was stated in my post) The main point of our system is to let employees know that a revision or implementation has happened. And, as stated, everything that is in the quality system was originally issued, and always revised/approved by those performing the work, the revisions should come as no surprise to them. Are we concerned with whether or not they actually read it? Obviously not, or we would also time their access to the docoument. We are concerned about the proactiveness of ensuring that effective, effecient, and timely communications take place. The dept. managers were the driving force with tying notifications to time cards. They and they alone insist that employees read the documents and that is mostly because of liability/hr issues.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Anyway, you must be in a much more precise industry than I, sometimes 12 seconds might be plenty for the employee to go to the revised area and see what changed. I don't think we have any document within our system that would take more than 3-5 minutes to read.

You are absolutely correct in saying that our system does not ensure they read it. (which was stated in my post) The main point of our system is to let employees know that a revision or implementation has happened. And, as stated, everything that is in the quality system was originally issued, and always revised/approved by those performing the work, the revisions should come as no surprise to them. Are we concerned with whether or not they actually read it? Obviously not, or we would also time their access to the docoument. We are concerned about the proactiveness of ensuring that effective, effecient, and timely communications take place. The dept. managers were the driving force with tying notifications to time cards. They and they alone insist that employees read the documents and that is mostly because of liability/hr issues.It seems to me that if a company has a procedure or work instruction an employee is REQUIRED to read (if it isn't necessary to his task, why require it?), then it is worthwhile to have a comprehension test afterward.

Failing a comprehension test hints at a minimum of TWO things:

Procedure or test is incomprehensible for intended audience (most likely in my experience)
Employee is not capable or not motivated

Regardless, not passing the comprehension test should trigger some activity (such as, among others):

Revise Procedure
Revise Test
Counsel Employee

The main point of our system is to let employees know that a revision or implementation has happened. And, as stated, everything that is in the quality system was originally issued, and always revised/approved by those performing the work, the revisions should come as no surprise to them. Are we concerned with whether or not they actually read it? Obviously not, or we would also time their access to the docoument. We are concerned about the proactiveness of ensuring that effective, effecient, and timely communications take place. The dept. managers were the driving force with tying notifications to time cards. They and they alone insist that employees read the documents and that is mostly because of liability/hr issues.

Likewise where I work. A document is issued based on what they do...do they need to read about what they do? No. A document is revised based on changes to the process...more often than naught, changes they themselves implemented. Do they need to read about what they now do? No.

New employees, however, are a different situation. In this case, they do read over every document that pertains to their job. Do they "retain" all of this information? Probably not literally....however, as they learn how to do the job, that is how they retain the knowledge that they read about.

We do record how much time was spent training and calculate how much it costs for the training to be conducted. We try to have a least 50 hours of training per employee each year...with most courses, however, focusing on safety and the environment.

It seems to me that if a company has a procedure or work instruction an employee is REQUIRED to read (if it isn't necessary to his task, why require it?), then it is worthwhile to have a comprehension test afterward.

Define "comprehension test", please. Some people don't do well at tests, per se. We conduct job observations - this includes adherence to the documented process, safety requirements, etc. If there is an issue, actions are put in place to get the individual back on track.

Define "comprehension test", please. Some people don't do well at tests, per se. We conduct job observations - this includes adherence to the documented process, safety requirements, etc. If there is an issue, actions are put in place to get the individual back on track.Great question, Roxane.
As I have often written, I believe (and act on the belief) employees expected to perform tasks in Procedures and Work Instructions should have input on the design and wording of the Procedure or Work Instruction. Similarly for Comprehension tests - some can be "multiple guess," but more likely, we have a practical exam, overseen by supervisor or experienced worker, for the employee to perform the Procedure or Work Instruction.

This can be as simple as using a micrometer correctly and efficiently to as complicated as setting up and running a job on a machining tool. For office tasks, we have given stacks of documents and asked file clerks to sort correctly for filing, asked employees to run demos of various features on copy machines and fax machines, etc.

We all agree paper and pencil tests do not always convey the employee's true understanding of the task, while practical exams are probably more accurate, depending on the quality of the overseer. Similarly, thanks to visual-minded folks like Wallace, Claes, and many others, Procedures and Work Instructions may now be in charts, diagrams, photos, movies or any other medium which works for the employee pool.

I think it is important to note we make a distinction between

comprehension (capability/competence) for individuals, which we test and record,
and
performance (capacity/rate/quantity), which is not measured for individuals, only for processes.
We gear processes to be operated by anyone competent. If someone is super-competent, that's a bonus for us. If we note the process is under-performing according to plan or theory, we evaluate the process and the training and decide what may need to be changed. This is a big arena for error proofing activity.

Oops! This became more involved than I had anticipated.

Keep in mind that I am referring to procedures and not to work or job instructions. Hence, what I am suggesting they ‘may’ or ‘should’ read is not that complicated; a few paragraphs or flowchart blocks, specific to just their work.

Since all of our written procedures are new, I am hoping that by letting the employees read them, I will learn how closely we were able to describe what really goes on. Once that is done, and the procedures are properly edited, we will have something for new employees to read that can give them familiarity with what they will doing. Reading the procedures would be but one many approaches used in training – perhaps the least effective for some people, but the most consistent nonetheless.

I do want everyone to know that written procedures indeed do exist, and that to a great extent, these reflect what we do. I also believe that they (the employees) will be more at ease at audit time if they know that they will be audited according to the procedures with which they are familiar.

All your comments sure provide a lot of grey matter stimulation – thanks! :agree1:

Alex

Alex

Are you saying that you have a consistently ineffective training process called 'reading a procedure' ?

:tg:

Alex

Are you saying that you have a consistently ineffective training process called 'reading a procedure' ?

:tg:I guess MY point (too subtle the first and second time around?) is that we do NOT create a Procedure in a vacuum. We don't issue a Procedure as a completed document until it has been reviewed and approved by PEOPLE who will be expected to abide by it.

I suppose there are some who feel they can adopt boilerplate Procedures into their system. I'm not one of them.

What's "involved" is the employee base - they are involved in creating and maintaining the system.

I retract any snide implication if you meant you are circulating DRAFT copies of Procedures prior to adopting them as finished documents.

Keep in mind that I am referring to procedures and not to work or job instructions. Hence, what I am suggesting they ‘may’ or ‘should’ read is not that complicated; a few paragraphs or flowchart blocks, specific to just their work.

Some organizations have different meanings or purposes for their documentations levels. Alex, could you please tell us how your company differentiates between the levels? What is the purpose of a procedure vs that of a work instruction?

Since all of our written procedures are new, I am hoping that by letting the employees read them, I will learn how closely we were able to describe what really goes on. Once that is done, and the procedures are properly edited, we will have something for new employees to read that can give them familiarity with what they will doing. Reading the procedures would be but one many approaches used in training – perhaps the least effective for some people, but the most consistent nonetheless.

Who wrote the procedures? A good practice is to let the employees who do the job write them...or, if their ability to write is not as good as you would prefer, have someone shadow them.

Shift work is where some the fun starts. I've noticed that once a process is documented, all of a sudden we start noticing how different shifts/crews do the same process in a different manner....and in a few cases, I've pointed out that the differences were occurring in some critical areas.

But, yes, ensuring that what was documented does indeed reflect what is being practiced is a smart thing to do.

First of all, as I said, once we have them, reading the procedures could be just one of the tools we may use for training; we very well know that reading such is not sufficient for some (many?) people. We presently rely mostly on OJT done by supervisors and lead operators, but the procedures will certainly be nice to have.

We already have extensive work or job instructions that consist of interactive PC programs where the actual work to be performed is thoroughly depicted with pictures and short sentences every step of the way. These instructions, which I was under the impression were acceptably classified as Level-3, tell the operator how to actually do the work. The instructions are on-line, as provided by our local area network system.

However, the instructions do not tell the operator what work they have to do, how many to do, from where to get the parts they have to work on, at what stage(s) to do inspection, what to do with rejects, and such. These are the topics that the procedures address.

For example, the first few steps of a procedure may be as follows:
1. Receive daily schedule from supervisor
2. Procure parts and work order documentation per daily schedule
3. If not enough parts in stock bin for any of the orders, notify expediter, and set that subassembly aside for later completion. Scan work order and update status.
4. Assemble parts per work order (if necessary, refer to On-Line instructions for subassemblies)
5. Inspect individual sub-assemblies (if necessary, refer to On-Line instructions for inspection steps)
6. If any subassemblies are non-conforming, scan work order, update status, and place subassembly and work order on repair-technician staging shelf.

and so on...

Work instructions are mentioned to let it be known that they do exist and are readily available IF needed. Normally, after an operator has been on the job for a few weeks, he/she seldom needs the on-line instructions; but if needed, the instructions are there. Yes, we have a PC within a few steps of any workstation.

When a new operator is hired or moved to a new area, the first thing we do is let them go through the on-line training that consists of these instructions together with a few questions. Once on the job, the lead operator and supervisor also help to train the new operator. After that, if a new operator, or any operator for that matter, has any questions, they have the options to ask someone or to look up the answer to their question on-line.

Now I probably have everyone thoroughly confused?

Alex

Okay...so what was the question again? :D

More important, did we ever answer it?

I agree with Wes, that if a procedure (read any document) is necessary, then why have it? If it is necessary, then the affected employees would have to know it.

I'm not certain there is value in having a sign-off sheet. I've been places where each employee signs a document stating they have received, read, and understand the quality policy. But just signing it doesn't mean you know the policy.

Likewise, I don't think a test is necessarily valuable. I can pass a test with luck, or fail because I have trouble understand the question. The better test, would be one of actual performance. Management would observe me, to see if I can perform the task (or process). It is part of management's everyday job, and it allows them to know if I know what I'm doing. If you really insist on records, then normal production records would show that I know my process/task.

Roxanne,
Hmmm - - - More or less, just wondered how many employees had read the procedures that pertained to what they do.

If it were a new company, with all newly written procedures (untried for sure) and also all new employees, the expected answer would likely be "everyone has read the procedures."

If it were a well-established company with nothing but experienced, seasoned employees and the procedures had just recently been written based as closely as possible on what the employees actually did, the answer could well be "no one has read the procedures."

We have the experienced, seasoned employees who do not need to read anything to know what to do, but I am considering having them read the just-written procedures to make them aware of the existence of the documents and to get their feedback. To reiterate, the procedures were indeed written based on what the employees and supervisors said.

So far, the answers have ranged from "yes, everyone reads them and we keep track of who reads them", to "no; what are they and why are they needed", and a few in between. But I get the idea.

Thanks -

Alex