ISO 9001 para 6.2.2.a requires that management determine the necessary competence of the employee.

ISO 6.2.2.b requires that management provide training or other action to improve competence... and...

ISO 6.2.2.c requires that we measure the effectiveness of the training or other action to improve competence.

In the past, many companies identified training needs, the needs were written on a training plan, and the attendees either had internal / external certificates or they signed an attendance register to prove they attended the school.

The new norm specifically requires that management not only identify the training need (para a) and provide remedial action (para b)... but also requires that we measure the effectiveness of that remedial action ( para c).

Therefore, a simple training plan with attendee lists and/or internal/external certificates is not enough.

I wanted to get others input on how you all measure the improved competence of employees after the internal/external training has been completed.

Just for a note: Many companies attempt to fulfill this requirement through a critique of the training event... such as room lighting, knowldge of the instuctor, materials used, time allocated to the instruction, and so forth.

This in my opinion... If I speak English properly ( native ), is not the intent of 6.2.2.c

I believe that the actual competence must be measured to ensure that the intended increase in competence through training is effective. Therefore, the person receiving the training has to be controlled as to their understanding of what they just learned.

Does anyone have any good examples on how to fulfill this requirement?

First off, have you tried a search in the Cove on this topic? I am certain we have discussed it before.

Would not the competence of people equate to effective training? This may not always be case, I agree, as I am certain there are times where the student is competent in spite of the teacher's lack of competency. However, I still feel that there is a pretty solid connection between effective training and competency.

The questions on the feedback sheet should be rephrased in a manner that pertains to the training itself, not the lighting or the snacks or the bathroom breaks. Questions like "Was the training relevent to your job?", "Were you able to think of ways to apply this training to your position?", "Would you recommend this training to other people in your position?", and so on.

I believe that the actual competence must be measured to ensure that the intended increase in competence through training is effective. Therefore, the person receiving the training has to be controlled as to their understanding of what they just learned.
I think one issue here is this depends upon the situation - specifically when one starts using the term 'measurement'. For example, lets say you have a metal press and you do OTJ training. Let's face it most companies have someone watch after basic instruction and then that person 'signs off' on that person having been trained at some point. There are no measureables and evaluation of competence is subjective.

On the other hand, let's say you're a wafer fab. One screw up and tens of thousands of $ may be lost - so you test each employee every six months.

Bottom line is a company must look at each position realistically and ask what they need to do in their specific situation. In some cases a signoff sheet is all that is really needed.

I will say this - In general I believe most companies skimp on training and evaluation of competence. For those following the news, this is across the board as noted in the recent writeups about homes caring for the aged in Washington DC and surrounding states where many people have died due to neglect, wrong (or too much or too little) medication, and other 'problems' which are symptoms directly related to training and competence. USA Today had a big piece on it today.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2004-05-26-assisted-day2_x.htm

First off, have you tried a search in the Cove on this topic? I am certain we have discussed it before.That we did... Here are but a few examples:

How Can I Evaluate and Document the Competence of an Employee? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5097&highlight=6.2.2)
Addressing Training in ISO 9001:2000 Process Documents (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8169&highlight=6.2.2)
Training Effectiveness Evaluation - Different Styles - In-House and External (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6047&highlight=6.2.2)
6.2.2 Competence, awareness and training - Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2569&highlight=6.2.2)
Training effectiveness measurement - 6.2.2 Competence, awareness and training (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6815&highlight=6.2.2)
Evaluating training, needed for office personnel? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7156&highlight=6.2.2)

That said, I will agree with SSwanson that 6.2.2c still is causing a lot of concern all over the place, and we have all seen some very different views on how to live up to the requirement. The above links will also highlight how those views have changed since the release of ISO9001:2000.

However, I still feel that there is a pretty solid connection between effective training and competency.Absolutley.

/Claes

We just had our TS upgrade audit, and our assertion that a performance evaluation IS a measurement of employee's competence and the effectiveness of the training they have received was accepted without dispute. I mean, that's what we DO them for, right? To see if John Q. Employee has been trained well enough to do his job well and is therefore competent to keep doing it.

Our Certification Body (ISO 9001 and TS2) require an effectiveness review to take place 3-6 months after the training has been put into practice in the workplace. The review must involve both the individual trainee and his/her line manager, and cover both the fulfilment of the original objectives (effectiveness) and the value-for-money and time (efficiency) of the training course.

Fortunately we have a performance review process which requires 6-monthly updates, so we can always meet this requirement. One of our larger sites has automated the whole process into a Lotus Notes database.

There is no way they would accept a course appraisal (completed immediately after the training) as evidence of training effectiveness.

ISO 9001 para 6.2.2.a requires that management determine the necessary competence of the employee.

ISO 6.2.2.b requires that management provide training or other action to improve competence... and...

ISO 6.2.2.c requires that we measure the effectiveness of the training or other action to improve competence.

In the past, many companies identified training needs, the needs were written on a training plan, and the attendees either had internal / external certificates or they signed an attendance register to prove they attended the school.

The new norm specifically requires that management not only identify the training need (para a) and provide remedial action (para b)... but also requires that we measure the effectiveness of that remedial action ( para c).

Therefore, a simple training plan with attendee lists and/or internal/external certificates is not enough.
...
I believe that the actual competence must be measured to ensure that the intended increase in competence through training is effective. Therefore, the person receiving the training has to be controlled as to their understanding of what they just learned.

Does anyone have any good examples on how to fulfill this requirement?
The typical survey or evaluation form at the end of a training session is usually an appraisal of the overall course content, the instructor's methods of delivering the content, and the facility in which the course was given. It usually is not useful in indicating the effectiveness of the training to the trainee.

Effectiveness of the training needs to be measured but the measurements use different methods and at different times.

If the training is only to impart required general knowledge (a session on prevention of sexual harassment, for example) then an examination at the end may be sufficient. Some organizations also give an exam at the start of the course and use the differences between the two to measure improvement.
If the training also includes skill-based elements (high-reliability soldering, for example) then additional follow-up at some time after completion of the course should be done. This will monitor the effectiveness in terms of the skill retained and used by the trainees, and with "enough" data from several sessions may even give a useful measure of how often refresher training may be needed.

The questions on the feedback sheet should be rephrased in a manner that pertains to the training itself, not the lighting or the snacks or the bathroom breaks. Questions like "Was the training relevent to your job?", "Were you able to think of ways to apply this training to your position?", "Would you recommend this training to other people in your position?", and so on.

I disagree here... The objective is not to evaluate the training... though that might be important after the training event from an administrative perspective.

The others answers in the thread give rise to thought. Depending on the importance of the activity, the competency after training is critical. Except in high tech activities, I would venture to say that competency of employees at most companies is not evaluated very well.

In manual labor type activities, such as the preparation of sampling materials for laboratory analysis under 17025, competency of the minimum wage grunt is critical to successful analysis. If the preparation is faulty, the whole testing event in the lab is useless.

Never-the-less, it is easy to forget just how important competency is.

A yearly administrative paper evaluation that some have mentioned... is that good enough?

Or do we need hands on... on the job... real work evaluations by first line supervisors?

It's kinda like control of measuring and inspection equipment for human resources. Verification of competency. If errors are found, we have to calibrate the employee. :whip:

I disagree here... The objective is not to evaluate the training... though that might be important after the training event from an administrative perspective.

I am hardly saying that this is the only means by which the effectiveness of the training can be measured. However, if people insist on using questionnaires as part of the process, the right questions need to be asked.

A yearly administrative paper evaluation that some have mentioned... is that good enough?

Depends on the system, its maturity, its ability to take the right actions when called for.

Or do we need hands on... on the job... real work evaluations by first line supervisors?

Again, it depends on the system and the application of the on-the-job evaluations. If the evaluation is going to simply point out what is wrong, then it's not good enough. It also needs to call attention to the actions that will be taken to ensure competency is maintained...this may result in further training. If training is called for again, however, isn't that a good indication that the training is not effective perhaps? Yes, it could be something with the individual or the tools s/he is working with, but if training is continually being provided to the same person for the same task, surely a deeper analysis should be done.

It's kinda like control of measuring and inspection equipment for human resources. Verification of competency. If errors are found, we have to calibrate the employee.

In a way, we do that where I work. We assigned product quality issues and Customer Complaints to specific crews. Good numbers = competency...but we support this with on-the-job evaluations, safety inspections, and crew meetings filled with discussions.

It's kinda like control of measuring and inspection equipment for human resources. Verification of competency. If errors are found, we have to calibrate the employee. :whip:

I just hope that one asks...........why was the error done? before proceeding with the calibrating.
One may find out that......(to continue with the metaphorical example given) one was not so careful with the equipment in question in the first place.


By the way I lived in Mulhiem way back in the late 60s...nice place

... competency of employees at most companies is not evaluated very well.

In manual labor type activities, such as the preparation of sampling materials for laboratory analysis under 17025, competency of the minimum wage grunt is critical to successful analysis. If the preparation is faulty, the whole testing event in the lab is useless ...

It's kinda like control of measuring and inspection equipment for human resources. Verification of competency. If errors are found, we have to calibrate the employee. :whip:
You have hit on the reason why ISO/IEC 17025 requires evaluation of the competence of the organization to perform the tests or calibrations, in addition to assessment of the quality management system.

The result depends on the entire process, and part of the process is the people. Proficiency testing is not (or should not be) used as an evaluation of people directly, but it is an important method of evaluating the capability of the process that the people are part of and therefore the competency of the organization to perform that test. If preparation of the sample is faulty, then what are the problems with that part of the process? What factors contribute to to the faults? How can they be corrected and prevented?

From my experience as Quality Manager before final audit I checked staff knowledge on QMS training by QMS exam. Then I assessed all questions separately in accordance with ISO clauses and give 1-4 points: 1- training conducted; 2- showed partially knowledge, 3- showed complete understanding, 4- able to train other associates.
Our auditor was very pleased with my training assessment matrix and we passed audit (it was yesterday!!!!!).

There are indeed strong correlations between training course/material efficacy and the knowledge retention of the attendees that translates into competence.
Attached for your perusal is a visual overview of "Person" in relation to the task process elements. The visual shows the links that are correlations to measuring a persons capabilities regarding training.
Hope this is helpfull to this discussion. :)
Wallace.