Training Records - Do all employees have to be trained on ISO 9001:2000?

Our 5 facility division has a directive to acheive registration to the new 2000 standard. Previous to this decision, one of the facilities was working on 1994. During that time they had an outside form perform ISO 9000 1994 training (1/2 day) for all the employees. They are conserned now that they will need to incure additional expense to train on the new version. Is this really needed, would not a registrar consider the original training adequate, with perhaps and hour or so from the management rep on the changes and how the employees will be affected?

Mark:

I hope this reply isn't appearing twice. I was keying and my format disappeared. I'll try again.

I would contact the company, which provided the ISO training, and ask them what their business practice is concerning the ISO 2000 version upgrade.

As a Trainer I am providing the upgrade free of charge to those clients that recently received training to the 1994 version.

awk

[Marc]

Some of the ISO training is pure bunk. The majority of folks in a company only need to know how to do their jobs. Who are they planning on training?

Remember - ISO does not require internal training on what ISO is, etc. It requires people to know how to do their job, etc.

thanks for the input Marc. i agree this training is not required and not a good use of company funds, in my own facility I did the exposure training myself in a couple of hours, with more than anough overview for the operators. However we have some facilities that feel this is a good way to show an auditor that employees are being provided comminucation on the quality systems, your thoughts

[Andy Bassett]

I cant honestly see the sense in training people too deeply in the standard itself, as Marc says it is more important that they know how to do their job.

However, somebody inside the company needs to know the standard.
There seems to be some ongoing discussion about the use of Internal Auditors (ie should they audit against your procedures or against the standard), my guess is that a Certification Body will expect your Internal Auditors to have an understanding of the Standard, whatever your arguements are.

Coming back to your orginal question, it is very often said that if your company was doing what the standard originally intended, then the new ISO 9000:2000 is not greatly different from the old one, however my experience is that very few companies were doing what the standard intended,so i see quite a big difference in application and therefore some new training required.
I personally see absolutely no reason why the training could not be done by the MR, providing the training is of a good standard.

Regards



------------------
Andy B

[Marc]

I agree - someone inside has to understand QS (or ISO). This is not to say folks should be kept ignorant of what is happening. It used to be that I believed in, and did a lot of, internal 'awareness' training. As time went by I saw this to be mostly a waste of time.

As far as internal auditors understanding the spec, it depends upon what you expect of them. My personal advice is to limit internal auditors to process audits. Let your MR do a yearly "Are our major systems still compliant?" audit. Like awareness training, internal audits are over-blown in their perceived importance. I personally believe internal audits are for companies which have a low level of control of their employees. Take a look at Toyota and Honda - no internal audit system. They don't need one. Ask yourself why.

> From: "JRT" <jimturner@attcanada.net>
> Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
> Subject: Re: Toyota & ISO 9000
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:22:43 -0400
> Organization: AT&T Canada IES

> In my opinion the Japanese system do not require auditing because of
> the structure of the system. The Toyotas and Hondas employ "Lean
> Manufacturing" concepts where visibility of quality issues is front
> and foremost. JIT ensures that quality problems surface immediately at
> all levels. Using my company as an example: we would rather deliver
> substandard quality as a result of a fault in our manufacturing
> process rather than stop production and fix the problem...cost before
> quality. Whereas Toyota would not produce substandard product. They
> would fix the defect first and absorb the cost. AS far as ISO is
> concerned the principles are sound. The Japanese have nothing to gain
> from ISO because their systems are superior and that is the bottom
> line.
>
> JRT...

I agree 100% - these companies do not need a 'customer satisfaction' specification or internal auditing to excel.

[Sam]

Finally, comments suggesting internal audits are not really needed or imo not even effective.
If your process cannot tell you when something is wrong, then you have more problems then an audit can fix.(Like tires, maybe)
Thanks, Marc for sharing this with us maybe it will catch on.

[Roger Eastin]

Maybe Toyota is that much better - I don't know. Last time I looked, I don't remember Toyota having a car ranked in the top 10 of Consumer Reports (maybe they are in some other report that I haven't looked at). I also think their cars are just as expensive as any other car. So where's the beef? I know internal audits may not help Toyota, but Toyota may not be that good either. Now, Honda may be another story. I don't know. Altough their cars seem just as expensive as any other car, they may have a better quality system that catches defects before they get out. I have at least seen their cars in some car magazines and rated favorably.