Quality System Training for Managers and higher level employees

Why is it that EVERY time I audit, I can find an observation with respect to training? I am the only person in the Quality department at my company of 20 employees. Now this situation with respect to finding training nonconformances is really not as bad as you may think. The observations are NEVER for level III procedures (work instructions) but I find that High level SOP's and The quality manual tend to be where I find people are not updating there records. Perhaps the problem is that Quality System training records are kept by me and after initial ISO / QSR training, the record is filed away and only taken out for review. When an auditor wants to see them however, lo and behold, some SOP has been revised and a few or a bunch of folks only show training on past revisions only. In my opinion, 99% of the time, any change to an SOP is one of minor significance and having employees re-read the SOP and sign a training record would not have any added value. Would it be acceptable to have new hires attend a one time ISO /QSR training session (and record it) and leave it at that and require no future update to their records UNLESS THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR SUCH TRAINING?

There must be a simpler straightforward sytem someone can recommend that does not require frequent updates.

I spoke to a former colleague recently who told me that for Managers and higher level employees, He provides no quality system training and does not require it unless someone asks for it because in his opinion, these individuals are exempt by reason of there past experience from having to keep training records for QS SOP's and Quality Manuals. What about this strategy?

When SOP’s are revised, or the QPM, they should be distributed to the “owners” with an acknowledgment to be signed and returned. This should state that they have received it, read it and will refer to it on a regular basis as it relates to their functions. Why do you have to update training records? Am I missing something? Sounds like a document control issue. Have they received it? Read it? Understand it and it’s use? A document acknowledgement sheet covers all that. That's, of course, the changes aren't so drastic that re-training is necessary. No?

Would it be acceptable to have new hires attend a one time ISO /QSR training session (and record it) and leave it at that and require no future update to their records UNLESS THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR SUCH TRAINING?

That is exactly what we do. All new hires go through a two week training session that includes QS9k documentation.

When a document is revised we refer to the responsibilities section of the document to
determine who needs to be notified and who needs to be trained. Alas, this works but requires a very intense document control system.

I should also note that we are working on a paperless system that would also notify all applicable personnel that a document has changed and there sign-off (not approval) is required. We plan to beta test this in the 1st quarter of 2001.

ASD...

Would not an email (with a return receipt) indicate that the users were properly notified? No need for a hand signed sheet. Save the emails in a defined location as a record...I've used this method successfully at a few companies.

[barb butrym]

I'm with Jim, use that whenever its possible.

The reason the paper method is preferable is to show an Auditor that they not only received it, but that they read, understand and will refer to the document in routine functions. These conditions are on the document acknowledgment. This will, in my opinion, satisfy any training issues as well as distribution. I've had auditors ask "How do you know they read and understood the revisions? Produced the sheet, no further questions on that issue. Hey, what do I know?

[WALLACE]

QS9000 requirements are almost ignored in the auto industry regarding training,the big three just pay lip service to the training part of the standard requirements.
WALLACE.