Are toolbox talks/training a quality responsibility?

[Isocyanate]

Hi,

When there is a mechanical issue or a technical issue which in the event results in quality being comprised- is it the responsibility of the quality department to administer the training?

For example if a slitting machine was not synchronised in time or the handling of material was not done correctly in a particular department.

To my understanding, the logical conclusion would be for the supervisor of that deparment or the head of the deparment to talk/speak to his subordinates about what went wrong and how to avoid it in the furture.
He/she would be best qualified in that regards. The quality deparment facilitates the training- but does not necessarily conduct the training..


Or is the quality deparment required to affiliate itself with all mechanical issues/machinery so as to train/conduct these 'toolbox talks' from an 'objective' point of view?

In my company, the previous quality manager took upon the responsibility of training the various deparments(where an external corrective action was raised)

I am know heading the deparment due to several retrenchments and economic downsizing ( just two left in my deparment- an administrator and myself). Is this feasible? I dont want to do things in a way because its 'always been done like that' The new general manager has asked me to make changes if necessary. I also dont want to 'rock the boat' and understand change is not readily accepted by many.

Please advise. Constructive critiscm welcome.

Thanks

[Jennifer Kirley]

I would be hard pressed to deliver useful and effective training on a slitting machine.

But suppose I knew all about it. I still should not be the one to deliver this training. There are two main reasons why:

1) The trainer has more credibility if viewed as the subject matter expert. The process expert, of whatever rank, should be delivering the training. The QA person's role can be one of reviewing the training to make sure it conforms to process requirements. Similarly, a safety expert can review the training to make sure it is teaching with best possible and practical safety considerations.

2) It sounds like this is a kind of corrective action. The QA person's role is to verify corrective action is being done - not to perform it, unless it's a corrective action on his/her own process.

There's a movement for QA people to become coaches, not run around doing everything for everyone. That means teaching what the QMS needs done as the "right thing", not do the thing him/her self. It means helping to overcome confusion or obstacles.

We should avoid becoming immersed in production processes.

[QA_chick]

I agree with Jennifer 100%. Plus, when the Operations (or Mechanical or Technical) group delivers the training, there is the added bonus of 'ownership'...they do the training, so they are (at least partly) responsible for the outcome.

There's nothing worse than an ineffective training or failied corrective action, and the ops group shrugs and says "I did what Quality told me to" or "Quality did it"

[Joe Cruse]

We usually have the process owner handle training, but if it's a situation causing the customer a problem, I may also come in on the training and explain to the group why the particular issue is a problem for our customer and how poor quality affects them and how that could come back to bite our company and each employee.

[Caster]

Training Within Industry (google if you don't know it yet) answered this 60 years ago. The persons direct supervisor must be the traininer as well as a subject matter expert.

[Randy]

Is it Qualities responsibility? Absolutly not, nor is it the supervisors responsibility......It's the responsibility of the organizations leadership and the decision as to who does it rests with them...

Why do you ask?

Simple dear Watson...........

5.5.1 Responsibility and authority
Top management shall ensure that responsibilities and authorities are defined and communicated within the organization.