posted 06 March 2000 09:02 AM               

Or take the same test before and after...BUT...be ready to do something about it when the delegates have the same score before and after!!!!

Most public offerings do an effectivity evaluation survey..... That works.

examples.....there must be millions, all task specific and probably of no value to you. take the training offered, or SOP, etc., and create a test that covers the important points/requirements to be covered..(the goals of the training?) Give it prior to the training, and again after...chart the results....you should see marked improvements to show that the training ws effective. for workmanship reinforcement/training you can monitor yeilds.....before and after training.

I do a proficiency record to verify grandfathered training/or lack of records....Also use it as a tool to verify training effectity when required as followup to CA requests that have training identified as teh root cause.

Doesn't tell you how, just that you must...what would add value and not be a useless tool?

posted 06 March 2000 09:43 PM               

"We trained the technician at this station how to solder. We know the training was effective as we track problems found with solder joints and a search of the NC database shows the operator in question was not responsible for any 'bad' joints."

Make sure you look at the specific situation. Sometimes - yes, a test is appropriate. Especially if the risk is high (failure will be expensive, dangerous, etc.) For example in a wafer fab one mistake can cost bundles of bucks. In addition, arsenic is used ion the process. What do the companies do? Not only train but retrain and re-certify (test) every 6 months.

In the case of the soldering - let's say it's a simple light switch - I doubt you'll have to retrain every 6 months. Whether or not you need a test is - well, I doubt I'd require a test. Now if the soldering was for a Mil-Spec item (let's say a wiring harness for one of the space shuttles or a bomb fuse) I would want a test.

Remember common sense, folks.

posted 07 March 2000 09:35 AM               

I like your suggestion. It is quite simple. You rely on other aspects of the system to confirm effectiveness of training in other areas(in this case, NC system confirms Training). Organizations should sell this point to a registrar. You will win, provided the aspect you are relying on is not under-developed.

Regards,

posted 19 March 2000 06:45 PM               

ISO 9001 DIS calls for measurement of Training Effectiveness.

How is it done generally?
Does it mean giving questionnaire at the end of the session
or the performance evaluation by the Boss after the course .

Is it reliable?
What is the approximate number of companies certified to ISO 9000?
Where can I get statistics on this for each country? >>

--------------snippo---------------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:42:25 -0600
Subject: Re: ISO 9000- Training Effectiveness /Anilkumar/Kiely

From: GKiely@kanzakiusa.com

At a recent ISO 9001:2000 Transition Seminar that I attended the issue of "effectiveness" was a hot topic of discussion. This seminar was attended by quality management professionals from all levels as well as by Auditors from our assessing body. When asked, the Auditor's stated that they would by definition be looking for some type of "quantifiable" measure to illustrate what the Organization (formerly called the supplier) considers "effective"... The Auditors stopped just short of saying that a test score would suffice... I believe the more pressing issue however will be with how our individual assessing bodies interpret the words "competent" and "competency" (hopefully these words will be dropped from the final draft).

Gerard Kiely, CQA

---------snippo-----------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:49:21 -0600
Subject: Re: ISO 9000- Training Effectiveness /Anilkumar/Kozenko

From: Write9000@aol.com

A training evaluation document at the end of training is a valuable tool to collect information on what was good, and not so good, about the training conducted. It helps the training writer improve the training program itself, and it shows the differences between one trainer and another, particularly on the same subject -- so, over the course of time, you can use the trainers who do best on "this" subject to train it, and if they're not so good on "that" subject, use some other trainer who is.

Training is often overlooked in root cause analysis. The DIS Standard forces training to become one of the mandatory "look-see" areas when evaluating root cause for corrective action.

For the rest of your questions, I would recommend www.qualitydigest.com -- use the database of registered companies that is linked off that home page.

David M. Kozenko

--------------snippo----------------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:52:32 -0600
Subject: Re: ISO 9000- Training Effectiveness /Anilkumar/Humphries

From: Edwin Humphries

Anilkumar,

> ISO 9001 DIS calls for measurement of Training Effectiveness.
>
> How is it done generally?
> Does it mean giving questionnaire at the end of the session
> or the performance evaluation by the Boss after the course .

This is one way. However, remember that in the ISO section related to Measuring Equipment are provisions for Go/No Go gauges: a pass/fail measurement is still a measurement. So a review by supervisor followed by decision as to Competent/Not Competent is also a measurement.

posted 19 March 2000 07:01 PM               

From: David Bradley dbradley@mmtc.org

Anilkumar writes:
< ISO 9001 DIS calls for measurement of Training Effectiveness.

How is it done generally?
Does it mean giving questionnaire at the end of the session
or the performance evaluation by the Boss after the course .

Is it reliable?
What is the approximate number of companies certified to ISO 9000?
Where can I get statistics on this for each country? >

There are four levels of training measurement:

1. Participant satisfaction. While this may not seem to indicate effectiveness, in a back-door sense, it does. If the participants are dissatisfied with the training, they will remember less, and will likely not want to attend future sessions.

2. Knowledge gain. Providing a pre and post test will determine if the participant gained any new knowledge during the class. Testing at class end, and six months later will determine if the training "stuck".

3. Job performance. After training, can the participant demonstrate the new skills. This should be important in the ISO world! Periodic performance reviews may be an excellent way to determine training effectiveness, as well as identify new training needs.

4. Increased profitability. I believe this is the hardest to quantify, because training is only one factor in profitability, and the other factors tend not to remain stable.

Now this is a real important part. I did not make this up. I read it in a book many years ago. I am going to show a bit of my age here, a "Senior Moment" is preventing me from remembering all of the details; mainly the person who wrote the book. I'm certain someone in the group will refresh my memory. I tend to remember what books are about (the lesson), but not the details about who wrote them.