Competence, awareness and training - Some staff refuse to give educational info

[cahmn]

Dear all,

For someone new to ISO (having just taken over the running of the project for my company (we are still trying to get accreditation)), I stumbled across this board and have found it to be an excellent resource. I think however, it is time for me to take the plunge and ask a question!

In section 6.2.2 (e) of the standard it states that you have to keep appropriate records of education, training etc. Having spoken to the HR manager, he says that many staff, including senior directors are unwilling to provide educational details. The company has no history of asking for proof of qualifications, even though it asks for them on job descriptions/job adverts. Is this a problem in terms of getting accredited?

Also the company has recently lost a major order, and is likely to be making redundancies in the next year. There are currently no records to speak of for training or competencies. It is therefore likely to be very difficult to assess people's competencies as they are likely to be defensive (unionised manufacturing environment) believing it just to be a redundancy exercise. Does anyone have any ideas about how to overcome this hurdle?

Thanks a lot for any help you can give,

Nick

 

[Craig H.]

Well, from a practical business standpoint, this does not sound good. But, you might be able to squeak by an audit if your people have been around for a while, and there is not a plethora of training/ competence related problems. If this is the case, you could make job experience a major part of the criteria.

It might be good enough for an audit, but in your shoes I would sure try to start keeping some type of training records based upon the procedures in place for each process.

Craig H.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Can you save a copy of the resume` in the personnel files? I believe most places do this anyway. and I know I always spell out my education on mine. I've never given anyone a copy of my high school diploma or college degree.

 

[Randy]

Dear all,

Having spoken to the HR manager, he says that many staff, including senior directors are unwilling to provide educational details. The company has no history of asking for proof of qualifications, even though it asks for them on job descriptions/job adverts. Is this a problem in terms of getting accredited?


Nick

1st of all Nick, welcome

Next....the "DUH" factor starts to kick in real hard on this one. If you have some big-shots that will not provide their bonafides then your leadership should be asking some serious questions. I'd also ask the HR dude what his qual's were because he apparently ain't making it when it comes to having people meet hiring criteria.

The answer to your question about holding up your certification....it could be a factor, yes.

 

[Jen Kirley]

SteelMaiden had a good idea, and I want to add to it: what about union records? I would think there was some competency structure, education requirements and so on. Evaluations may have some of this too.

The U.S. civil service uses a set of job classifications and pay grades, where skill and education needs are defined. At various points within these levels, (GS-05, GS-06 and so on) experience is a substitute, whole or in part, for education requirements. The higher the pay grade, the more experience is required as a substitute.

You could write such a structure, but I am discouraged to hear of workers who do not want to divulge their education levels. You have a good reason for asking, after all. Perhaps they don't want to reveal skills they don't want to be asked to use...but suspicious minds would question if they are claiming education they don't have.

Is it practical to create a set of requirements and their substitutions, and have the workers "certify" them by providing names and dates of only the education/experience they officially need for their job?

 

[Jim Howe]

Jennifer, I believe the problem is one of embarrassment. I have some of the best welders in the industry! In fact we pride ourselves on weld quality. One of these welders did not have any sort of formal education in fact he could barely read and write. So when asked to supply education his response was predictable. We could only point to his weld test and quality of weld to determine his competence.

On the other hand when I worked in electronics we certified all employees who performed soldering to a varity of Mil-Specs. This certification was backed up with a "sample board" that government inspectors could review at any time. Certification was reviewed on an annual basis including eye test.
Can any other contributers relate to this or have similar problems?
Jim Howe

 

[Jen Kirley]

Jennifer, I believe the problem is one of embarrassment. I have some of the best welders in the industry! In fact we pride ourselves on weld quality. One of these welders did not have any sort of formal education in fact he could barely read and write. So when asked to supply education his response was predictable. We could only point to his weld test and quality of weld to determine his competence.

On the other hand when I worked in electronics we certified all employees who performed soldering to a varity of Mil-Specs. This certification was backed up with a "sample board" that government inspectors could review at any time. Certification was reviewed on an annual basis including eye test.
Can any other contributers relate to this or have similar problems?
Jim Howe

Aha, now I get to climb on my soap box and say there are a good many very skilled, but illiterate--or nearly so--people. I used to tutor for Literacy Volunteers of America. The chapter leader told me of a company that she had signed up, to offer literacy lessons for their poor readers. The company took their poll, collected the names of their illiterates, and fired the lot of them. No wonder your worker didn't want to speak up.

Stats tell me that 20% of adults are functionally illiterate.

There are lots of ways to certify competency. If there aren't higher level, specific requirements, you get some control over what you declare is good for making high quality product. You can make weld competency tests, and written tests (taken orally) about weld symbology and print reading, which I suppose your welders need. Welders usually need some kind of cert, do you have NDT people who can certify welds? A certifying weld can be the same as what the welder does onthe job, but exceeding normal requirements (such as porosity or star cracks) by an appropriate degree.

It would be tricky not to overdo the thing, but you do need to make some appropriate structure and show you adhere to it. I would just encourage you to manage to embrace the various learning styles and disabilities that do not necessarily prevent us from producing excellent work.

 

[The Taz!]

It would be tricky not to overdo the thing, but you do need to make some appropriate structure and show you adhere to it. I would just encourage you to manage to embrace the various learning styles and disabilities that do not necessarily prevent us from producing excellent work.

Somehow I think that the interpretation of what is requiredby 6.2.2 is being extended a tad. . .

The real competancy requirements apply primarily to operating personnel affecting product quality. Yes. . . auditors and other management personnel that have an effect on product quality, the QMS and dispositioning product should also be competent to do so.

In TS-16949 there is the additional requirement for design personnel to be QUALIFIED AND competent. I believe that the catchall phrase is "based on appropriate education, training or experience. Grandfathering is out from what I have been told by Auditors. The company I have justr finished with had grandfathered when they went QS in 1996. The audits I started in January indicated that there was a gross lack of knowledge about the company, the QMS, environmental issues (ISO-14000), SPC, Calibration requirements and on and oin and on. . . This is the cost of grandfathering. The easy way out.

Somewhere along the line, you need to assess the competency of the all personnel effecting product quality and design, and make them aware of the impact their activities have on the goals and objectives stated in your quality policy, and the impact they have on customer satisfaction.

As far as your top managers go, their "mission" should be to comply with Section 5 of the ISO or TS standard. Section 6 is also theirs as far as providing the necessary resources. . .even if the assessment shows you need additional training. . .

As far as the HR Mgr/Dir goes, they are "above it all" in most companies. . . and if Top Management looks at certification and the QMS as only your responsibility. . . . there are plenty of other companies out there. . .JMHO

 

[Jen Kirley]

I keep getting caught, wriggling between these rocks of doing what is required per this and that, and doing what brings the best value while designing it in a way that will be accepted as appropriate control.

I don't want to preach to going past what is appropriate and into the ideal just for idealism's sake. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be making and maintaining a program to suit the registration standards.

Do you see what I mean? Making and maintaining programs to conform with a standard is like enslaving the organization to the standard. Maybe this is why many organizations resist ISO etc. It can demoralize people and make them resent Quality. Functions that deal closely with people (like training) run a very great risk of this, JMHO.

 

[The Taz!]

I keep getting caught, wriggling between these rocks of doing what is required per this and that, and doing what brings the best value while designing it in a way that will be accepted as appropriate control.

I don't want to preach to going past what is appropriate and into the ideal just for idealism's sake. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be making and maintaining a program to suit the registration standards.

Do you see what I mean? Making and maintaining programs to conform with a standard is like enslaving the organization to the standard. Maybe this is why many organizations resist ISO etc. It can demoralize people and make them resent Quality. Functions that deal closely with people (like training) run a very great risk of this, JMHO.

I understand completely. . . and do not disagree. . . IMHO, 6.2.2 is one of those sections that makes good business sense, and is general enough to allow you to tailor the process to fit your mode of operation. . . it is one of the required 6 procedures in ISO, but so what. . .as I said, to me it makes good sense to have trained, competent and aware employees.