The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Evidence of Effectiveness of OJT (On the Job Training) - ISO 9001 Clause 6.2.2


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average. Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 13th December 2005, 05:46 PM
Shawn Johnson - 2009's Avatar
Shawn Johnson - 2009

 
 
Total Posts: 4
Please Help! Evidence of Effectiveness of OJT (On the Job Training) - ISO 9001 Clause 6.2.2

Here's the deal... maybe someone out there can give me some ideas!

We have been ISO registered since 1997. We successfully transitioned to ISO 9001:2000 in May 2003. We just had our recert audit, and I have a finding specifically about 6.2.2, and documenting the effectiveness of training... even though we've had the same system in place ad infinitum.

We have used the same process since day 1 of our ISO journey. Our job descriptions discuss specific requirements with regard to education, training, and general competance for the position.

Our performance review is both generic in some sections, but also is specific to a job - based on the requirements for the position.

When someone is hired, there is a checklist of specific activities that someone has to learn during their course of "training" period. As subjects/tasks are addressed, they are signed off by the supervisor and the person being trained.

I understand some of the concepts here... I know that some people do pre/post testing and such. But that kind of approach only works for specific kinds of training. Safety, for instance. But how do you use this if most of the training is on-the-job? Sure, I can add a new form that has the supervisor sign off that they feel someone is performing the job as they should (e.g. effective) but two things: one, I'd hate to put another "form" in there where all a supervisor has to do is sign off and two, isn't that what a performance review is for... talking about one's ability to perform a job?

In addition to standard performance, any specific training that is identified is added as a "goal" for the following year - which will be followed up on.

I guess I am looking for advice on how to do "effectiveness" of training, when most of the tasks are learned on-the-job. HELP!

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 13th December 2005, 11:46 PM
AndyN's Avatar
AndyN

 
 
Total Posts: 8,459
Caution You've got a number of options available.......

including that, from analysis, if there's an overall performance trend improvement after a training initiative (like everyone getting SPC training) then you could infer that shows effectiveness. Another option is to derive the effectiveness from a round of internal audits, since IA is one of the methods of measurement and monitoring in ISO 9001:2000. Perhaps, if when analyzing defects, the root cause isn't training, competency or skills etc, that might show effective training - although that's a toughy if you subscribe to the Deming principles. I prefer pre & post evaluations of deployment of the individuals' training, because it's just that, individual and IMHO, performance reviews are only a very broad gauge of competencies and training.

Andy
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 14th December 2005, 11:09 AM
RoxaneB's Avatar
RoxaneB

 
 
Total Posts: 2,964
Job Observations or Task Analysis or whatever you wish to call it is the way we go about this...with the results supported by Nonconformances and Customer Complaints (or rather the lack thereof).

Yes, it's another form...but it's also a feedback tool for the operator. These Job Observations are safety and environment and process based. Right now, our methodology is being revised and with close to 800 documents in the system, we've decided that Job Observations will be conducted only on the identified key standards. If it has not yet been identified as being key to safety/environment/process, it does not require a Job Observation.

All crews will be observed performing the key task/function and feedback provided immediately and posted. There is also time for operator feedback (i.e., if they have a way to improve safety/environmental/process aspects).

There is an action log to record any "To Do's" generated from the Job Observation which is to be reviewed on a monthly basis at all levels.

From a due diligence viewpoint, the Job Observation has been our means to address several potential hotspots, while verifying training effectiveness and promoting consistency amongst the crews.
  Post Number #4  
Old 19th December 2005, 12:09 PM
db's Avatar
db

 
 
Total Posts: 2,590
Don't get too wrapped up over this. Remember that ISO has three components in this area. First, you identify your competency needs, second you meet those needs, and third you evaluate how well you did against those two. Of course, you are also required to maintain "appropriate" records. If certain forms and sign-offs help you, then good, but they are not required.

With that in mind, how does the supervisor know if an operator "gets" the OJT? My guess is that the supervisor observes the behavior of the operator. If the operator's work is satisfactory, then apparently the training was effective. If not, then the lack of performance needs to be addressed. Assuming the performance is satisfactory, the next question is does the evaluation have to be formalized with a record? This is something the organization must decide on a case-by-case basis. If so, then develop a method to capture that information. If it does not have to be formalized, then the evidence of the evaluation would be the satisfactory performance. If someone asked how the supervisor knows the operator was trained, the response should be it is irrelevant. You know the person is competent due to the output of work. Someone who is competent will have consistent satisfactory performance.
  Post Number #5  
Old 19th December 2005, 04:44 PM
Justin's Avatar
Justin

 
 
Total Posts: 72
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Shawn Johnson

Here's the deal... maybe someone out there can give me some ideas!

We have been ISO registered since 1997. We successfully transitioned to ISO 9001:2000 in May 2003. We just had our recert audit, and I have a finding specifically about 6.2.2, and documenting the effectiveness of training... even though we've had the same system in place ad infinitum.

We have used the same process since day 1 of our ISO journey. Our job descriptions discuss specific requirements with regard to education, training, and general competance for the position.

Our performance review is both generic in some sections, but also is specific to a job - based on the requirements for the position.

When someone is hired, there is a checklist of specific activities that someone has to learn during their course of "training" period. As subjects/tasks are addressed, they are signed off by the supervisor and the person being trained.

I understand some of the concepts here... I know that some people do pre/post testing and such. But that kind of approach only works for specific kinds of training. Safety, for instance. But how do you use this if most of the training is on-the-job? Sure, I can add a new form that has the supervisor sign off that they feel someone is performing the job as they should (e.g. effective) but two things: one, I'd hate to put another "form" in there where all a supervisor has to do is sign off and two, isn't that what a performance review is for... talking about one's ability to perform a job?

In addition to standard performance, any specific training that is identified is added as a "goal" for the following year - which will be followed up on.

I guess I am looking for advice on how to do "effectiveness" of training, when most of the tasks are learned on-the-job. HELP!

Looks to me like you have all of 6.2.2 covered. The effectiveness of training is measured during your performance review. You will also find out during your internal audits whether or not your training has been effective.

Sounds to me like your auditor was fishing.
  Post Number #6  
Old 19th December 2005, 05:11 PM
RoxaneB's Avatar
RoxaneB

 
 
Total Posts: 2,964
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Justin

Looks to me like you have all of 6.2.2 covered. The effectiveness of training is measured during your performance review. You will also find out during your internal audits whether or not your training has been effective.

Sounds to me like your auditor was fishing.
Ooh...let me changes hats....I'm now the Devil's Advocate. How does a performance review which more than likely occurs once or twice a year adequately assess training which was done 6 months prior to the review?

Example : Off-site internal auditor training. I will admit, I've left some of these courses scratching my head in total confusion....only through my own need to have answers (i.e., the Cove and other contacts) have I learned much of what I know (or what I think I know). If I was assessed 6 months after this training (but had not done my own reseach), I will admit that the effectiveness of the training could have been called into question as the calibre of my audits would have been sorely lacking.

I don't know if the auditor was fishing for a finding...but perhaps fishing for an opportunity for improvement?
  Post Number #7  
Old 19th December 2005, 05:25 PM
db's Avatar
db

 
 
Total Posts: 2,590
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by RCBeyette

Ooh...let me changes hats....I'm now the Devil's Advocate. How does a performance review which more than likely occurs once or twice a year adequately assess training which was done 6 months prior to the review?
That has never made since to me. Performance reviews do not, in my opinion, address 6.2.2 c). The evaluation in c) is evaluating what was done in b). Hence, my question about how do you know the person trained (or hired) is competent? By watching their performance. Normal supervision and normal production records will indicate whether the person is competent or not.
  Post Number #8  
Old 19th December 2005, 07:00 PM
Jen Kirley's Avatar
Jen Kirley

 
 
Total Posts: 6,005
I can only guess what the auditor was hoping to see, but you may very well succeed if you stand your ground, pointing to:

1. The operator gets OJT, which is kinetic (hands on) learning with perhaps verbal and visual lesson delivery. Since these approach the top three learning style needs, we shouldn't knock OJT.

2. The "trainer" signs or initials the training's conclusion and vouches for demonstrated task competence. These records are available, show dates and identify the personnel.

3. There is an absence of flaws due to training errors or ignorance, showing the operator is in fact performing within parameters.

Refresher training may be a good idea if you think there may be some freelance "improvements" not allowable or for other good reasons like regulation and safety. Otherwise it sounds to me like you're covered.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Training Effectiveness TS 16949 Clause 6.2.2c Miss Tina Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 5 1st September 2016 03:46 PM
Training Efficiency Assessment - Evaluate the Effectiveness (Clause 6.2.2 c) Sardokar Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 3 9th September 2011 05:34 AM
Evidence of Conformity - Interpretation of ISO 9001 Clause 8.2.4 (data - yes or no?) glfmd56 Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations 4 6th February 2009 05:38 PM
Sales training for ISO 9001 2000 and What type of training evidence do we need? Barbara ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12 1st August 2006 09:18 PM
How can I demonstrate evidence and effectiveness of Corrective Action Training Raffy Nonconformance and Corrective Action 7 18th June 2002 02:22 PM



The time now is 10:32 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 
 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"