Service Company Hiring Procedure Reconciliation

E

EJE0622

Good Morning all,

I work for a long term permanant placement staffing agency. From quality perspective, we are creating a procedure for hiring qualified personnel, which is good because that is all we do, there is no tangible product. We currently do not have job descriptions to work from so we are creating them. My auditor suggested that prior to the next audit we should consider some sort of hiring procedure that verifies our personnel are qualified for the positions they are hired. If we verify a candidates resume against a job description, will that suffice if it doesn't match up perfectly? Executive management has determined that we need to have a hiring sheet to include additional skills found through the interview process, I however, am reluctant to create another form that may not be necessary. Suggestions please!!
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
Good Morning all,

I work for a long term permanant placement staffing agency. From quality perspective, we are creating a procedure for hiring qualified personnel, which is good because that is all we do, there is no tangible product. We currently do not have job descriptions to work from so we are creating them. My auditor suggested that prior to the next audit we should consider some sort of hiring procedure that verifies our personnel are qualified for the positions they are hired. If we verify a candidates resume against a job description, will that suffice if it doesn't match up perfectly? Executive management has determined that we need to have a hiring sheet to include additional skills found through the interview process, I however, am reluctant to create another form that may not be necessary. Suggestions please!!

You may not think you have a product, but you certainly do provide a service (and loosely put, I'd call the people you are putting into your client's businesses a product of sorts). As for work instructions...well, what do you do to ensure that the right person is placed? That would be your work instruction. As for job descriptions, those would probably be your client's request to find a person who can do x, y and z, no? So, the job description should probably be part of the contract requirements? Then you can document how you go about matching the contract requirements to a job candidate, and what you do if there is a "gap" somewhere. Do you dismiss that candidate and move to another? What if no candidate meets the requirements? Do you train, or assist in the training to acheive the appropriate skills?

Don't get hung up in product/service. Just document what you do, and what happens if there is a gap between requirements and capabilities present.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
It's a good idea to make a procedure talk about a process in general terms when the process is still being defined in a way that someone new could use it to get along.

This means not every little thing needs to be spelled out.

However, even a general procedure can do what you are asking. A flow chart might say:

Fill in applicant's contact information in Section A on Form X.

Compare applicant's resume against job requirements.

All listed? If yes, continue. If no, list the unmentioned requirements on Form X, in Section B.

Call for interview? If yes, mark date, time and who called in Form X, Section C. Add remarks. Add appointment time and date.

Make a copy for each interviewer. Interviewers write remarks from interview in Form X, Section D.

Salary requirements, if any, entered in Form X, Section E.

Verification data of education, employers, references, security clearances etc. entered in Form X Section F table.

Hire? Enter expected start date and agreed salary in Form X, Section F. Name, date of hiring contact.


I'm not HR, so that's a guess. But see how the process can be managed with a single procedure, and can reference a form if youi want to get that specific. Otherwise, just reference what form to use and list requirements, and who's responsible.

I hope this helps!
 
E

EJE0622

You may not think you have a product, but you certainly do provide a service (and loosely put, I'd call the people you are putting into your client's businesses a product of sorts). As for work instructions...well, what do you do to ensure that the right person is placed? That would be your work instruction. As for job descriptions, those would probably be your client's request to find a person who can do x, y and z, no? So, the job description should probably be part of the contract requirements? Then you can document how you go about matching the contract requirements to a job candidate, and what you do if there is a "gap" somewhere. Do you dismiss that candidate and move to another? What if no candidate meets the requirements? Do you train, or assist in the training to acheive the appropriate skills?

Don't get hung up in product/service. Just document what you do, and what happens if there is a gap between requirements and capabilities present.

Thanks for the reply. In regards to the job description being a part of the contract requirements, it isn't. I have reviewed our contracts thoroughly through auditing, as well as, I was once involved in that department, and it is very vague. Occasionally are customer will make a statement such as "we need 5 people with HVAC certifications" if it is something special. There isn't anything in writing anywhere about what qualifications are needed for the people we hire, which is where our auditor has indicated could be a problem at our next surveillance audit, especially considering our application for employment asks the candidate if they have reviewed the job description and has a place for there response. I guess my question is, if we get the qualifications required in writing, so we can comply with what is on our application, is there a need to create an additional document?
Hopefully that all made sense LOL!
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
So, you have some sort of form you fill out that states the requirements of the client, those things he is looking for in an applicant? That should suffice, as long as the actual needs are spelled out. i.e. candidate must be familiar with MS Office 2007 applications, have a valid driver's license, be 18 or over, have a high school diploma or GED.

I'm not even sure if I'd worry about if the client sent these requirements in in writing, as long as you can show that he has acknowledged that you have the requirements correctly listed. Is this what you are asking?
 
J

JaneB

There isn't anything in writing anywhere about what qualifications are needed for the people we hire, which is where our auditor has indicated could be a problem at our next surveillance audit, especially considering our application for employment asks the candidate if they have reviewed the job description and has a place for there response.

1. How do you ascertain what the requirements are for whoever you are sourcing for those jobs? If there isn't any kind of job description, how do you know/find out?
This equates to getting the customer requirements clear for each job and you a/need to know what they are in order to meet them and b/be able to show that you do that. (Your placement of candidates is a service that you perform - remember that product thr/out 9001 = product or service)

It doesn't necessarily have to be the full 5 page HR-approved deal, but you must have some idea surely of what is required, whether that is because it's a well understood role (eg, Programmer, Draughtsman), and/or you are familiar with the client's business & requirements, or some other means? Do you make notes from a phone conversation/get an email/what?
Occasionally are customer will make a statement such as "we need 5 people with HVAC certifications" if it is something special.
This suggests to me that there's a lot of 'non-special' placement that you do that you understand thoroughly. How does an outsider (me/an auditor) find out what that is?

2. You will need to fix the mismatch between your application form and current practice. One or the other needs to change. How do the people you source and place know what they are being placed into and what they're supposed to do? (Similar to #1)

3. Focus on competency, not necessarily 'qualifications'. If you know that all of the Programmer roles (say) have to have a certain college degree, that should form part of your system. (And 'we all just know that' isn't a system.)

4. When you refer to 'contracts', do you mean you have certain clients with whom you have defined contracts in place?

5. Finally, don't create additional docs at this point - let's get clear what the issue and context is.
 
E

EJE0622

1. How do you ascertain what the requirements are for whoever you are sourcing for those jobs? If there isn't any kind of job description, how do you know/find out? We figure out the requirements by what our supervisors on the floor say they are. For instance, a HMMWV mechanic, isn't really a mechanic, its more of an assembler position, but a Heavy Mobile mechanic is your troubleshoot, find the problem, fix it, and put it back together mechanic....it really depends on the day, and the area...very confusing...kind of similar to a gut feeling.
This equates to getting the customer requirements clear for each job and you a/need to know what they are in order to meet them and b/be able to show that you do that. (Your placement of candidates is a service that you perform - remember that product thr/out 9001 = product or service)

It doesn't necessarily have to be the full 5 page HR-approved deal, but you must have some idea surely of what is required, whether that is because it's a well understood role (eg, Programmer, Draughtsman), and/or you are familiar with the client's business & requirements, or some other means? Do you make notes from a phone conversation/get an email/what?

This suggests to me that there's a lot of 'non-special' placement that you do that you understand thoroughly. How does an outsider (me/an auditor) find out what that is?
Rarely do we have nonspecial placements, or a general laborer, it is more assemblers, but it is rarely spelled out that specifically. Over a period of time the supervisors understand what the client needs, but the supervisors and HR aren't on the same page regarding competancies.

2. You will need to fix the mismatch between your application form and current practice. One or the other needs to change. How do the people you source and place know what they are being placed into and what they're supposed to do? (Similar to #1) Our employees don't really know what they are coming in for until the interviewer tells them. It is more of if you have the skills we are looking for we will tell you what we want and you tell us if you'll accept it. If you don't have teh competancies we are looking for, you generally don't get placed. Training on the job is rare as a new employee.

3. Focus on competency, not necessarily 'qualifications'. If you know that all of the Programmer roles (say) have to have a certain college degree, that should form part of your system. (And 'we all just know that' isn't a system.) - We hire based on competancies and not necessarily qualifications, no need for a HS diploma, just the past experience. Probably a wrong term in verbiage on my part.

4. When you refer to 'contracts', do you mean you have certain clients with whom you have defined contracts in place? - All of the work we do is contracts. We have a multi-million dollar contract for say 5 years, and then when the client wants someone they come to us, however, we only get paid for the people they take. It's not one lump sum, if employee A works 20 hours and we bill at 20 dollars, we pay the employee their wage and the rest is profit for the company, minus insurance, benefits, etc.

5. Finally, don't create additional docs at this point - let's get clear what the issue and context is.

Hope that clears things up a bit. Our auditors thought was to make things clear and put them on paper/media, so everyone was on the same page, instead of hoping and praying. However, things tend to get a bit complicated with too many upper management cooks in the kitchen. I'm wanting to keep things simple, rather than add additional paperwork to the already overwelmed HR. Our auditor already suggested a database for this, but its really only a suggestion, as long as something is implemented that gets the jist of it it will be fine.
 
J

JaneB

Hope that clears things up a bit. Our auditors thought was to make things clear and put them on paper/media, so everyone was on the same page, instead of hoping and praying. However, things tend to get a bit complicated with too many upper management cooks in the kitchen. I'm wanting to keep things simple, rather than add additional paperwork to the already overwelmed HR. Our auditor already suggested a database for this, but its really only a suggestion, as long as something is implemented that gets the jist of it it will be fine.

EJ - Please please when answering could you make sure that what you say in answer isn't set between the QUOTE tags of what I said, so I can respond? Instructions & extra help here

Because the way you've done it makes it real hard for me - when I hit the Quote button, the stuff above is all that I got - if responses are in between the Quote tags, one can't quickly & easily 'get at them' & I run out of time to respond to you! (And no, red text doesn't do it either)

You said: "We figure out the requirements by what our supervisors on the floor say they are. For instance, a HMMWV mechanic, isn't really a mechanic, its more of an assembler position, but a Heavy Mobile mechanic is your troubleshoot, find the problem, fix it, and put it back together mechanic....it really depends on the day, and the area..."

OK, that sounds reasonable, but then you go on to say that it's "very confusing...kind of similar to a gut feeling." (bold mine)

And there we have a problem. 'Gut feelings' aren't a quality system. And they aren't auditable.

Another problem: "the supervisors and HR aren't on the same page regarding competancies"..."Our auditors thought was to make things clear and put them on paper/media, so everyone was on the same page, instead of hoping and praying."

I'm rather on the side of your auditors - hoping and praying aren't in the Standard (sorry!).

Look - I do understand that recruiting ain't an exact science, and that there is a degree of what you call gut feeling and I call job-related skill and experience that comes into the equation (perhaps what separates a good recruiter from a bad one). BUT I'll refer you back to the actions I set out in my previous post.

Sounds like the key issue is to get something documented in some format (yet to be determined!) about what competencies are required for various positions.

Now, this might be as simple as a summary list of 'general competencies' required, and then for each job you may need to add in a couple of more specific ones - these could be jotted on the job sheet/job spec/whatever... After all - ultimately YOU only get paid if you get it right for your customer. And 9001 is FOCUSSED on getting it right for the customer. So the way I see it is: you're both after the same thing!

However, things tend to get a bit complicated with too many upper management cooks in the kitchen.
Can you explain this? I don't understand what you mean - or rather what is the effect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

JaneB

Our employees don't really know what they are coming in for until the interviewer tells them. It is more of if you have the skills we are looking for we will tell you what we want and you tell us if you'll accept it. If you don't have teh competancies we are looking for, you generally don't get placed. Training on the job is rare as a new employee.
Again, I understand this. But the interviewer doesn't want to drag people in for an interview & waste their time unless they've already got an idea the person might fit, surely? (Unless you just love interviewing people constantly ;)

So again, they're operating on some kind of belief/idea/gut feel/knowledge of what competencies are required. Here's (again) where you need to get it a bit more explicitly defined, and a bit less of the belief/idea/gut feel/knowledge.

And when I see 'a bit more explicitly more defined' it might be something like: (guessing madly)

* familiarity with assembly process/es
* knowledge of xyz tools
* ability to operate a/b/c
* at least 2 years experience in assembly/machining or similar
* eye for detail

etc.
 
Top Bottom