Training records and levels - When does training NOT need a record?

[ISO_Man]

OK - here's one for discussion.

I'm introducing the idea into an organization that when new information is documented, the QTBA (Question To Be Answered) is "does this document require training?" The lesson that I'm trying to socialize is to address this question from the perspective that if you're creating a new process, introducing a new tool etc. then it almost always needs some level of training.

And for every level of training - we need to know that it happened.

So - in your experience - when does training NOT need a record? I'm feeling like the answer is never, but I'm open to some counter-point here.

 

[AndyN]

We should first understand the basics. Training is an action (one of many) which is performed to improve competency. If it isn't done to improve competency, it's probably not training, but "awareness" or "education", maybe even "communication".

 

[ISO_Man]

We should first understand the basics. Training is an action (one of many) which is performed to improve competency. If it isn't done to improve competency, it's probably not training, but "awareness" or "education", maybe even "communication".

So if I update a written process which is to be used by other people, is it possible to just "educate" them and simply because I didn't call it training I can avoid the need to maintain a record of the event?

 

[Jen Kirley]

I suggest it can be done based on risk and the repercussions of not being able to track/show the training/communication/awareness building was done.

 

[AndyN]

So if I update a written process which is to be used by other people, is it possible to just "educate" them and simply because I didn't call it training I can avoid the need to maintain a record of the event?

Unless it modifies the competencies needed to do the work, not training is going to be needed. Of course, experience also builds competencies. Awareness of the change is important. But it's a common myth to think people need "training" in changes.

 

[Pjservan]

But it's a common myth to think people need "training" in changes.

Agree with this statement. This myth drives me crazy many times. Specially when documents are updated to reflect a practice
- in other words the procedure/instruction was the last thing to get updated. So my auditors will insist on a training record for it!

 

[somashekar]

OK - here's one for discussion.

I'm introducing the idea into an organization that when new information is documented, the QTBA (Question To Be Answered) is "does this document require training?" The lesson that I'm trying to socialize is to address this question from the perspective that if you're creating a new process, introducing a new tool etc. then it almost always needs some level of training.

And for every level of training - we need to know that it happened.

So - in your experience - when does training NOT need a record? I'm feeling like the answer is never, but I'm open to some counter-point here.

I will question the idea because this idea is not looking into the determination for the need of training in case of a new process or a new tool. It more reads like a default condition.
For any new process or anything else, you need to answer to your question about ...
need of the required competency
availability of the required competency
bridging the gap by means of training or other actions as necessary

 

[ISO_Man]

I will question the idea because this idea is not looking into the determination for the need of training in case of a new process or a new tool. It more reads like a default condition.
For any new process or anything else, you need to answer to your question about ...
need of the required competency
availability of the required competency
bridging the gap by means of training or other actions as necessary

I don't really understand your comment. The training is default because by changing a procedural document you are introducing a change into the process and the people who use the procedure need to know that. So communicating the change to them can take different forms, but in the end they need to understand and communicate their understanding so some kind of response needs to be recorded.

 

[ISO_Man]

Agree with this statement. This myth drives me crazy many times. Specially when documents are updated to reflect a practice
- in other words the procedure/instruction was the last thing to get updated. So my auditors will insist on a training record for it!

Yes - that's my point - if a record is required to prove that someone is trained and therefore competent then it's not a myth.

 

[ISO_Man]

Unless it modifies the competencies needed to do the work, not training is going to be needed. Of course, experience also builds competencies. Awareness of the change is important. But it's a common myth to think people need "training" in changes.

How are changes communicated to the users of a procedure?