Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Addressing Training in ISO 9001:2000 Process Documents

R

Rachel

#1
Addressing Training in 9K2K Docs

Mornin' everyone...

Here's my rub - I'm having a bit of a challenge with figuring out how to address training in my process docs. Background: my doc system consists of the 6 required docs, plus a set of "process" SOPs - ordering process, R&D operations, purchasing operations, and so on, up to shipping operations. These SOPs are broken up into "auditable" processes. The only process doc that I'm writing that *isn't* from clause 7 is a management review SOP - because the management responsibility clauses can only be fully audited by a few of our internal auditors (for confidentiality reasons).

Anyway, sorry about the ramble - our internal auditors have been trained, and advised that when they audit, they now have to take into account a number of issues (not just their main processes): they also have to account for training, for QA, for infrastructure, for control of NCP, and so on. I don't want to write docs for these clauses (except for 8.3, of course), because they should be audited with processes and not as stand-alone issues - but I also don't want to dumb down my system by writing "all employees must be trained" in every single SOP. Has anyone come up with a way to "gently remind" their auditors of the need to audit all peripheral processes? I'm sure that it'll become second nature, but for this painful transition period it's got to be emphasized...

(Sorry if this seems like a silly question - I'm reading it over now and it seems a little dumb, but I'm seriously struggling with this...) :frust:

Cheers,
-R.

PS: Has anyone seen the new "Mr. Pareto-Head" cartoon in this month's "Quality Progress" magazine? I knew I'd reached a new geeky low when I found myself laughing at a joke with the words "standard deviations" in it... :eek:
 
Paid Advertisement - Forum Supporter
#2
Rachel said:
Has anyone come up with a way to "gently remind" their auditors of the need to audit all peripheral processes?
Can you just ensure that the related questions are included in their audit checklists?
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#3
You're missing the boat Rachel....training isn't the real or even important issue, you can get evidence of training by looking at records, schedules, plans and all that gibberish. Your auditors should be looking for evidence of "competence" of which training is a component.

Too much focus and time is expended with this training issue. I've seen people with literally hundreds of hours of training that can't even tell you what it was about. We need to focus on the competence of employees and toss off the metrics producing "training hours per emplyee" yoke.

You can send a dog to obedience school, spend thousands of dollars, and still have a dumb dog.


"There is no failure except in no longer trying." ~~Elbert Hubbard
 
#4
Randy said:
Too much focus and time is expended with this training issue. I've seen people with literally hundreds of hours of training that can't even tell you what it was about. We need to focus on the competence of employees and toss off the metrics producing "training hours per emplyee" yoke.
Right on, Randy,:agree1:

I look for, and often ask people: -Have you got everything you need to be able to do your job? The necessary competence is one of the things I want to find...

/Claes
 
R

Rachel

#5
Randy said:
You're missing the boat Rachel....training isn't the real or even important issue, you can get evidence of training by looking at records, schedules, plans and all that gibberish. Your auditors should be looking for evidence of "competence" of which training is a component.
Yes, I understand that, Randy. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. My problem is that I need a foolproof way to make sure that the issues in 6.2.2 are addressed. Call it what you want - a training audit, a competence assessment - call it a Macintosh or a Granny Smith, they're both still apples.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#6
Competence and training are not both apples, there is a very distinct difference.

Training is having rubbish, trash and junk poured into your head...

Competence is taking all that has been poured into your head, along with some experience and education mixed in, and being able to actually do something with it in a consistant manner to reach a desired conclusion or result.

You have to decide what you want to do before you can develop your plan to do it!

Do you want to audit training? If so, develop the necessary measure to verify it is happening in the appropriate manner to achieve expectations, customer or otherwise..

Do you want to audit competence? If so, you must 1st determine whether competence has been defined by your organization and then develop the methodolgy to verify the achievement of it.

As I stated...Competence and Training are two entirely different creatures and they require a different approach.
 
#7
Randy said:
Competence and training are not both apples, there is a very distinct difference.

Training is having rubbish, trash and junk poured into your head...
Does anyone else find the irony in this comment from a super trainer?
 

sal881vw

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
Has anyone come up with a way to "gently remind" their auditors of the need to audit all peripheral processes?
I don't know if you've seen the thread "Ten essential ISO 9001:2000 audit questions" by Craig Cochran. There's also a great chart by /Claes, as well as different versions of how the questions may be put forward. I don't want to steal anyone's credit.



We have a specific QMS for training which was left as is from the ISO 9002:1994 version and addresses competence, awareness and training( including re-certification). Competence is presumed to be achieved after the necessary training has been given and the individual passing a test.
We monitor compitence through the individual's awareness by assessing the level of performance ( on going) namely by supervisors and managers.
Re certification is performed for key roles.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#9
I was using those words in a symbolic fashion only Wes.... :D

"Competence is presumed to be achieved after the necessary training has been given and the individual passing a test."

I can pass any test I need/have to pass..that doesn't mean that I would be a competent brain surgeon or whatever.

Passing an exam does not prove or validate competence, it just shows that something sunk in and was remembered at the most.

Can the training/education be applied in such a fashion that what is desired actually and consistently happens? This is normally only achieved as experience is gained. If you have defined competence as just passing a test...you lose.

You can modify the information in this link to apply to this topic
 
Last edited:

RoxaneB

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#10
As has been pointed out, training is simply the first step, Rachel...now what do you wish to find out?

  • Was the training effective? or
  • Is the person competent at what they do?

I'm assuming the latter. Based on that assumption, ask yourself what tools or methods does your Organization have in place as a means of demonstrating competency?

At my Organization there is a whole multitude of tools and methods:

  • Nonconformance Reports
  • Abnormality Reports
  • Customer Complaints
  • Key Indicators
  • Adherence to action plans and schedules
  • Performance assessments
  • Job observations
  • Audit findings
  • and so on...

Personally, I do not wish to see anyone's Performance Appraisal...nor do I allow any of the other Internal Auditors to go down that route. I do, however, expect HR and Management to explain to me the process for assessing competency, which should also include explanations on how all the other tools are used in that assessment.

Is this the kind of information you were looking for?
 
Top Bottom