Any ideas how to handle this (Training) issue?

[Gman2]

Here is the situation.

I have about 35 people in our production area with about 25 different machines.
Some machines are similar but most do their own things.
Now there are about 15 people or so that are just about trained and identified as qualified operators on every machine in the shop.

Now I am putting together our new training procedure/program which will cover training and evaluation.
Here is the way I have it now (it's not implemented yet):
Each Machine has it's own training sheet and each sheet has it's own list of required competencies required to Run (R) Operate (O) or just perform quality inspections (Q) (these are the 3 categories someone can be qualified)
This comes down to a lost of about 15 critical areas to be evaluated on on each machine, and each area has a evaluation check box after it to score the employee from 1 to 10. This was we can keep track of all areas and monitor them every year through evaluations. The form is good for 5 years (5 check boxes) so you can look from year to year and see how the employee is doing.
I will attach a copy of this for you to look at.

The problem with this I can see is there are quite a few employees that can run all 25 machines. This is going to cause the supervisors to sit down (yearly) with the employees and go over and fill out over 25 different sheets per employee.
This does not seem practical, especially when most of the machines if you look at the sheets have the EXACT same required competencies. These are pretty generic competencies so I am thinking I can condense this.
Here is my idea, have ONE form per employee and list all the generic competencies then have a listing of machines at the bottom that can be checked off as to their qualified status on each machine (A box next to each machine name which you can place a O-R-or Q).
This way the sheet can be updated yearly and the competencies can still be evaluated yearly as well.
This way each employee only has one sheet so it's not so much paperwork and redundancy.
IYO, do you think this would be OK? Or do I need to do a form for each machine?

Any ideas are welcome, here is one (of the 25) sheets as it is now.

G.

 

[Craig H.]

Gman:

I don't see the form posted, but a few questions, if I may.

First, do the supervisors (who do the evaluation, and, I presume, the training) walk around the floor while the machines are being operated? If so, why not have them do the evaluations then, as they are checking up on the workers anyhow? If they usually carry a clipboard with them, then how much more would it be to have them take a packet of 25 sheets with them that they can check off?

Anyway, you know your process better than we do. At the risk of sounding rude (I don't mean to if it sounds like it) since you asked the question, I suspect you already know the answer. It sounds like your company is working for the system, rather than the system working for them. If you can simplify and get the same (or, I suspect) or even better results from your training by simplifying, then DO IT by all means. Remember, although you may need documentation (for ISO and to keep track of who has been trained in what), the documentation is not the main product here. Skilled, effective workers are what you are after. The rest, while needed, is non value added.

Just my opinion. Good luck!

Craig

 

[mshell]

Gman,

There is a great thread on this. Search Training Needs Assessment and see if that gives you any ideas.

We have a generic competency profile that is used in conjunction with the individual job descriptions. The responsibilities and tasks in the job descriptions are numbered to correspond with the task #'s on the competency profile. If an employee performs more than one function, we evaluate on each job that he/she can perform. If the tasks per machine are the same only a different product, this may help with your dilema.

I hope this helps.

 

[howste]

Gman, I see no problems at all with what you're proposing. It should help you to avoid a lot of extra work.

 

[ralphsulser]

Gman, here is SKILL MAP we use to cover people, skill levels, and equipment.
Hope this helps

 

[Gman2]

Sorry, my attachment should work now.

ralphsulser, I have a matrix that looks somwhat like that now.
Mine is more for shop reference and it will hang on the supervisors office so everyone who needs it can see it.
Mine lists all the machines at the top and the names down the left.
In the boxes (intersections) you can put an O-R-or Q to show who is qualified for what.
But this evaluation sheet I am doing is going to be a sit down evaluation 1 on 1 with the supervisors.

And Craig (("It sounds like your company is working for the system, rather than the system working for them."))
I don't really get this statement.
I think this is something that is going to help out our company since nothing like this happens now. And one of our biggest problems I see here now is there is NO feedback from supervisor to worker in any form other then "If I don't get yelled at for screwing up I assume I am doing my job correctly".
So I think I have designed this system to work for us. Now if I were to have designed a system like you had suggested (("why not have them do the evaluations then, as they are checking up on the workers anyhow? If they usually carry a clipboard with them, then how much more would it be to have them take a packet of 25 sheets with them that they can check off?")) then I believe the system would not be working for us. Now that might work just fine for you but for us it would really just be going through the motions. What we need here is a 1 on 1 situation (well actually we need more then that but that's a whole other topic).

Anyway I want it to be effective without being too tasking.
I think I am going to change my form to what I was thinking, I'll post it when it's done.


Thanks for the ideas, keep em coming!

G.

 

[Craig H.]

Sorry, my attachment should work now.


And Craig (("It sounds like your company is working for the system, rather than the system working for them."))
I don't really get this statement.

Gman, my point here is that sometimes we end up with systems that we use because it is the way we always have done it, instead of the best way. We work for the system, in that maintaining the system becomes more important and time consuming than it should be, instead of having and using a system that helps us accomplish the main goals of the department/organization. For some reason, it seems to me that procedures and documentation are the main areas where this tends to happen.

I think this is something that is going to help out our company since nothing like this happens now. And one of our biggest problems I see here now is there is NO feedback from supervisor to worker in any form other then "If I don't get yelled at for screwing up I assume I am doing my job correctly".
So I think I have designed this system to work for us. Now if I were to have designed a system like you had suggested (("why not have them do the evaluations then, as they are checking up on the workers anyhow? If they usually carry a clipboard with them, then how much more would it be to have them take a packet of 25 sheets with them that they can check off?")) then I believe the system would not be working for us. Now that might work just fine for you but for us it would really just be going through the motions. What we need here is a 1 on 1 situation (well actually we need more then that but that's a whole other topic).

Gman, again, you are in the best position to decide this. I threw out what we do so that you might get some ideas from it. It sounds like you did - ideas that wouldn't work there and should be eliminated. Great!

At some point in the future, my ideas may be useful, maybe not. Whatever happens, good luck with whatever you decide to go with.

Craig

 

[Gman2]

Well thanks, and I was just trying to clarify my situation little better.

Now I have found a problem with changing the form and still trying to accomplish what I was talking about.

If I go to only one form in this format I could list the machines at the bottom with check boxes identifying the operators status O-R-Q BUT all of the required competencies will not apply for all machines depending on the employees qualification level. For instance, if Bob can operate 6 machines, and run 5 and only do quality checks on 4 a generic form won't work. Well this one won't anyway. because he may have to know how to set up a machine and make adjustments on one machine but not on another. So jut having that competency listed once on the sheet will not work.

****, I am having a brain meltdown now
I'll figure something out. Worse comes to worse the supervisors will just have to buy some more pens.

G.

 

[Mike S.]

Gman,

Of course do what works best in your unique situation.

In our company, once a person is formally "qualified" by a trainer to perform a certain task (i.e. operate a machine) they remain qualified unless/until either they ask for help, or a supervisor determines they need remedial help, or they change jobs. The monitoring of performance is mainly by the supervisor looking at the quality and quantity of their output each day or week. No extra paperwork beyond the initial qualifiication, but continual monitoring of performance. And if the supervisor only comments on their work when they screw-up unless he/she is forced to do otherwise by a procedure/form, then he/she is not much of a supervisor. JMHO.

 

[Gman2]

And if the supervisor only comments on their work when they screw-up unless he/she is forced to do otherwise by a procedure/form, then he/she is not much of a supervisor. JMHO.

Oh believe me it is MY opinion as well, but like I said, that's a whole other topic lol!

Anyway I think I have it figured out, I'm going to some up with 3 training sheets. One for Operators with requirements, one with requirement to run the machine (no adjustments) and one for quality only. And at the bottom of the sheet it will list all the machines with a box to mark O-R-Q in.

I think this is going to work.
I'll post it up, maybe someone else can use it too.

G.