Appropriate ways to address Competency? Generic vs Specific

C

CATERAF

Hi,

I've recently been examining 6.2.2 (Competence, Awareness and Training) and have been reading widely and trying to get my head around this clause.
So far I've come to the conclusion that it's critical to show that someone is competent (and not merely trained) but I haven't found so much information about how to show it. There seems to be varying degress of 'specifity'. My query is about how specific it needs to be.

For example, in one procedure I read it had a competency assessment form which essentially said the person is competent for a,b,c reasons and they are evalued against the criteria of few/no complaints by customers, few/no failures, few/no major mistakes etc. It was very generic and applicable across all tasks.
Other procedures I have read (a thread on here) said you need to have a specific list of competencies for each task (i.e., screws are in correctly, painted smoothly and no visible blemishes etc). These items can be 'checked off' and if the auditor were to be trained according to the checklist, they should be deemed competent too.

My query is how detailed the competency checklist/criteria should be and what type of contents (generic or specific) the competency framework/checklists should be. The reason for asking is that is that we have several hundreds of work instructions, and we have many products and many parts to many products even though we are a small organisation of ~15 people. We also have many other procedures that aren't even work instructions. Do we need to go through and do checklists for every single work instruction and procedure? I'm doubting we would because this isn't supposed to cripple your company, but how would we approach it..?

Thanks for your help,
Avril
 
Last edited by a moderator:

somashekar

Leader
Admin
Hi,

I've recently been examining 6.2.2 (Competence, Awareness and Training) and have been reading widely and trying to get my head around this clause.
So far I've come to the conclusion that it's critical to show that someone is competent (and not merely trained) but I haven't found so much information about how to show it. There seems to be varying degress of 'specifity'. My query is about how specific it needs to be.

For example, in one procedure I read it had a competency assessment form which essentially said the person is competent for a,b,c reasons and they are evalued against the criteria of few/no complaints by customers, few/no failures, few/no major mistakes etc. It was very generic and applicable across all tasks.
Other procedures I have read (a thread on here) said you need to have a specific list of competencies for each task (i.e., screws are in correctly, painted smoothly and no visible blemishes etc). These items can be 'checked off' and if the auditor were to be trained according to the checklist, they should be deemed competent too.

My query is how detailed the competency checklist/criteria should be and what type of contents (generic or specific) the competency framework/checklists should be. The reason for asking is that is that we have several hundreds of work instructions, and we have many products and many parts to many products even though we are a small organisation of ~15 people. We also have many other procedures that aren't even work instructions. Do we need to go through and do checklists for every single work instruction and procedure? I'm doubting we would because this isn't supposed to cripple your company, but how would we approach it..?

Thanks for your help,
Avril
Think process.
Think qualification of personnel to your process.
The personnel may have awareness and training, however he can be competent in your domine only after performing effectively.
Be specific about competency to your process.
 
Top Bottom