Competence, awareness and training - Some staff refuse to give educational info

[Jen Kirley]

Indeed, that is the purpose of the off-topic. But little_cee also makes a valid point with:



This is in part why I maintain the only way to "prove" competence is to look at the output of the task. Job descriptions are great, and so are performance apprasials, provided they truly are focused on the task and the demonstrated competency.

Having theory (like weld symbol reading and properly using the forms) and practical (physical examples) weld tests can, in my view, replace formal education and training as evidence of competency. This combination of tests can also be made for a great many production jobs. Unless there is a higher standard (is there a higher directive in this case?) then the company can determine what works.

Determining what kind of competency evidence to use could be done on the same premise as deciding how often to calibrate equipment: frequency of use, critical contribution to the process and a failure rate (which escalates at a certain time span) for when the thing isn't maintained. LIkewise, if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable, he or she may not need any more reinforcing training as long as no other factor determines that.

If a production worker has been performing at acceptable levels and never misses a trick, does that "grandfather" into historical evidence of competency? Maybe, but then we must ask:

1. Will other performers be compared to that level, or will performance be more subjective?

2. Do we expect that time away from the task will dull the skill level? And if so, what is the curve if diminished skill we expect, at what point? This is for the sake of recerts, you see.

I truly don't want to "nuke the thing", as we said on my ship. However, we must show evidence of competency: a relative matter, IMHO.

 

[Jim Howe]

I have read all of the responses an they all make their point, however I maintain it is this sort of "silly" requirement that are driving folks away from the standard. Are there any other requirements in the standard that any of you feel the same way about? I would be interested in your or your companies outlook regarding these sort of requirements. Folks there has to be a reason why companies are not lined up at the gate to sign up!

 

[Jen Kirley]

I have read all of the responses an they all make their point, however I maintain it is this sort of "silly" requirement that are driving folks away from the standard. Are there any other requirements in the standard that any of you feel the same way about? I would be interested in your or your companies outlook regarding these sort of requirements. Folks there has to be a reason why companies are not lined up at the gate to sign up!

I have spoken with a number of people who think the ISO registration process is burdensome, constrictive, and an overall nuisance with little value.

What I suspect we have is a tendency to make our QMS in a way that answers the standard. But an unfriendly, restrictive program is sure to gain animosity, and rightly so.

The term QMS (Quality Management System) is, in fact, so misunderstood that it is often held with suspicion. There is good reason for that, where systems have been made that are uncomfortable, hard to use or don't make much sense.

It is so much better to document the good practices that the organization does, tighten up that which is deemed important to the degree that it will balance control with value, and call it an operating system.

It is quite possible to do this if the entire organization is involved in the effort, even casually. Asking rather than telling can help us develop a program that is not dictative, but simply represents our high standards to the outside world. This is, IMHO, what a QMS (or Business Operating System, or what have you) should be about.

If you are questioning the value of such an effort, I have to ask again: why is your organization considering registration?

 

[Jen Kirley]

I'm sorry, I mistakenly addressed my last question to an observer.

 

[Jim Howe]

I'm sorry, I mistakenly addressed my last question to an observer.

Jennifer, it is quite all right and a legimate question. The views I express are my own not the company I work for. I see the same kind of division over six-sigma. Some of the contributors to these forums and others seem to have some deeply rooted doubts about six-sigma. I have the same doubts but yet most of us have paid our dues to an organization that actively pushes the concept. I believe this is the great thing about these forums is our coming together to share information even though we may have oppossing view points. Who knows what tomorrow may bring. Maybe I will grow and change my mind but then again maybe I will become a democrat!
I enjoy your responses, keep them coming! Always remember that I am a big boy and my a__ is as wide as my shoulders.
Thanks You!

 

[db]

Having theory (like weld symbol reading and properly using the forms) and practical (physical examples) weld tests can, in my view, replace formal education and training as evidence of competency. This combination of tests can also be made for a great many production jobs. Unless there is a higher standard (is there a higher directive in this case?) then the company can determine what works.

Determining what kind of competency evidence to use could be done on the same premise as deciding how often to calibrate equipment: frequency of use, critical contribution to the process and a failure rate (which escalates at a certain time span) for when the thing isn't maintained. LIkewise, if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable, he or she may not need any more reinforcing training as long as no other factor determines that.

If a production worker has been performing at acceptable levels and never misses a trick, does that "grandfather" into historical evidence of competency? Maybe, but then we must ask:

1. Will other performers be compared to that level, or will performance be more subjective?

2. Do we expect that time away from the task will dull the skill level? And if so, what is the curve if diminished skill we expect, at what point? This is for the sake of recerts, you see.

I truly don't want to "nuke the thing", as we said on my ship. However, we must show evidence of competency: a relative matter, IMHO.

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer...Now I know why I named my first child after you.

But allow me, if I may, to expand on your ideas with my own.

In reality, nothing listed in 6.2.2 (education, training, experience and skills) proves competence. They might show the ability to be competent, but not the existence of competence itself. I have always maintained that these things are inputs. Competence is an output. You can only measure an output by looking at the output. As in your case of the factory worker. How do you know the worker is competent? As you say: "...if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable..." Your'e measuring output, and basing competency on that. I can have all of the skills, training, eduction and experience, but I might be lazy and make mistakes. The auditor asks you to prove my competence and you show the auditor my training file. Yep, it shows I have all it takes to make excellent product. But my production records show a different story. When asked to show comptency records, you should go to production records first.

I have a degree in Industrial Management. I received it in 1978. Now, how much of that do you think I remember? Yet, many places require a degree. Why?

Is evaluating competency subjective? Only as far as the output is subjective.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer...Now I know why I named my first child after you.

This makes me laugh!

But allow me, if I may, to expand on your ideas with my own.

In reality, nothing listed in 6.2.2 (education, training, experience and skills) proves competence. They might show the ability to be competent, but not the existence of competence itself. I have always maintained that these things are inputs. Competence is an output. You can only measure an output by looking at the output. As in your case of the factory worker. How do you know the worker is competent? As you say: "...if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable..." Your'e measuring output, and basing competency on that. I can have all of the skills, training, eduction and experience, but I might be lazy and make mistakes. The auditor asks you to prove my competence and you show the auditor my training file. Yep, it shows I have all it takes to make excellent product. But my production records show a different story. When asked to show comptency records, you should go to production records first.

I have a degree in Industrial Management. I received it in 1978. Now, how much of that do you think I remember? Yet, many places require a degree. Why?

Is evaluating competency subjective? Only as far as the output is subjective.

These are very good points.

In truth, training proves nothing. We assess to "prove" retention, and reassess later to "prove" maintenance of that accurate retention. Thus, my suggesting practical skills tests may be fine in some cases.

Really, it all depends on how bad this or that level of "proof" is needed or desired. What is the point of it, and how much effort brings a good balance between the endeavor and the value? This is a question each organization must answer for themselves, but may feel harnessed by standards like ISO.

Indeed, it's small wonder these standards have given many organizations a bellyache.

 

[Bill Pflanz]

Getting back to some of the original issues, I have the following questions and comments:

1. Doesn't 6.2.2 only apply to personnel whose activities impact the conformity of the product or service? If so, do the senior directors really impact the quality of the product? Indirectly, they could make decisions that could result in quality problems e.g. a purchasing manager deciding on a supplier for raw material that ultimately causes quality problems but it may not be considered an "activity" impacting quality. A different approach is to determine which jobs impact quality and those individuals would need training records.

2. Assuming the company is a viable business and has a history of acceptable quality, the current workers must be qualified and capable regardless of their education, training etc. Why not just grandfather the current workers but at the same time outline what training etc. is needed to maintain or improve their skills? At the same time, why not document what skills, education, training etc. would be required for any new employee for that position and create a job description?

Using the welding example, a certification is great but wouldn't you rather take the prospective employee out into the shop and do some welds in order to determine if qualified? The job description would have to be flexible enough to hire someone from a welding school who could be hired as an apprentice until experienced or someone who can demonstrate they already have the experience.

It is not as if you would fire your current workers just because you cannot produce the training records for someone who has done the job for the last 20 years. I agree with Jim Howe in that the certain auditors can make the standards silly enough that it defeats the purpose of them.

Bill Pflanz

 

[RoxaneB]

1. Doesn't 6.2.2 only apply to personnel whose activities impact the conformity of the product or service? If so, do the senior directors really impact the quality of the product? Indirectly, they could make decisions that could result in quality problems e.g. a purchasing manager deciding on a supplier for raw material that ultimately causes quality problems but it may not be considered an "activity" impacting quality. A different approach is to determine which jobs impact quality and those individuals would need training records.

Does the Management Representative impact the quality of the product or service? Should not a qualified and competent person be in the role of Management Representative? While senior directors or management may not be the one tightening the final screws or tagging up the finished product, they are, in my opinion, just as important to the final quality as the person on the floor.

ISO 9001:2000 is based upon 8 principles...the second one is Leadership. Management must not only determine what direction the company will go in, but must also lead us there. They set the pace. They set the example. They must demonstrate an unwavering committment to the management system...so why should they be exempt from providing evidence of their qualifications?

If the company, however, opts to hire someone who may not meet the formal education requirements, but meets the work experience, it is a simple as placing a note in the individual's file explaining why they are deemed qualified and the education requirement is exempt.

To determine which jobs impact quality, is, IMHO, the wrong path to take....but it is an option, I suppose, for organizations just starting out on the quest for ISO 9001:2000 registration. More often than naught, we read in the Cove how people are tired of Quality thought of as being the Quality Department's responsibility, how it is strongly felt that Quality is everyone's job...to determine which jobs impact quality seems like a step backwards.

2. Assuming the company is a viable business and has a history of acceptable quality, the current workers must be qualified and capable regardless of their education, training etc. Why not just grandfather the current workers but at the same time outline what training etc. is needed to maintain or improve their skills? At the same time, why not document what skills, education, training etc. would be required for any new employee for that position and create a job description?

That's what we've done. In the past, we never had job descriptions, but since the expansion of our family, we have been directed to develop them. We have done so, stating, however, that our current employees are qualified and competent and that the job description/requirements will apply only to new/transferred personnel.

 

[Jim Howe]

That's what we've done. In the past, we never had job descriptions, but since the expansion of our family, we have been directed to develop them. We have done so, stating, however, that our current employees are qualified and competent and that the job description/requirements will apply only to new/transferred personnel.

We did not have job descriptions either. But HR promises that this is what the future holds. My concerns are two fold.

Why put into place job descriptions, that, if applied across the board would disqualify some of your current best people. Have we not learned anything?
For example, If we were to say that all weld applicants must have a High School diploma then we would be forced to grandfather current welders and possibly miss some very worthwhile welders through the application process itself. Or better yet all QA Engineers must have an "MBA"? If we were able to obtain good welders in the past without the diploma why screw that up? Why must we suddenly try to impress the "standard keepers"?

My second problem is with the testing. I fervently believe that the testing should be both a written and a practical, assuming the applicant can get past the new minimum requirements. In the past I have been called upon to author such written and practical test. The criticism was that the test were too difficult. Certain applicants could not score high enough on the written (80%) to be elegible for the practical. But if the applicant cannot identify a weld symbol how will they know what kind of weld is required on their practicle.

I realize that my first concern seems to contradict my second but my point is to show just how difficult this task is.

I like Bills idea of somehow being able to identify raw talent and hire as an apprentice, but I fear most companies would refuse to make that investment. The fear is that as soon as they train the apprentice he will leave for greener pastures. Got To Be a way. How about third party testing and applicant screening?