Does training have to be written?

[RoxaneB]

We document webinars as training and we have no control over those.

Control over what? The content of the webinars? If they are not yours, I suppose not...but you evaluate competency as the means to determine if training has been effective.

Many internal auditors go offsite to be trained by a third party. Organizations have no control over what their employees are learning. The effectiveness of the internal audit program (i.e., results, value-add to the organization, etc.) demonstrates if they are competent and some of this is supported by the effectiveness of the training. (NOTE - I say "some" because, let's be honest here, some people just should not be auditors. ).

 

[Deli88]

Verbal training with a record of who received the training is fine. Make sure you evaluate the effectiveness of the training.

Hi Julie,

We had a recent finding against us as we didn't have a documented means of evaluating the effectiveness of training.

Do you have some examples of how you would document this?

Thanks

Deli

 

[Mike S.]

Sometimes a test or similar evaluation of competence takes place after the training. For example, if you are training someone to weld, you might have them do some welding that is evaluated for acceptability.

Sometimes you monitor the output of the person who was trained to see if their output is as expected.

 

[Randy]

Hi Julie,

We had a recent finding against us as we didn't have a documented means of evaluating the effectiveness of training.

Do you have some examples of how you would document this?

Thanks

Deli

Evaluating the effectiveness of training? 3 questions come up right off the bat.

1 - Are the recipients able to do that for which they were trained in a manner that it works for you? Binary answer ... Yes or No

2 - Were the recipients capable to do that for which they were to be trained in a manner that would work for you? Binary answer .... Yes or No

3 - Was the training delivered something that was actually intended to be beneficial or was it just stylish?...... Multiple choice


I like #3 because I experienced literally hundreds of cases where people were attending a Lead Auditor course and starting off it was a total waste of time and money for and by them. The vast majority could have gotten by with an Internal Auditor course or even just a simple one day intro to whatever standard was involved...............BUT!................ Lead Auditor courses were and still are "STYLISH" and there's no intent to go beyond getting a fancy certificate with a handsome logo and being able to claim that they're "certified" because they passed a test.

You got evaluate training through performance that is directed towards a desired outcome and not with some silly test that someone like me could probably pass without doing a single second of the training (I have done it more than once during an audit to illustrate the bogus pass = competence concept just before delivering more the NC). I've an earned MBA (finance heavy) ........You don't want me managing your business finances, trust me, but I can pass the test. (got an exam 98)

Help any?

 

[Big Jim]

Hi Julie,

We had a recent finding against us as we didn't have a documented means of evaluating the effectiveness of training.

Do you have some examples of how you would document this?

Thanks

Deli

That is an inappropriate nonconfirmance and it should have been contested. The only documented information referred to in 7.2 is retained documented information which is defined as records is the appendix. A documented means of evaluating would be maintained documented information according to the appendix AND IS NOT REQUIRED FOR 7.2.