Grand Fathering Clause - Qualifying senior, experienced personnel as competent

[energy]

I'm sure that many have used the "Grand Father" practice of qualifying senior, experienced personnel as competent. One example I saw was to use a date. "Employees hired before this date, are considered competent to perform their tasks". Well, something like that. What method(s) would you suggest when we have Engineers who will need 2-3-4 years before they are fully capable of assuming control of a project. Some of these people were hired a year ago, so a date may complicate things. We also have veteran Project Engineers, Designers and Application Engineers who will be "Grand Fathered" based upon established skill sets. All suggestions are welcome!

 

[Sam]

Energy,
You could establish an in-house training program that provides evidence of competence i.e., testing, performance over a given period of time.
In days of old, when I started in the workforce I was hired as a trainee inspector. This was for a period of two years and my raises were tied to performance.i.e., competence. There was also the same type of program for machinists.

 

[energy]

We have something like that

Sam,

We have training schedules for all departments and positions. We want to mention "Grand Fathered" as the reason for being deemed competent for the position for our employees who came here fully qualified for the positions and assisted on developing the skill sets required. Testing them is a waste of time as they were actively designing and shipping systems from day one. We are a little over 2 years old as a Company. Most of us have worked together in a previous life. There is no question of competency.

If we just sign off the competent section of the training schedule, there is no record of previous training. My concern is an Auditor seeing this and asking why he is "competent" without evidence of training. Grand Fathering is a means to eliminate this type of question. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But, that's why I posted!
Thanks for the input.

 

[Mike S.]

Energy,

Here are a few thoughts. We say the obligatory "employees are assigned responsibilities by their Dept. Manager or Supervisor based on their abilities, education, experience, and training". And that they will be trained and/or certified AS NEEDED to perform these activities in the proper manner. We recognize that sometimes no additional training is needed (if the person has the needed skills already and can demonstrate it). So IMO as long as the responsible Manager says the person is trained/qualified/certified to do something, then they are, period. I call it "demonstrated performance". You make the rules. The only caveat is that everyone got a few mandatory training sessions covering safety, HR stuff, and a QMS overview. Does this make sense? I hope it helps.

 

[energy]

My argument, exactly

Mike S. said:

Energy,

So IMO as long as the responsible Manager says the person is trained/qualified/certified to do something, then they are, period. I call it "demonstrated performance". You make the rules. The only caveat is that everyone got a few mandatory training sessions covering safety, HR stuff, and a QMS overview. Does this make sense? I hope it helps.

Mike S.

I argued that very point at our Steering Committee this week. Our Consultant said we have to show evidence of Training. I asked that question. Why? The Supervisor has said he is competent. Period. This would only be for Qualified personnel that we would "grand father" without exactly saying so. Like talking to a brick wall. He said "Grand Father" them and say so. I guess we could add a note to the bottom of the individual training schedule saying the nice words, including the word "Grand father". Mine actually call me "Grampy" and "Papa". Thanks.

 

[Mike S.]

Energy,

Sounds like your consultant is a bit off his feed, IMO. The only training I would think is mandatory, that hardly anyone could get from prior schooling or work experience, is training specifically regarding use and understanding of the new QMS you just developed.

It would seem stupid to me for you to have to go through the motions of "training" some guy to do the job he has been doing well for months/years just because someone thinks the standard requires it. It doesn't. This kind of crap gives ISO and quality a bad name among the rank-and-file and Management who wonder why you're wasting valuable time on such stuff. In 6.2.2 it says "determine the necessary competence for personnel" then "provide training OR TAKE OTHER ACTIONS to satisfy these needs" and they suggest the other actions might be "education...skills, and experience".

I think I would say "yeah, we did training on the new QMS and certified them to do their jobs based on PRIOR TRAINING (maybe that would make him happy since it is "training", it just happened long ago) or education and/or experience. I can't imagine any reasonable auditor having any problem with that unless you had rejects piled up to the ceiling.

Any Cove auditors wanna weigh in?

 

[Ken K]

We just went through a ISO 17025 pre-audit on Tuesday. Part of Section 5.2 concerns training and he wanted to see our training records.

We explained to him most of our training took place pre QS / ISO and our company did not start keeping these records until 1995.
He told us to "Grand Father" us in. Just make up a form and list all our training from pre 1995. Need to list all names of associates who might have helped train us, schooling, seminars, etc.

Seems like a simple solution.

 

[energy]

So, it's real.

Ken K said:

We explained to him most of our training took place pre QS / ISO and our company did not start keeping these records until 1995.
He told us to "Grand Father" us in. Just make up a form and list all our training from pre 1995. Need to list all names of associates who might have helped train us, schooling, seminars, etc.

Seems like a simple solution.

Ken/Mike S.,

So, it appears that using the words "Grand Father" is the way to go. Our Consultant is far more experienced with Auditor's views on this than I, so we'll work on it.

Ken,
All we have on the personnel (Grand Fathers) is their employment history showing their experience in the skill sets they determined that they would like to see "new" people trained in. Like, I did a training schedule for an Inspector and a Qual Manager. Currently, I fill both positions. I used a "wish list" approach on what I would like to see for someone to have or learn to replace me. Don't get funny. I'm not in the mood.
So, our Engineering Managers show experience in "Project Management" at another Company. They set the whole Engineering Department up, so they are "competent". I believe I have enough input to do it satisfactorily.

But, Mike has thrown an unexpected twist in. Training in the QMS. Now, that's scary. They have "training" in some level 2's and are familiar with the other mandatory procedures. We are probably going to experience some flak in that method of "familiarization". We currently release documents through written notification with an individual Acknowledgement sheet that includes a statement that they read and understood the contents and would refer to them on a routine basis, if required. I keep these records in my office. maybe I'll just stick them in their personnel folder's training section and be done with it.
Their training schedules are devoid of any mention of QMS Training.
I love practical solutions, Gentlemen. Thanks again.

 

[Angela-2007]

Energy, we show training requirements in our job summaries. Each position in my company has one. Example; Plant Managers may say something like

Required Training:
*Bachelors degree from four year college or university with eight years of management experience; or twelve years related experience in managment of a company; or equivalent combination of education and experience.

At this point we have said how much training we expect them to have. Their resume would reflect what training they had. It is what we deem to be competent

 

[Mike S.]

Energy,

You probably understand that what I mean by QMS training as a general familiarity kinda thing. Many folks who are involved in the implementation effort will know most of it, but those who have been on the fringes or new people may need a bit more familiarization. Stuff like a very basic overview of ISO; why a QMS is important; what the Quality policy is; who the MR and other Top Management is and their authority level; where and how they can get access to the procedures, customer drawings, etc. they might need and how to identify that they have the correct revision; what to do if they have a problem or question; how to handle defective/NC material and the importance of keeping material properly identified; how to make sure they are using a calibrated tool (when required) and what to do with a tool they think might be defective; etc. etc. I did it via a handout and 1 - 1.5 hour training session (with juice and donuts) for all hands. It also served the secondary purpose of letting people you don't get to see very often know who you are, that you're not an Ogre, that they can come to you with any questions or concerns, and that in the end all you want to do is help them to do their jobs better. I asked all attendees to complete anonymous comment cards and ~ 96% of them enjoyed it and found it to be helpful, which I considered a major success and minor miracle, considering the initial grumbling I heard when it was first announced.

Ken,

As far as your auditor saying "to "Grand Father" us in. Just make up a form and list all our training from pre 1995. Need to list all names of associates who might have helped train us, schooling, seminars, etc." This seems silly of him/her IMO. Who has all of that stuff i.e. names, dates, scope of training, etc. if they are just starting up a formal QMS? What if you did not keep those kinds of records back then? Make something up because the auditor will never know any different? Waste time re-training people who are already trained? Who "certifies" the trainers themselves? It sounds to me like some auditors/consultants are making this more difficult than it needs to be as per ISO and as per common sense. "Show me the shall" sounds appropriate. It seems very clear to me, ISO says you can be considered competent based on "education, training, skills, and experience", NOT just via training. If that auditor changed employers but did the exact same job for the new employer, would he have to go through training on how to do his job all over again? I'm baffled by that "logic".