How to Establish and Document Competence of Employees in a Small Company

[harley123]

How to Establish and Document Competence of Employees in a Small Company?

I work for a small company. We have discussed using evaluations to meet the standard 7.2. Upper management does not want to do this being afraid that the employees will want evaluations to be tied to raises. So I am trying to come up with another way to meet this standard. Here is my thought. If I had a spreadsheet with all employees names at the top, then a list of tasks and equipment used off to the side. In boxes under the employees name next to the task or machine used show if the employee was

Fully trained = able to perform task without supervision.
In training = needs supervision to set up to perform task or use machine.
Not trained = has no training should not be performing task.

Would this meet the standard ok?

If anyone has any thoughts I would appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Competency

No, being trained does not mean that a person is competent. The emphasis in the Standard is on DEMONSTRATED ability to APPLY knowledge and skills.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Competency

If anyone has any thoughts I would appreciate any suggestions.

Read this paper

​

 

[harley123]

Re: Competency

So what you are saying is that I don't need to show training. A person could come to our company with the knowledge of how something works. This person performing this task and us evaluating that they have this knowledge is enough?

 

[hogheavenfarm]

Re: Competency

lets say you hire a welder, he has an AWS certificate. You may assume he is competent, but the proof is in the welding. No issues? Welds are good? He is a competent welder. You track his performance through quality issues. Serious problems, he is not competent (even if he holds a cert). You should not have to train competencies unless you want to. Rarely do companies hire people with no skills at all. (some may argue this after doing some quality work )

 

[Golfman25]

Re: How to Establish and Document Competence of Employees in a Small Company?

I work for a small company. We have discussed using evaluations to meet the standard 7.2. Upper management does not want to do this being afraid that the employees will want evaluations to be tied to raises. So I am trying to come up with another way to meet this standard. Here is my thought. If I had a spreadsheet with all employees names at the top, then a list of tasks and equipment used off to the side. In boxes under the employees name next to the task or machine used show if the employee was

Fully trained = able to perform task without supervision.
In training = needs supervision to set up to perform task or use machine.
Not trained = has no training should not be performing task.

Would this meet the standard ok?

If anyone has any thoughts I would appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks

I would just change trained to competent. That's s what you're measuring.

 

[Randy]

Training ain't competence!

Training isn't anything more than the transference of information to a target audience.

Competence is that target audience taking the information and using it to come to as desired/planned result.

A perfect example of a training/competence process can be found here....

29CFR 1910.178(l)(2)(ii)

Training shall consist of a combination of formal instruction (e.g., lecture, discussion, interactive computer learning, video tape, written material), practical training (demonstrations performed by the trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee), and evaluation of the operator's performance in the workplace.

 

[Golfman25]

Training ain't competence!

Training isn't anything more than the transference of information to a target audience.

Competence is that target audience taking the information and using it to come to as desired/planned result.

A perfect example of a training/competence process can be found here....

29CFR 1910.178(l)(2)(ii)

Training shall consist of a combination of formal instruction (e.g., lecture, discussion, interactive computer learning, video tape, written material), practical training (demonstrations performed by the trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee), and evaluation of the operator's performance in the workplace.

Right. But look at what his matrix says. Fully trained = able to perform without supervision. Being able to perform without supervision is actually competence.

 

[Randy]

Right. But look at what his matrix says. Fully trained = able to perform without supervision. Being able to perform without supervision is actually competence.

Document your criteria for coming to that comclusion and run with it.

Unless there is some type of specific requirement that people be trained you basicially don't have to do it. (Like a legal, contractural or organization specific)

But, people absolutely have to be competent, and that is defined as "The ability to apply knowledge and skill"

The vast majority of training provided to folks is useless dribble if they can't actually do what they've been trained to do.

Would you rather have a pilot that is trained to land a plane or that can actuially land a plane safely? That's why the FAA specifies training of the individual 1st and observed performance 2nd and not just training alone.

 

[Joe Cruse]

Jumping into this thread, because of concerns I have going into 9001:2015, and improving how we document competence. One thing I noted in the ISO guidance document that Sidney referenced for us is "Periodic Review of Competence of Persons" and the associated "Maintenance of Competence". I understand what c and d of 7.2 are directing, but is ISO also saying that it is implicit within c and d that there WILL be periodic monitoring of individuals performing work under the qms, once the organization has documented them as competent to perform their work?

I guess I'm asking; is the standard telling us to do some formal, periodic review of competence, such as an annual performance review, for example? I'm not seeing that spelled out in 7.2, personally, but this guidance document seems to be spelling it out that way.

Thank,

Joe