IATF clause 8.5.1.2 - Standardized work - operator instructions and visual standards
- Thread starter bkirch
- Start date
Part of competency reviews, isn't it? If you give someone an instruction, they should be able to read and understand it, no? Is there any evidence that they don't know what they are doing? What's your issue?
Luckily, a lot of mfg is numerical.
I agree with @Golfman25. Don't over think this. It is very common to have diverse workplaces. What is available to help people understand how to do their work if your language is not their primary language? How do you know what they need?
Put another way: if work instructions were written in Spanish, Vietnamese etc, I would not understand them - I would need print English (not Braille). But if they had pictures sufficient to enable me to correctly perform the work, I can understand them because my vision is good.
I hope this helps.
Ashland78
Quite Involved in Discussions
I see bkirch asked the question now. I meant @Golfman25
Johnnymo62
Haste Makes Waste
My current company makes people sign a document saying they understand English. That way the Oprators are responsible.
It's been an utter failure. These Operators just tell us yes and nod when their bosses are around. Even alot of the bilingual speakers can't read English well.
I translate working documents to be bilingual every time I update them.
I do also make the documents as visual as possible.
It's been an utter failure. These Operators just tell us yes and nod when their bosses are around. Even alot of the bilingual speakers can't read English well.
I translate working documents to be bilingual every time I update them.
I do also make the documents as visual as possible.
Besides language, I think we will find a lot of people simply cannot read in their own language. They absolutely will not admit to that for fear of being let go. They will come up with all kinds of responses for not getting something from the written word (forgot my glasses, etc). The visuals in documents can really help.
Whomever devised such policy is a contender and nominee for the Forrest Gump award. If you want to ensure English language literacy, that has to be tested and verified during the screening and hiring process, not a meaningless signed document.
Good day @bkirch ;
In addition to the wise counsel you've already been provided...
I have a client, wherein their production team began to expand to include numerous English 2nd language associates. We utilized a commercially available software and migrated all of their operator instructions into that software. The software has 30+ available languages. That way when an operator logs into his/her station, the display is in their native language (also prints nicely, can be distributed as 'hard copy').
This way they do not need to try and manage (impossible) consistency between 'same' document in multiple languages and they are also not constrained to only 2 o3 three languages.
Hope this helps.
Be well.
In addition to the wise counsel you've already been provided...
I have a client, wherein their production team began to expand to include numerous English 2nd language associates. We utilized a commercially available software and migrated all of their operator instructions into that software. The software has 30+ available languages. That way when an operator logs into his/her station, the display is in their native language (also prints nicely, can be distributed as 'hard copy').
This way they do not need to try and manage (impossible) consistency between 'same' document in multiple languages and they are also not constrained to only 2 o3 three languages.
Hope this helps.
Be well.
Similar threads
