Is a Training Matrix Enough to cover ISO requirements?

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Re: Is a Training Matrix enough?

I agree of course, but the matrix is just a record. How they would show competence is part of the system, a procedure. It does need to be addressed somehow.


The matrix is a commonly accepted record to show what competencies have been determined. I recommend it often. But, as the other posts have indicated, the matrix by itself would not likely answer all the requirements.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Not too, too long ago I again asked an auditee "How do you define competence?" and to say the look I got was the typical Deer-in-the-headlights would be an understatement (I actually ask this question all the time and for the most part the look never changes from audit to audit...part of the fun of being an auditor I guess...inducing strokes)

(Them) :mg: "You mean we have to define it?"

(Me) :yes:"Duh, yeah. How can you know if its been achieved if you don't know what it is."

(Them) "We give a test after training. If they pass, they are competent."

(Me) "Your testing short term memory, not competence. May I see one of your tests and take it, and what is a passing score?"

(Them) "70%"

The test was multiple choice/true-false on a task using machinery that I have no hands on experience with and wouldn't even know how to start, that when completed the person is put to work doing the job because they proved they were competent upon passing the test.....I scored 90%.

(Me) "OK, so now I am competent, can I go out and operate the machine?"

Would ya'll like to know where this one went and what the result was, or do I even have to waste the time?


Thanks...I have the same conversation pretty regularly - it's part of the fun of auditing. Though I haven't taken the test. I'll have to try that! :D
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Can I have the training matrix posted as the personnel is just "trained" not certified? I mean operators in each position have the basics on what to do but I don't think all of them are experts, and then start working with supervisors to complete the check lists for each operator...
:confused:

Maybe the better approach would to rank the matrix with the lower numbers showing the individual is still in training, and higher scores show he is competent or even expert.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
But in response to the original question, a matrix indicating training requirements would not be sufficient in my opinion. So it shows what they need to know...how do I know that they have been trained? Some organizations - especially for due diligence purposes - require actual signatures from employees.


I have seen a lot of matrices which show the needed skills, and scores to indicate level of competence. However, the actual evidence to back it up, and sign-offs, etc. is usually in the employee training files.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Tests...how I dislike that word. Makes my palms sweat and I'm not the only one who becomes nervous at that word.

If we're discussing the evaluation of competency of floor-based personnel, there are several means my organization has implemented with success (yes, I know...each company is different). One must also consider if the organization is unionized as this may impact the options available to you.
  • Supervisor-based audits to the process - checklist with critical steps (for quality, safety and environment).
  • # of nonconformances / crew or shift (low number indicative of compentency)
  • General production Key Performance Indicators - if goals are being met, sounds like a competent group.


I like the first two; I would be careful with the third one. It is common to find one or two individuals with marginal competencies in even competent groups. I might even say it is likely. Few companies measure processes so well as to be able to identify individual weaknesses within a group.

Further, we must recognize that even "A" class players, have some skills which fall into "B" or "C" levels. Generic methods cannot ferret out those weaknesses.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Re: Is a Training Matrix enough?

Can you test whether they know and understand these things? This could be the way to show competence.


Some things need to be tested. But I agree with R C Beyette, I don't generally like "tests." Some people inherently do well, some don't. For example, over the years, I have passed all my auditor qualification exams, but other, equally good auditors have not. The fault is not in their auditor skills, but in their "test-taking" skills.

Further, I agree with Randy that tests generally measure short term recollection.

Tests are necessary in some cases, but, we should look for better, less biased methods. I think demonstrated skills, performing the job short term and over time, is far more telling than written tests. Also, properly designed metrics can help track it sometimes.
 

Anerol C

Trusted Information Resource
One must also consider if the organization is unionized as this may impact the options available to you.
  • # of nonconformances / crew or shift (low number indicative of compentency)

Hi;

Then based on above,
I can request (or being requested) during an audit to review # of nonconformances and if the trend is not showing a "good" trend,
Could a corrective action be requested?

Last Friday me and QM were reviewing some charts based on QC visual inspection reports, several defects that depends directly from welders are being found.
:(
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Hi;

Then based on above,
I can request (or being requested) during an audit to review # of nonconformances and if the trend is not showing a "good" trend,
Could a corrective action be requested?

Last Friday me and QM were reviewing some charts based on QC visual inspection reports, several defects that depends directly from welders are being found.
:(

No, that is too simple. It would be an audit trail. What is management doing about the negative performance? Are they aware and taking action? Is the response appropriate? It might only be an OFI. However, there may be a nonconformity if these questions are not answered effectively.
 
R

Russ

A matrix showing employee, tasks, & skill level is where we started. We designed a database around that then added recording of training needs and training done. Got it all wrapped up in an Access database with reports showing who is skilled at what, how many skills have been updated (pick your time period), etc. What training has been done.This allows all Supervisors to see who is skilled on a machine even if they are outside of their department. It allows quick access to all the training records and should also come in handy around audit time. :agree1:
 

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
Hi;

Then based on above,
I can request (or being requested) during an audit to review # of nonconformances and if the trend is not showing a "good" trend,
Could a corrective action be requested?

Last Friday me and QM were reviewing some charts based on QC visual inspection reports, several defects that depends directly from welders are being found.
:(

When auditing, I often look at outputs from processes - good and bad. Working back up the audit trail can often tell the auditor a lot about the process under review. As hjilling rightly says, we want to know why NC's have happened and what is being done about the situation. Who knows, it could be down to a lack of competence:)
 
Top Bottom