Is not training to ISO 9001 procedures a finding?

SGquality

Quite Involved in Discussions
In a supplier audit, the supplier has all the 6 mandatory procedures per ISO 9001:2008 but none of their supervisory staff is trained to those procedures and the reason was that they are hired based on their competency.

Would this be a finding ?
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Re: Is not training to ISO 9001 procedures a finding ?

It is definitely a finding, but probably not a nonconformity.
 

mihzago

Trusted Information Resource
A few questions that may help you determine if that's a non-conformity.

Are the procedures for the jobs they perform?
How do they know how to perform the tasks they're responsible for?

Is there any evidence these individuals did not follow the process?

When were they hired and/or when was their competency evaluated? How much have the company processes changed since that time?
 
J

JoShmo

In a supplier audit, the supplier has all the 6 mandatory procedures per ISO 9001:2008 but none of their supervisory staff is trained to those procedures and the reason was that they are hired based on their competency.

Would this be a finding ?

Depends. If you ask them what they do for corrective action, or to control non-conformance or get a document changed etc and they can tell you what's described in the procedure, then why do they need "training"? Superviros can read I imagine. WHy is it everyone thinks "training" is the answer to awareness of what to do?
 
F

Fishmanszmit

In my opinion, as far as 2008 requirements go.... The 6 required documents should be known by all associates and all associates are impacted by the 6 procedures, therefore all associates should be aware of and competent/ trained (training records) with said procedures and if they are not, I would call it a finding.

If supervisors are not aware of and trained to control of documents and records, how on earth can they implement or conform to those requirements? Yeah... it is a finding alright.
I would put it as a finding against: [FONT=&quot]
4.2 Documentation requirements[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4.2.1 General[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The quality management system documentation shall include[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) documented procedures and records required by this International Standard,
And/or against:
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]6.2.2 Competence, training and awareness[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The organization shall[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) where applicable, provide training or take other actions to achieve the necessary competence,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e) maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience (see 4.2.4).[/FONT]

Everyone interprets ISO requirements differently so it can be argued for or against.... just depends what you as the auditor find to be nonconforming to ISO requirements. I hope this helps.
 
P

PaulJSmith

Is there a requirement in their organization that Supervisors be trained on these procedures? If not, then you are looking for something that doesn't exist.
 
Now that we have some answers to the original post:
...all the 6 mandatory procedures per ISO 9001:2008...
Ok, they have the 6 mandatory ones. Fine, but what about the procedures deemed necessary by the organisation (4.2.1d)?

I know that this is a bit off topic regarding the posted question, but I sometimes get a wee bit frustrated by the fact that those infernal six sometimes seem to be the only thing anyone is looking for (Note: I am not saying that this is the case here, I am just curious).
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Depends. If you ask them what they do for corrective action, or to control non-conformance or get a document changed etc and they can tell you what's described in the procedure, then why do they need "training"? Superviros can read I imagine. WHy is it everyone thinks "training" is the answer to awareness of what to do?

Because it is the simpleton, check the box approach. If I ask for "training records" and see that so and so has been trained in procedure xyz, then it's "all good." I don't have to actually confirm the guy knows what he is doing. To me it is bass ackwards. Your look at a person, discuss what he is doing. If there are holes and problems, then you go further and look at training and competency. But that takes some real work.

In many cases, my team of affected people will revise a procedure or instruction. They get their hands dirty and know the changes. Is there any value in then "training" them on it? I don't think so. But that's me.
 
J

JoShmo

In my opinion, as far as 2008 requirements go.... The 6 required documents should be known by all associates and all associates are impacted by the 6 procedures, therefore all associates should be aware of and competent/ trained (training records) with said procedures and if they are not, I would call it a finding.

ALL associates? I'd find it very tough to justify to management why ALL people - some who are merely on lookers to stuff like internal audits, records control etc - NEED training in those procedures.. Wht are you going to train associates on as far as internal audits? To ALL be auditors? Really? They are all going to audit and be competent (because that's what training is for to develop competencies). Maybe you're confusing "training" with :"awareness"?
 

LUV-d-4UM

Quite Involved in Discussions
These procedures are not even required in ISO9001:2015. You can develop competency through doing the "stuff" as defined in the plan. But if you have SOP's for the job that you do, then you may need some OJT and evidence of training.
 
Top Bottom