Is not training to ISO 9001 procedures a finding?

F

Fishmanszmit

Funny that is my reply to you... AWARENESS of the 6 required procedures. If supervisors aren't aware of the procedures and how they work.... well... what good are they? lol.
 

LUV-d-4UM

Quite Involved in Discussions
They at least aware of a Plan and execution of the plan. Supervisors have to be leaders and motivators not delegators or "Pawners". If they don't have that then what good is their business management system?
 
J

JoShmo

Funny that is my reply to you... AWARENESS of the 6 required procedures. If supervisors aren't aware of the procedures and how they work.... well... what good are they? lol.

The answer is in the new ISO 9001 requirements! It's all to do with the first section.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
The standard does not require awareness of the 6 required procedures. Awareness requirements are cited in 5.5.2 (customer requirements), 6.6.2 (the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives) and 7.2.2 (made aware of changes in requirements related to the product).

Personnel are expected to be competent in the tasks and duties they are responsible for. If that includes a procedure, okay. As Internal Auditor and Document Control Administrator I needed awareness of the related procedures. We could argue that training was required too. I am less concerned with what it's called, than that awareness/competence is established as needed. An example: if supervisors are responsible for records retention as described by the Records Retention procedure, then we can expect their awareness of that procedure.

I hope this helps!
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
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 ?

Well you've found it so it's a finding! :D

But seriously, the fact that supervisors haven't been trained in the (infamous) 'mandatory 6' means nothing on its own but can set up the consequent audit trail.

Taking just one example:

If the auditee has not been trained in the procedure for managing non-conforming product then my first question would be: 'What do you do if you have a Widget X that is damaged when you are making it or that fails test?' If they can't answer the question then you are probably leaning towards an NC. If they can answer it then they have somehow gained the necessary competence (and you might ask how they did it without being trained).

The point is that the lack of formal training - while it may be the cause of an NC that you find by following an audit trail - is not, of itself, an NC.

Same applies to any other procedure you may choose to mention - but a different audit trail obviously applies! :cool:

Hope this helps.
 
T

Tyler C

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.
I understand the intent of your comment, but I respectfully disagree.

Whether or not the organization explicitly requires their supervisors to be trained to the six required procedures, I believe it is a standard requirement for them to be trained. The extent of that training can vary, whether it is formal training, reading the procedures, etc.

Per section 5.5.3 of the standard "Internal Communication" "...communication takes place regarding the effectiveness of the quality management system."

I don't think their QMS would be very effective if supervisors were not aware of the controlled documents, the importance of record control, how to handle nonconforming product, etc.

If the supervisors were not trained, then I would have to say the internal communication has not been established.

Also, per section 6.2.1 "Human Resources; General" "Personnel performing work affecting conformity to product requirements shall be competent on the basis of appropriate education, training, skills and experience."
 
J

JoShmo

I understand the intent of your comment, but I respectfully disagree.

Whether or not the organization explicitly requires their supervisors to be trained to the six required procedures, I believe it is a standard requirement for them to be trained. The extent of that training can vary, whether it is formal training, reading the procedures, etc.

Per section 5.5.3 of the standard "Internal Communication" "...communication takes place regarding the effectiveness of the quality management system."

I don't think their QMS would be very effective if supervisors were not aware of the controlled documents, the importance of record control, how to handle nonconforming product, etc.

If the supervisors were not trained, then I would have to say the internal communication has not been established.

Also, per section 6.2.1 "Human Resources; General" "Personnel performing work affecting conformity to product requirements shall be competent on the basis of appropriate education, training, skills and experience."

You are mixing "competency", "awareness" and "training" to mean all the same thing. They aren't. Reading something doesn't make you any of these things. It can help. Training doesn't make you competent or aware. People complain about their register auditor and they went to class and yet they still make crazy comments about stuff. Procedures are foten written in a way to put people to sleep - why would you have them plow through that? "Purpose", "Scope" "definitions", "ISO this and that" and all that ****...
 
Top Bottom