No Formal Documented Performance Evaluation for Contractual Personnel

[alitaptap]

Re: No performance evaluation for contractual personnel

Do you hire them directly, or through a labour hire supplier? You may well be able to treat them as suppliers rather than employees.

They are organic. We hire them directly.

 

[Big Jim]

First of all, thank you for the responses. Very much appreciated.



I run out of ideas (options) to check the effectiveness of training and achieve the necessary competence. I can say the employee is competent or the training is effective if they can accomplish the required tasks the way it should be. However, everything else in audit is based on objective evidence. The organization gets nonconformance or conformance report based on objective evidence. The only thing on my mind is the “documented” performance evaluation. Moreover, we want to balance things – cost vs performance. Is it practically wise to conduct performance evaluation per employee even if their numbers is hundreds and will stay for 6 months only? By the way, we don’t regularize employees.

Can you explain what you mean by "we don't regularize employees".

As for other ways to evaluate the effectiveness of training or other actions to achieve the necessary competence, here is a partial list:

Supervisor confirms that the training stuck by observing employee and the results of his work a few weeks after the training or other action then records it on the training record.

Final inspection results.

Tracking indicators from the process that the employee is working in.

Internal audit, especially of the process or product that the employee is involved in.

Interviewing peers of the person that received the training.

 

[Ajit Basrur]

Can you explain what you mean by "we don't regularize employees".......

I think he meant that these employees are not made permanent and are purely on contractual terms and conditions.

This is a typical Asian lingo

 

[alitaptap]

I think he meant that these employees are not made permanent and are purely on contractual terms and conditions.

This is a typical Asian lingo

Thank you, Ajit. Yes, you are correct. I am referring to temporary employment. They have no chance to become permanent.
I’d like to ask one more question. Do we have to measure the effectiveness of all necessary trainings on a per-employee basis? Say we have 10 Training Programs (behavioral, technical, etc.). Everything covered in the said training programs must be included in the evaluation of effectiveness?


am i asking too much?

 

[Big Jim]

Thank you, Ajit. Yes, you are correct. I am referring to temporary employment. They have no chance to become permanent.
I’d like to ask one more question. Do we have to measure the effectiveness of all necessary trainings on a per-employee basis? Say we have 10 Training Programs (behavioral, technical, etc.). Everything covered in the said training programs must be included in the evaluation of effectiveness?


am i asking too much?

In my opinion, temporary and contract employees are not exempt from element 6.2. The records for such employees may not need to be as elaborate as long as they are effective.

 

[Stijloor]

From ISO 9001

6.2.1 General
Personnel performing work affecting conformity to product requirements shall be competent on the basis of appropriate education, training, skills and experience.

ISO 9001 does not differentiate between full-time and temporary personnel.

ISO/TS 16949 adds:

6.2.2.3 Training on the job
The organization shall provide on-the-job training for personnel in any new or modified job affecting product quality, including contract or agency personnel. Personnel whose work can affect quality shall be informed about the consequences to the customer of nonconformity to quality requirements.

ISO/TS emphasizes the fact that temps are not excluded.

Stijloor.

 

[JaneB]

ISO 9001 does not differentiate between full-time and temporary personnel.

And there's no reason why it should. The requirement is for people to be competent, if they're doing work that affects product/service quality. As a customer, I'd be under-impressed if told 'sorry about the product/service problem, but it was done by a temp/contractor'. Not good enough.

The question for the organisation, however, is: how can I meet this requirement effectively? Doing the kind of performance assessments that fulltime/permanent employees undergo is unlikely to be cost-effective for the organisation.

As to how and what... can you provide more details on what field you're in, and what kinds of work the contractors are doing?

PS I don't understand what you mean by them being 'organic' at all. That means 'living' as in 'organic material' (I'd hope your contractors are alive! ) or 'produced without the use of chemicals and with fertilisers strictly of vegetable/animal origin' as in organic foods or an organic restaurant.

 

[alitaptap]

PS I don't understand what you mean by them being 'organic' at all. That means 'living' as in 'organic material' (I'd hope your contractors are alive! ) or 'produced without the use of chemicals and with fertilisers strictly of vegetable/animal origin' as in organic foods or an organic restaurant.

I thought it was the correct term. I have heard that many times from several department heads of our organization. Sorry, I will no longer use that.

As to how and what... can you provide more details on what field you're in, and what kinds of work the contractors are doing?

We belong to transport sector.

The question for the organisation, however, is: how can I meet this requirement effectively? Doing the kind of performance assessments that fulltime/permanent employees undergo is unlikely to be cost-effective for the organisation.

It is wonderful to read the responses and tips from Cove members. I wonder how much easier things would have been had I had a how-to-guide like this to help me along. Thank you so much. Other replies are welcome.

 

[Jim Wynne]

OT: "Organic"

PS I don't understand what you mean by them being 'organic' at all. That means 'living' as in 'organic material' (I'd hope your contractors are alive! ) or 'produced without the use of chemicals and with fertilisers strictly of vegetable/animal origin' as in organic foods or an organic restaurant.

While the OP's use of the word "organic" was probably a poor choice, the word has meanings that go beyond those you cite. It may be used to describe a thing or phenomenon that in some way resembles a living organism, or it may be use to describe a fundamental or elemental part of something larger.

 

[JaneB]

Re: OT: "Organic"

While the OP's use of the word "organic" was probably a poor choice, the word has meanings that go beyond those you cite. It may be used to describe a thing or phenomenon that in some way resembles a living organism, or it may be use to describe a fundamental or elemental part of something larger.

I know there are other meanings, but I didn't want to list them all. None of them seemed to make sense in this context.