"On the job training" as a response to how someone was trained?

[RoxaneB]

Why would you ask an auditee this question rather than reviewing the records before the audit and then talking to the supervisor if there were a concern? I'm with Golfman25 on this one.

I find first talking with the people who do the job gives focus to the records to pull and allows for traceability throughout the process.

For example, if I pull a finished product that's sitting on a truck and about to be released for delivery, I'd grab all the tag info and then follow it all the way back to when the raw materials that went into that product were received. Or trace it back as much as possible - the people who worked on that product might not be working that day, but I can talk to their counterparts that are working, find out what they know and how they know it, look at their records, etc. I can also pull any QC data relevant to that final product originally grabbed...and make sure that processes are in place to show that it was okay and released for shipment accordingly. And so on.

Without knowing who you're going to be speaking with, there may be little alignment or context between the records and the people you're speaking (depends on the organization - if they operate 24 hours a day with rotating shifts, the records looked at might not be for those currently on shift).

 

[Tagin]

During an audit, when I asked an employee about their training history they replied "I received on the job training." For someone without formal training and no specific records of on the job training how does one prove competence? Performance reviews?

"how does one prove competence?" I would expect the criteria for this would have been determined by the audit team prior to performing the audit. As you mention, performance reviews could be used, maybe recent nonconformances occurring in that area of the process could be considered, etc. If no objective data suggests a lack of competence in that process, then I see no reason to question competence.

and when I write the NC and their manager comes back to me and says "what should I do" how do I counsel them? I'm part of the internal quality team so I can't just say "it's not my problem." They will expect advice from me on how to address the NC.

There should be a training record of OJT. As Golfman25 said, training is not competency. Nonetheless, the training records need to be created and maintained per the standard, and an N/C should be created for that.

OK - thanks - the "grandfather" clause was the topic of another post for me - I have people who have been doing the same job for 20+ years and there are no training records for them, the new training record program just has a form in their file that has "grandfathered in" written on the form. I'm not sure how I would address that if I was auditing them.

This is the "how does one prove competence?" question again. I would think it would already be a part of your ISO system as to how employees are regularly monitored for competence (again, as you mentioned earlier, performance reviews are often the monitoring tool). If so, and that monitoring is being used properly, there seems to be no reason to question the competence of grandfathered persons.

"...if I was auditing them" You are auditing a quality system, not people.

 

[John Predmore]

how does one prove competence?

One approach to to demonstrate competence in OTJ is to have a formal routine, for example:
1. The new operator observes the lead operator (or trainer) perform the sequence once or more times (# depends on complexity of operation),
2. The new operator performs the sequence under direct supervision of trainer a few times until both are confident,
3. The new operator performs the sequence unsupervised, but the trainer inspects his work before it is released for production,
4. The new operator is permitted to work alone. Or maybe there are additional probationary steps before full clearance.

The record of the new operator's advancement and any difficulties is kept in the supervisor or training department files.

Of course, you have the chicken-and-the-egg question of how to prove the trainer is competent. At some point, the head of the training pyramid or the person who wrote the work instruction has to be grandfathered or other methods to establish his/her competence.

 

[Randy]

Records don't show or prove competence, competence in this sense is an action thing not a documented one.

If a person can perform a task, as required, when required and achieve the desired/required results they are deemed competent

You want the pilot of an airplane your a passenger in to have paper proof or demonstrated proof of competence?

US OSHA has a simple example of the train, test, competence flow and that's in it's Powered Industrial Truck regulations for Safe Operation (29 CFR 1910.178 (I)(1) 1910.178 - Powered industrial trucks. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

 

[Jim Wynne]

Why would you ask an auditee this question rather than reviewing the records before the audit and then talking to the supervisor if there were a concern? I'm with Golfman25 on this one.

I find first talking with the people who do the job gives focus to the records to pull and allows for traceability throughout the process.

For example, if I pull a finished product that's sitting on a truck and about to be released for delivery, I'd grab all the tag info and then follow it all the way back to when the raw materials that went into that product were received. Or trace it back as much as possible - the people who worked on that product might not be working that day, but I can talk to their counterparts that are working, find out what they know and how they know it, look at their records, etc. I can also pull any QC data relevant to that final product originally grabbed...and make sure that processes are in place to show that it was okay and released for shipment accordingly. And so on. <snip>

The act of gathering records, documents and general requirements is part of the internal audit, not a prelude to it. As far as possible, I like to find the answers to questions without having to ask anyone. In the event of seeing an apparent discrepancy between practice and requirements, I like to speak with the person in control--the process owner, usually--to get confirmation or clarification. In my experience there's little to be gained by asking operators questions about things they have no control over, and their own training is one of those things.

 

[Golfman25]

Records don't show or prove competence, competence in this sense is an action thing not a documented one.

If a person can perform a task, as required, when required and achieve the desired/required results they are deemed competent

You want the pilot of an airplane your a passenger in to have paper proof or demonstrated proof of competence?

US OSHA has a simple example of the train, test, competence flow and that's in it's Powered Industrial Truck regulations for Safe Operation (29 CFR 1910.178 (I)(1) 1910.178 - Powered industrial trucks. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Yes and no. I think it depends on the record. NIMS for example, has credentialing records in which each required task is verified. It's "proof" that the guy was competent at the time. Much different than a training certificate you can order off the internet.

 

[Randy]

Yes and no. I think it depends on the record. NIMS for example, has credentialing records in which each required task is verified. It's "proof" that the guy was competent at the time. Much different than a training certificate you can order off the internet.

Maybe so, I've got an FAA issued A&P License which attests to a pretty high level of competency after the multiple written tests the oral tests and the hands on proficiency exams under the watchful eye of an Examiner that take a few days to complete...The license is for life, requires no continuing education or anything, and I've had it for over 30 years. My license allows me to work on any type of aircraft, absolutely any type...Does that mean I'm competent now?

 

[John Broomfield]

During an audit, when I asked an employee about their training history they replied "I received on the job training." For someone without formal training and no specific records of on the job training how does one prove competence? Performance reviews?

A competency matrix.

Your recruiting process should put employees who are new to the job under close supervision until they demonstrate their ability to do the job well. The competent supervisor would then update the matrix which shows the competencies required, who is competent and who still needs close supervision.

Effective training will reduce the amount of close supervision required and some competencies fade with time so consider the need for refresher training and periodic reassessments of competence.

Performance evaluations are too infrequent to be of much value.

 

[Golfman25]

Maybe so, I've got an FAA issued A&P License which attests to a pretty high level of competency after the multiple written tests the oral tests and the hands on proficiency exams under the watchful eye of an Examiner that take a few days to complete...The license is for life, requires no continuing education or anything, and I've had it for over 30 years. My license allows me to work on any type of aircraft, absolutely any type...Does that mean I'm competent now?

You did notice I said "at the time." And now you know why I don't like to fly.

 

[Randy]

You did notice I said "at the time." And now you know why I don't like to fly.

I don't and won't twist wrenches on aircraft