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

[Dr. IJ Arora]

Competence is a requirement of the standard. If OJT has the employee competent to the satisfaction of the management, why would you want to give them a NC? Unless in actual work the employee has been the cause of a non conforming product or service, I think you should just let competence be the management decision.

 

[Dr. IJ Arora]

OTJ and grandfathering are concepts that recognize companies were operating before a formal business management system was established. Now if that employee was hired after the management system was formalized, i would be questioning the lack of records. However, records only speak to training, not to competence.

For that have been grandfathered in to a position/function, using the results/outcomes of the processes can be an easy and already-in-place to help demonstrate competence. If I'm trained on Process X and there are no defects (or my defect rate is meeting the acceptable target), then it sounds like I'm pretty competent at my job. If, however, I do Process X and my defect rate or customer complaints attributed to my process are high, my competency may be called into question.

Records of competence are a requirement. Not of training. Training may be a requisite for competence but that is another matter.

 

[ISO_Man]

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.

We're putting something like that in place but the issue is that it involves re-assessing people who were trained 20 years ago. If we have to then we have to, I was just hoping to avoid it.

 

[Randy]

We're putting something like that in place but the issue is that it involves re-assessing people who were trained 20 years ago. If we have to then we have to, I was just hoping to avoid it.

Have they displayed an inability to achieve desired results? Can they presently perform required tasks to standard? Do they do what they';re supposed to do, how they are supposed to do it and when it is supposed to be done? If so, how are you going to justify the expense of reassessing people that are accomplishing what's required of them? Has there been a cost-benefit analysis with the results passed it on the the people that write the checks, or is this just going ahead so someone can get a warm fuzzy after the fact?

 

[tony s]

For someone without formal training and no specific records of on the job training how does one prove competence?

How would I know if the guitarist is competent? Listen while his playing the guitar.
How would I know if the cook is competent? Taste the food he cooked.
How would I know if the barber is competent? Have a haircut from him.
Competence is "ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results". So how does one prove competence? Let the person show his/her ability in achieving intended results.
Records of training are, in general, "evidence of competence acquisition" and not "evidence of competence".

 

[Jim Wynne]

So far, from ISO_Man:

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?

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.

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.

We're putting something like that in place but the issue is that it involves re-assessing people who were trained 20 years ago. If we have to then we have to, I was just hoping to avoid it.

Sometimes an internal audit will reveal system weaknesses that aren't directly related to the scope of a given audit. In that regard, I have two questions:

1. What are your company's requirements for training and verification of competence, and related records?
2. What was the scope of the audit?

 

[tony s]

Although not intended as guidance for internal auditors, the IAF Auditing Practice Group Guidance on Auditing Competence recommended this:

When an auditor needs answer for this question:

Are competent people assigned to those workplace activities necessary to control the quality characteristics of its processes and products?​

Guidance:

Verify that some form of evaluation process is in place to ensure that the competencies are appropriate to the organization's activities, and that the persons selected as competent are demonstrating these competencies. Also, the process should ensure that any deficiencies are being acted upon and the effectiveness of persons is being measured. Verify that the activities that affect quality are performed by persons selected as competent. Evidence may be obtained throughout the audit with an emphasis on those processes, activities, task and products where human intervention may have the greatest impact. The auditor may review job descriptions, testing or inspection activities, monitoring activities, records of management reviews, definition of responsibilities and authorities, nonconformity records, audit reports, customer complaints, processes validation records etc.​

See this link.

 

[Marc]

This hasn't changed since at least the 1990's.

 

[Marc]

Records of competence are a requirement. Not of training. Training may be a requisite for competence but that is another matter.

Competence can be demonstrated by many means. There is no requirement for a specific type of record that I am aware of, but most companies do have competency matrices or similar so that it is clear who can perform what job(s).

Many times it is just a matter of reviewing nonconformance data. For example, if an employee has been performing a job and there are no nonconformances identified due to that employee, it is sufficient evidence that the employee is competent in that job, and in many places employees have multiple competencies.

As to "on the job" training - That is quite common. A supervisor may observe the person for a week or more and make a determination of whether the employee is competent in that job. I do agree a record of some type has to be kept of this determination (e.g.: competency matrices).

It's not for the worker to answer the question -- "how are your competent" or "what training do you have."

I disagree. Every employee should be able to state what training they have had.

 

[Randy]

Competence can be demonstrated by many means. There is no requirement for a specific type of record that I am aware of, but most companies do have competency matrices or similar so that it is clear who can perform what job(s).

Many times it is just a matter of reviewing nonconformance data. For example, if an employee has been performing a job and there are no nonconformances identified due to that employee, it is sufficient evidence that the employee is competent in that job, and in many places employees have multiple competencies.

As to "on the job" training - That is quite common. A supervisor may observe the person for a week or more and make a determination of whether the employee is competent in that job. I do agree a record of some type has to be kept of this determination (e.g.: competency matrices).


I disagree. Every employee should be able to state what training they have had.

Marc, 100% absolute agree