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

[Golfman25]

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.

They can answer but it doesn't get you anywhere as pointed out by your above analysis.

 

[Marc]

They can answer but it doesn't get you anywhere as pointed out by your above analysis.

Can't say how auditors today go about it, but in the "old" days a very common question was "What training have you had?" My "I disagree" statement was a direct response to your statement "...It's not for the worker to answer the question -- "how are your competent" or "what training do you have."..." Workers (and all employees for that matter) should be able to say what training they have gone through. I did not say that training alone will prove competency. None the less, I would question any worker who could not tell an auditor what training they had gone through. I do know it happens that employees do "forget" some of the training courses they have taken, from time to time, which is why I emphasized it in companies I have worked with. My training employees in preparation for an audit always included expected questions an auditor might ask, one of which was the auditor asking what training they had gone through. It went along, to some degree' with another question auditors used to ask, and I assume still do: "How do you know how to do your job(s)?".

https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/attachments/wallet-card-what-iso-9001-means-to-you-jpg.12875/

Preparing employees to be audited was a big part of working with a company. Now, in regard to competence, I would agree that asking how competency is assessed is a more complex question which I would not expect every employee to be able to answer. That is a question that is more appropriate for supervisors and managers to answer. That is, in part, why "escorts" are important. One of their functions during an audit is to catch questions that employees are not the appropriate people to ask certain questions, one of which would be how employee competence is determined. The escort, for example, would be able to intercept such inappropriate questions with something like: "That is a <supervisor's> job, so let's ask this employee's <supervisor> how competency is assessed for this job". My opinion has always been that the role of an audit "escort" is to keep the auditor on track and asking questions of the appropriate people. In addition, this keeps people who are being auditing from freezing when they are asked a question by an auditor when it is something the employee does not necessarily know anything about.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I've never had an escort for an internal audit (unless I was training someone) and never felt the need for one. As far as the training question goes, it does no harm, but I still can't see the point unless it somehow relates to the scope of the audit. It's a question you should already know the answer to if you've done a good job of preparation.

 

[Marc]

I've never had an escort for an internal audit (unless I was training someone) and never felt the need for one. As far as the training question goes, it does no harm, but I still can't see the point unless it somehow relates to the scope of the audit. It's a question you should already know the answer to if you've done a good job of preparation.

I am referring to third party audits. I apologise if I got off track a bit.

 

[John Broomfield]

Employees should not need any such prep to show off their part of the system especially if the internal auditing is up to scratch.

And no auditor should give the impression that they are auditing the employee.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Employees should not need any such prep to show off their part of the system especially if the internal auditing is up to scratch.

What prep are you referring to?

And no auditor should give the impression that they are auditing the employee.

Employees are integral parts of processes and as such can/should be asked relevant questions.

 

[John Broomfield]

“Preparing employees to be audited”

 

[Marc]

Employees should not need any such prep to show off their part of the system especially if the internal auditing is up to scratch.

Going back 25 years internal (and external) audits were not common. In working with companies, especially in ISO 9001 implementations (and even QS9000 implementations), especially, internal audits were one of the major things most companies I worked with had never done. Now, over 20 years later, I'm sure they are more common even in companies that are not ISO 9001. None the less, in companies which had never done internal audits, not to mention 3rd party audits, prep was usually not only necessary, it was critical.

After the first audits were over it was a different story, but when employees had never been audited there was no "up to scratch".

Reminds me of college. I had learning difficulties from 1st grade so as I went through school I was pushed into "shop" types of courses. And when I graduated high school I worked for 5 years. My little sister convinced me I should go to college. I had one heck of a time because of the two aspects of my schooling and life. The college I ended up going to was pretty much a "rich kids school" so most of my companions had gone to college prep schools and had already gone through, for example, biology and chemistry courses. It took me about 3 years to being "up to scratch", so to speak, with others in my class.

I mention this because when I was in grade school and high school things were quite different. Learning difficulties were not recognized as they are today with such things as special classes and such, at least in my neck of the woods (Kentucky). Today things are much different in schools and businesses.

 

[John Broomfield]

I understand now that you were referring to a pre-ISO era.

I’m talking about systems intended to conform to ISO 9001. So, before inviting in a third party auditor, I’m sure you’d agree, the company would be wise to have completed a round or two of internal audits of its system and its system’s processes.

Auditors (incl a third party’s) ask employees for evidence of system and process effectiveness. This includes the processes for ensuring they are competent before they work unsupervised. Auditors also seek evidence of the processes being monitored for effectiveness (and corrected as necessary) between the audits.

Speaking personally, I’ve never cited an employee for failing to follow a procedure but on finding this I have determined why they were not following procedure and find myself taking to their supervisors. As you can tell I think it is unfair to “audit employees” whose performance is largely determined by the system within which they work.

When training auditors my company was careful to stress that we audit the system and its processes, not the employees.

 

[tony s]

Can't say how auditors today go about it, but in the "old" days a very common question was "What training have you had?"

Back then the requirements are look-alikes and were stated as:

• Appropriate records of training shall be maintained (ISO 9001:1994)
• maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience (ISO 9001:2000)
• maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience (ISO 9001:2008)

Now, in regard to competence, I would agree that asking how competency is assessed is a more complex question which I would not expect every employee to be able to answer.

I agree and this could be attributed to ISO 9001:2015's distinct intention:

"retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence"​