Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

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

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#41
Back then the requirements are look-alikes and were stated as:
The requirements are the same. I'm not sure what your point is. Auditors do to some degree audit differently today and ask somewhat different, or differently phrased, questions than they did 20+ years ago, though. In fact, to me these requirements go back to long before I started in quality in the 1980's - Very much pre-ISO 9001. I started in DoD work. All of the ISO 9001 "records of training" requirements were standard requirements in some companies many years before ISO 9001 (1987).

I agree and this could be attributed to ISO 9001:2015's distinct intention:
Those requirements go back years, too. The changes in the ISO 9001 standard have just shuffled a few words over the years, and added some hot button words/phrases a few times. Just like today's big "risk analysis" crap, as if companies were never doing risk analysis in the past.

"...retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence..." has in my lifetime always been a requirement, even when I was an EEG technician in 1969. HR had to have (and "maintain") records such as my high school transcript and my EEG technician certification and training records on file. That was about 50 years ago. My "competence" was largely based up the opinion of the doctor who oversaw my work on a daily basis. I learned to do EEGs by "on the job" training. To get my "technician" certification I had to have a referral from the doctor to be allowed to sit for the "technician" exam. I then took and passed the "technologist" certification test.

To put this in perspective, even back then there were legal liabilities. Quite often EEGs are, or were - things have changed - done to assess "brain death". Hospitals did not just want anyone doing those studies, especially, and had to have evidence that a qualified competent person was doing the EEG, so certification (via a test) was a requirement. The person had to understand both the equipment (back then Beckman Instruments and a company called "Grass" both made EEG machines, and each one was a bit different) and they had to understand the basics of brain electrical activity.
Grass Analogue EEG machine.jpg

A Grass analogue EEG machine from back in the day. If I remember correctly they sold for something like $10,000 to $20,000 or so.

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.
Yes, that was always done because even early on, among other things, a requirement for registration was for at least one complete round of internal audits, and they were not particularly happy if the audits had been done within 30 to 60 days before the registration audits. That is one reason I used to :vfunny: (and still do) about the "40 wonder" claim some people/companies made (and I assume some still do...). I didn't, and won't, say if *can not* be done, but as has been discussed here in the long ago past, just ask yourself - Are you really going to end up with a serious and demonstrably effective quality system in 40 days assuming no system was previously in place?

I can say that almost all of my clients had functioning, and typically reasonably effective, quality systems when I started working with them. The most common "gap" was most either did not do internal audits, at least as we think of them, and in an organized way, or they did them poorly.

Auditors (incl a third party’s) ask employees for evidence of system and process effectiveness.
These days asking an employee for "...evidence of system and process effectiveness...". Not too many years ago, you would have most likely gotten a "deer in the headlights" stare. Let's take 1995 - How many employees back then would have been able to answer?

As a sort of disclaimer at this point... When we use a general term such as "employee", there is a big range. I tend to think of auditing in terms of the girl or guy working on the floor, so to speak. They are the most important people to me and is why I always spent significant time working with them on the floor. Supervisors and above I have a certain expectation that they will be appropriately knowledgable, though I have often been wrong in assuming that. Floor personnel are typically the last to know a lot. They don't always sit in on, for example, design and development teams (admittedly in some cases a company is smart enough the include a floor person in their team, but more often, at least in the past, it more typically a supervisor.

When training auditors my company was careful to stress that we audit the system and its processes, not the employees.
You can not audit the system and its processes without asking asking employees questions. This is simply playing with semantics. True - Answers employees give provide information about bits and pieces of the system and its processes, as well as the effectiveness to some degree, and the intent is not to try to make judgements about individual employees (I think this is your "not the employees" part).

Back when I was working with large companies (over 20,000 employees), the first thing I did at the RFQ stage was submit a response in which I offered to visit the company facilities. I would do that at no charge. I could not quote a contract if I didn't know the company. I went over their procedures, talked with some employees, and within a week I would give the customer a quote (there were companies I would NOT work for), a completed gap analysis, and a general report on what I found. Also included was a project plan (I worked with Microsoft Project a lot back then). Bottom line is, I typically knew more about how the company operated as a whole (does interaction of processes ring a bell?) than anyone in the company.

That was typically a 2 week job - A week onsite and a week back at my office to put the entire proposal together. From there I hoped the company would hire me, which wasn't always the case, of course. The contracts I did win did make me some good money. And I swear, I loved working with the companies from boardroom to shop floor.

As an aside: I was never a person to say "I've done X implementations and every company passed first time" or crap like that. My marker was how many nonconformances were found. Many of the companies I worked with came through their registration audit with zero nonconformances. I was, and still am, proud of that.

/old man rant and campfire tales
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#42
Here we see anaccount of how quality audits have evolved over the past five decades:

Quality audits

From checking for conformity to focus on performance of the system and its processes.

Auditors now realize that the system largely determines employee performance.
 

tony s

Information Seeker
Trusted
#43
The requirements are the same. I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is when ISO 9001 back then says "maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience", auditors would look for records of "competence acquisition". This is defined by ISO 10018:2012 as "process to ensure that competence is attained by a person, a group of people, or an organization". However, if the standard says "retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence", I believe, auditors should look for records of the application of the "ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results".

I just want to share this statement from ISO 10018:2012 - Guidelines on people involvement and competence:
"Competence requirements are more than academic qualifications, training and experience. They define the results or outcomes to be achieved for a particular job, the performance criteria or standards to be achieved, the evidence required and the method of obtaining it".
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#44
My point is when ISO 9001 back then says "maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience", auditors would look for records of "competence acquisition". This is defined by ISO 10018:2012 as "process to ensure that competence is attained by a person, a group of people, or an organization". However, if the standard says "retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence", I believe, auditors should look for records of the application of the "ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results".

I just want to share this statement from ISO 10018:2012 - Guidelines on people involvement and competence:
"Competence requirements are more than academic qualifications, training and experience. They define the results or outcomes to be achieved for a particular job, the performance criteria or standards to be achieved, the evidence required and the method of obtaining it".
Yeah, but I've never seen a 3rd party auditor use or reference ISO 10018 and that goes the same for whoever was being audited. Honestly, what you've said has already been stated multiple times in multiple ways including the ISO's definition of Competence itself (which appears an extremely hard concept for some to understand)
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#45
When considering how the organization acquires competent people do not get stuck on training. Examine the recruiting and subcontracting processes too
 

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#46
I've never seen a 3rd party auditor use or reference ISO 10018 and that goes the same for whoever was being audited. Honestly, what you've said has already been stated multiple times in multiple ways including the ISO's definition of Competence itself (which appears an extremely hard concept for some to understand)
Yeah, to me it's like the "risk based thinking" thing they came out with in 2015. As if its a new concept, and is one of the reasons I think ISO 9001 has gone into total $$$ mode and companies are dropping it. The "interaction of processes" bit in the 2000 version didn't help, either - Another thing that goes back many years. :deadhorse:

Auditors now realize that the system largely determines employee performance.
Does the "system" determine the performance of the company's CEO? Did the "system" determine the performance of Henry Ford? When the word "employee" is being used generically it leaves much to think about in that doing so typically it is referring to lower level employees, not ALL employees at all levels.

This has always been true for lower level employees whether auditors realized it of not. Which is why I mentioned aspects such as internal and external nonconformances attributed to a floor employee, not to mention supervisors, as part of competence evaluation. Performance of, for example, the CEO or COO are a bit harder to measure. Supervisors aren't hard to evaluate in that they typically have defined performance goals. But even here - Many companies are not happy about revealing a lot of data so many times you can get an explanation of how they determine competence but they won't give the actual numbers so you just have to take their word for it. In today's world, if my company was registered to ISO 9001, I'd drop it and for customers requiring it I'd just say: "Do you want good product, or do you want a piece of worthless paper?" - "We make good products without the need of an ISO 9001 certificate, so you'll have to buy elsewhere."

You linked to Hoyle, who is OK and has made mega-$$$ off this stuff, but its all over cooked now. I will add that the page you linked to is simplistic, not to mention it is the poorest, most condensed "history of auditing" I have ever read. I'm not "anti-Hoyle", I'm just tired of seeing the same stuff everybody and their uncle and aunt have been, and are still, writing about audits.

"Competence requirements are more than academic qualifications, training and experience. They define the results or outcomes to be achieved for a particular job, the performance criteria or standards to be achieved, the evidence required and the method of obtaining it".
Which has always been the case. This is not new. Than again, as an example, how do you determine the competence of the ATT CEO and his upper level staff considering their buyout of satellite company Direct TV? And Larry "Wrong Way" Kudlow as the current Director of the National Economic Council? See: https://dealbreaker.com/2018/12/lar...s-the-only-safe-market-indicator-we-have-left - "Larry Kudlow Being Totally Wrong All The Time Is The Only Safe Market Indicator We Have Left" (not to mention Jim Cramer...)

NOTE: The last part of this thread may be moved into a "general" discussion thread this weekend because it has strayed far from the original posters question quite basic question.
 

tony s

Information Seeker
Trusted
#47
Which has always been the case. This is not new.
I agree. This is not new. But, I believe, quoting from standards (e.g. ISO 10018:2012 - Guidelines on people involvement and competence) which are seldomly referenced can enrich this forum with information that are relevant to the topic where the original post asked this question:
"For someone without formal training and no specific records of on the job training how does one prove competence?"
 
Last edited:

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#48
You’re right. Top managers are employees too

Interviewing or chatting with employees to obtain evidence of system performance though is not “auditing employees”.

But being as the top managers are responsible for that system we do in fact audit them.

I suppose some auditors minimize their contact with top management in which case they may be seen reporting employees for not conforming to procedures when the culture perpetuated or exemplified by top management was responsible.

Likewise for nearly competent employees working without competent supervision.
 

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#49
I agree. This is not new. But, I believe, quoting from standards (e.g. ISO 10018:2012 - Guidelines on people involvement and competence) which are seldom referenced can enrich this forum with information that are relevant to the topic where the original post asked this question:
"For someone without formal training and no specific records of on the job training how does one prove competence?"
Works for me. Have at it.

You’re right. Top managers are employees too

Interviewing or chatting with employees to obtain evidence of system performance though is not “auditing employees”.

But being as the top managers are responsible for that system we do in fact audit them.

I suppose some auditors minimize their contact with top management in which case they may be seen reporting employees for not conforming to procedures when the culture perpetuated or exemplified by top management was responsible.

Likewise for nearly competent employees working without competent supervision.
I know that. Don't forget I was doing implementations and audits over 25 years ago. I even remember a CEO who told me (circa 1994) no one was going to audit him, and I explained to him that he didn't have a choice in the matter if he wanted his company (a rather large company) to be registered.

My "old man's rant" is really related to watching as an old man tends to do, especially when ISO 9001 comes into play, as people act as if all of this stuff is new such as determination of competency. I also know that most of this is aimed at medium sized to large manufacturers of widgets.

As with many people here, most of my experience was in manufacturing - Some very large companies, some very small companies of only 10 to 12 people. Once I for all intents and purposes retired, I also began to open my eyes to some realities as I watch some people and some registrar and auditing companies cry about dropping ISO 9001 registrations. So what? I long ago came to understand that being registered to ISO 9001 doesn't by any means guarantee the company supplies good product.

I have also pointed out that it is estimated that there are over 350,000,000 companies in the world, and that is probably a low estimate. Consider:
There are roughly 30 million companies in the US in 2014. Though statistics in most countries are hard to come by and unreliable when found, it would be foolish to imagine that these 30 million constitute an outsize percentage of all the world's businesses, when the US population of 318 million (2014) constitutes less than 5% of the world's 7.2 billion people. For example, in India alone, there are about 10 million mom-and-pop shops in villages and towns. In fact, rare is the village anywhere in the world that doesn't have at least one business. It seems to me that it's likely the total number of businesses on the planet exceeds 300 million -- and probably many more
Do some searches and while the number varies, there are one heck of a lot of companies.

Now let's take companies registered to ISO 9001: After some searches I think our best source for this number would be from @Sidney Vianna - I'm pretty sure he has done the math. Also see: Interesting Topic - IAF CertSearch Database - Repository of (properly) Accredited Management System Certs

I do remember doing the math on some numbers a few years back and it came to something like 0.001% of all the companies in the world are registered to ISO 9001. If ISO 9001 is such a great thing, why so few?

Well, don't mind me. Like I say - I'm an old man shouting at the wind. If people want to make a big deal out of how companies, for example, determine an employee's competence, have at it. Whether a company is or isn't registered to ISO 9001 doesn't affect my life in any way since I'm no longer involved in profiting from implementations or auditing to ISO 9001.
 
Last edited:

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#50
We can only count the systems that are certified. We cannot count the systems that quietly conform in countries that respect their national standards.

Such respect may come from socially responsible leaders of organizations, from the advice of corporate lawyers or a combination.

We may agree, however, that certification is mostly a marketing decision.

After all, quality pros don’t need a registrar to hold their colleagues to account.
 
Top Bottom