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

[Sidney Vianna]

Since this thread has been thoroughly taken off the original path, I will chime in.

I long ago came to understand that being registered to ISO 9001 doesn't by any means guarantee the company supplies good product.

In B₂B situations, the expectations of what an accredited ISO 9001 certification should deliver have been reasonably captured @ Expected outcomes for accredited certification to ISO management system standards such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 Everybody should be aware of that.

If ISO 9001 is such a great thing, why so few?

It is very simple, really. The original premise that ISO 9001 certification should deliver confidence to customers of certified organizations is not being fulfilled; thus the declining numbers of ISO 9001 certificates. I have mentioned numerous times here that the market pressure over certification led to the trivialization and commoditization of audits and certification, which are counterproductive to the goal of delivering confidence. Just look at threads such as Reasons for the Decline of ISO 9001 Registrations in North America and ISO 9001 News - Annual ISO Survey of Management System Certificate Numbers - September 2019. The cheapening of the certification service keeps feeding the downward spiral where the high caliber professionals get squeezed out; after all, when you sell a commodity, price is the first, second and third deciding factors in the mind of the buyers. It is always appropriate to remember the blunt assessment offered by Mr. Simon Feary, who in 2006 stated:

Free markets, an over-abundance of providers and the voluntary nature of certification have allowed short-term commercial interests to exploit opportunities offered by naive markets and complicit or disinterested governments. But put another way, simply and bluntly, accreditation has failed to do its job adequately and the certification product has leaked credibility.

The users of the certificates, are, for the most part, totally oblivious and ignorant of their recourse when and if a certified supplier fails to fulfill orders. That's why, since 2004, I have been suggesting that we should have a global database of certificates with the possibility of communication channels between the customers of certified suppliers and the CB's and their respective AB's. The system HAS TO facilitate feedback from users of certificates to the issuers of certificates and those who keep them accountable.

As an example of a much better controlled certification scheme, just look at the IAQG ICOP Scheme and the OASIS database. Growth of certificates has been steady since 2003 and the primary reason is that the Industry performs robust oversight of AB's and CB's and the feedback loop feature of OASIS provides for constant and timely accountability of all interested parties. While the ICOP scheme is far from being perfect, it provides a good example on how the accredited certification process can enhance confidence in the supply chain.

 

[Marc]

just look at the IAQG OASIS ICOP and the OASIS database. Growth of certificates has been steady since 2003 and the primary reason is that the Industry performs robust oversight of AB's and CB's and the feedback loop feature of OASIS provides for constant and timely accountability of all interested parties.

I agree and people like Jack Fletcher were involved in bringing the excellent IAQG system into existence. There are key differences: The aerospace industry is much smaller and aviation is a high risk field. Add to that, there is significant regulation of the aerospace industry as a whole which is not the case with most ISO 9001 industries.

 

[JoshuaFroud]

If the employee gets a paycheck they must be competent!

If it were only that simple!

 

[Dr. IJ Arora]

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, I do respectfully bring your attention to Clause 7.2 d requiring retention of "appropriate documented information as evidence of competence". If you have not been advising that, you may like to consider it. There is a purpose for requiring it. I will be happy to further explain should you wish me to.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Marc, I do respectfully bring your attention to Clause 7.2 d requiring retention of "appropriate documented information as evidence of competence". If you have not been advising that, you may like to consider it. There is a purpose for requiring it. I will be happy to further explain should you wish me to.

Two questions:

1. What makes documented information "appropriate" in this context?
2. Is training evidence of competence?

 

[blackholequasar]

We just recently had a minor finding in respect to this. Training does not equate competence. And sadly, saying someone hasn't been fired isn't proof either haha. Documented information is required, usually in the form of annual employee appraisals or reviews. Our facility had not performed reviews in some time, which caused us to lack in documented information for competence.

In some instances we could prove competency with J-STD or IPC training, but not every single employee is required to have that in place.

 

[Jim Wynne]

We just recently had a minor finding in respect to this. Training does not equate competence.

The standard doesn't ask for a direct equivalent. It asks for evidence. Training is evidence (but not proof) of competence.

 

[Marc]

Two questions:

1. What makes documented information "appropriate" in this context?
2. Is training evidence of competence?

The standard doesn't ask for a direct equivalent. It asks for evidence. Training is evidence (but not proof) of competence.

No one has said that training alone is evidence of competence. You have me very confused re: your posts. Quite the opposite.

You are auditing a quality system, not people.

Realistically real people are being asked questions for an auditor to be able to assess a quality system. This is often cite quote, but yeah - asking people questions are part of the process.

 

[Jen Kirley]

We have discussed training and competency many times. I remember liking one description, being "The consistent performance according to requirements." Jim, feel free to let me know if I misquoted you.

But that requires someone to notice. Recording the results of the noticing typically happens when passing a test (I passed a business statistics class in 2010 and remember sum of squares only, no doubt because we were required to write it out with pencil and paper) but of course passing a test is not an assurance of competency because that person still needs to perform. I do believe in auditors asking questions, but that may not be the end-all as some people freeze up when being interviewed by an auditor - feels like a confrontation. So they could be competent but the "evidence" might not so indicate.

Sometimes competency is about a physiological trait. I had a colleague whose competency was enhanced after finishing a class in which she learned to read and write everything backwards (she was dyslexic). Her speed and accuracy in reading and filling out forms improved. A client had an employee whose accuracy in assembling wiring harnesses improved when they staged the wires and fittings in specific ways - she had an onset of color blindness due to a medical condition. She did not change, her work station was error proofed.

Lack of organizational skills or communication skills could interfere with competency in a manager. How to measure and record evidence of that? We usually have job descriptions listing our required performance types. Many people have annual reviews, which I have always hated because of the "evidence" baing taken by one person who may or may not get that right. Some people do 360 degree reviews to assess a manager's competence in is or his soft skills. But that can turn into a popularity contest.

And so, competency is not simple but is a way to understand how well we are prepared to do what we are responsible to do, find opportunities to improve as needed, take action (even if that means reassignment) and get on with business. Do what works best. The approach might be very different among types and levels of employees and their job types. So be it.

 

[Randy]

Marc, I do respectfully bring your attention to Clause 7.2 d requiring retention of "appropriate documented information as evidence of competence". If you have not been advising that, you may like to consider it. There is a purpose for requiring it. I will be happy to further explain should you wish me to.

Documentation alone is not evidence of competence, it's evidence of documentation. “Appropriate” means suitable (for, to) and implies some degree of freedom" and therefore there is a decision process where an organization might deem that they don't want to document everything. Competence is "demonstrated ability" and the demonstration alone might be all an auditor gets.