Over Complicated Work Instructions

[bobdoering]

There's nearly always a period of surveillance of new employees with the intention of verifying competency. We can assume that an electronics technician knows how to solder, among other basic skills (which is a reasonable basis for hiring), so we should be able to assume that such a person doesn't need to read a work instruction or be trained in those areas.

That may or may not be a valid assumption (although a common assumption) - however, if you believe it is (and you have iron clad hiring processes) the process I provided to track and resolve any evidence to the contrary (in the cases where the assumptions end up failing) for that issue will surely cover that.

 

[bobdoering]

There's nearly always a period of surveillance of new employees with the intention of verifying competency.

That is where a process likes to pass on "urban legend" undocumented process requirements - such as "this company's definition of the visual requirement for a cold solder joint" (or even better: "this shift's definition of the visual requirement for a cold solder joint.") Sometimes it works for a while.

 

[Rand T]

Sounds like they were preparing for the need for temps - which would fall under that definition.

They moved permanent employees around from dept. to dept quite often, and never had the time to train to the instructions, so there was a lot of "Sally, train Juan on what to do" which usually meant that a lot of what was in the instructions was omitted.

 

[bobdoering]

They moved permanent employees around from dept. to dept quite often, and never had the time to train to the instructions, so there was a lot of "Sally, train Juan on what to do" which usually meant that a lot of what was in the instructions was omitted.

Yes, that is a classic methodology for passing on urban legend and tribal knowledge information. It has issues with consistency and tracking of the origin of the methods ("we have always done it that way...but we have no idea why"), but is acceptable for many TCE quality level processes.

 

[arios]

This is a note from the ISO 9001 std, in section 4.2.1.:

"NOTE The extent of the quality management system documentation can differ from one organization to another due to
a) the size of organization and type of activities,
b) the complexity of processes and their interactions, and
c) the competence of personnel."

I think it says it all. Your documentation can be tailored to your needs. For instance, if your personnel is competent to do a certain task, then you don't have to write in detail how to they are supposed to "connect the dots"

 

[bobdoering]

This is a note from the ISO 9001 std, in section 4.2.1.:

"NOTE The extent of the quality management system documentation can differ from one organization to another due to
a) the size of organization and type of activities,
b) the complexity of processes and their interactions, and
c) the competence of personnel."

I think it says it all. Your documentation can be tailored to your needs. For instance, if your personnel is competent to do a certain task, then you don't have to write in detail how to they are supposed to "connect the dots"

Absolutely. If you never have an internal or external corrective action that goes back to the instructions not be clear or thorough enough, then you are on the right track. But, the point is YOU need to understand the risks based on the hiring practices (which may change based on the available pool), or the ever raising bar of customer expectations, that may not be adequately communicated through past "competence" or via urban legend.

The caveat is whether you are satisfied with the clarity or comprehensiveness of your documentation and are willing to let your customer tell you when you are not. The degree of detail is not a function of "not enough time" - that is not on the ISO list above.

 

[adickerson]

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions that will build up using this logic - they key one being: "Were they trained properly at previous jobs?" One way to gage this is if there is a need for a corrective action on a process that falls under the "believed to be previously trained" portion area, good time to scrap the notion and develop training.

Hate to have the customer be the "sorter" for this problem, but if your truly fear redundant training (especially more than you fear customer rejections), it is an option. It is the option the minimalists will revel in.

Assessing the training at other sites or developing a training program is not in the scope of a Work Instruction. Work Instructions should be specific to a process and should provide the details specific to the process.

I don't have any problem with training or employee testing and evaluation. Like I said Work Instructions and Job Descriptions go hand in hand. Evaluating workers and testing skills should be done...just as part of training and not in the reference documents of a production line.

When it comes to new employees and customer rejections I will say this - if one employe can mess up entire processes and then this can get to the customer without any detection then the problem is not with the training but with the system. Remember, "improper employee training" is never root level corrective action. Detection of problems should be build into any process - trust your worker is doing a good job, just verify to be sure.

 

[bobdoering]

Assessing the training at other sites or developing a training program is not in the scope of a Work Instruction. Work Instructions should be specific to a process and should provide the details specific to the process.

Exactly.

When it comes to new employees and customer rejections I will say this - if one employe can mess up entire processes and then this can get to the customer without any detection then the problem is not with the training but with the system. Remember, "improper employee training" is never root level corrective action.

Yeah, people try to sell that all the time...and yet, they still hold some importance to training. Interesting paradox, is it not? It might work as long as you have no visual or other sensory inspection as detection. "They" do like to blame "the system". It is a nebulous enough of a target to never be wrong. Interesting to exclude training from the "system", huh?

...trust your worker is doing a good job, just verify to be sure.

Trust and verify. But verify to what? Usually the work instructions. I typically feel if a worker makes a mistake, and there was no work instruction to identify to problem, it is your fault, not theirs. If there is a work instruction, and you have evidence they were trained, then you have something to hang your hat on.

 

[JaneB]

I worked for a previous company that came up with this silly corporate requirement that every step in an instruction had to state the following for every single step;

What?
Who?
Why?
When?
Where?

So for instance, not only did you have to say something like "zero the digital indicator" or "place the part on the fixture" you had to state the answers to those 5 questions for every single step.

Yikes.
Good idea to make sure it's covered off overall... but in every single step?
Only if 'the person off the street' were presumed to be doing a step at a time with zero comprehension let alone memory of the previous step... in which case the management of the company has some serious shortfalls.

 

[JaneB]

If there is a work instruction, and you have evidence they were trained, then you have something to hang your hat on.

Provided that there was a focus on the competency achieved (or not) from training. It isn't about 'training' per se, it's about ensuring competency.