Procedures vs Training Aids

[M Greenaway]

OK so we all know that ISO9001:2000 requires less mandatory procedures.

But a lot of people have said in the absence of procedures you would need to verify training, and that some kind of training aid outlining the method of operation would need to be created.

Is this in effect just re-titling our procedures as training aids ?

If so would a training aid be audited to ensure it detailed the correct/current method ?

If so what have we gained by ISO9001:2000's softening on documented procedures ?

 

[gpainter]

When we started ISO 9002-94 , I set our system up to require only necessary Work Instructions (generally complicated things). We have always worked on the assumption that if they can not be trained, then writing a WI will not make it better. Many companies overdocumented. Our auditors at the last co. I worked for said we had more WIs than Ford and GM combined. The 94 standard said " where the absence of ... would adversely affect quality" IMO I think the 00 standard has moved toward world class in this area and is trying to move away from overcontrol.
When auditors audit an area without a procedure they will talk to more people to see if they say the same thing (we put the label on the upper right side)and be looking for conformation. Was the training effective, are they doing it how they were trained. This could also help the audit go faster,if everything is the same most auditors would more than likely question what was not. Good or bad??

 

[MrPhish]

A Different Animal

See if this helps. IMHO procedures are job performance aids and are written for trained individuals, not newcomers. Training aids are used to help train newcomers on how to use the existing procedures to perform a process. Training aids provide an aid to understanding the procedure, which is the quality document that does directly support the process’s ability to produce quality products (providing the employee is properly SET (skilled, educated and trained)).

As cited by clause 4.2.1 note 2, QMS documentation can differ (increase/decrease) due to the competence of personnel, i.e. as an employee becomes better SET, the need for written performance documentation to accomplish a given task can decrease. So IMHO with a well SET work force … training aids take you to a competency level that once verified, permits you to utilize the procedure to execute the process to properly produce the product (my 3Ps). The key link being once judged to be competent (which is a new requirement) the means of how the competency was obtained is not subject to audit. The auditable issue is whether or not the procedure is properly being utilized to support the process to produce the product.

When I re-wrote my Quality Manual to the new 2000 standard I took the opportunity to include training aids under the exceptions clause 4.2.2. I defined that all training aids (so marked) were not part of the QMS since these documents (training aids) do not directly support the creation of products. In this manner I fenced off any training aids from audit by my registrar. I feel confident in this issue because clause 6.2.2.a cites that the organization is the one who determines the necessary competence required to perform work affecting product quality … not the registrar. As long as training is given to support the need (6.2.2.b) I see no nonconformance.

 

[HFowler]

Originally posted by M Greenaway
...a lot of people have said in the absence of procedures you would need to verify training, and that some kind of training aid outlining the method of operation would need to be created...

Martin,

I agree with the part about needing to verify training, just as we did with the '94 Standard. As far as having to have some kind of training aid outlining the method, thankfully the new standard is not that specific. In my opinion, clause 6.2.2 (c) "evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken" and 6.2.2(e) "maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience will provide auditors with enough to determine if 7.5.1(b) "the availability of work instructions are necessary.

Best Regards,
Hank Fowler

 

[barb butrym]

As an auditor ....in lieu of procedures/instructions or your 'training aids" i would interview one guy then compare the facts with an interview of a second trained person.....you need 2 "things to compare" to decide compliance....so if no document then its 2 interviews....as an auditee, that makes me nervous.

which is the most work to prepare? which is more user friendly? one needs to really weigh the facts when deciding which road to travel.

 

[M Greenaway]

Barb

Energy mentioned the same method of interviewing 5 people to see if they all did the activity the same way.

My question would be how do you decide what is the correct way, or is it that the majority rules !! Hardly a good rationale for raising an NC ! Or would it simply be that because everyone is not doing the activity in the same way that it is an NC in itself ?

Personally I believe that in the absence of documented procedures you must start by auditing the output of the process. If the output (i.e. the desired result) is the same why question the methods used ?

I guess I could expand my original question to ask - if there is no procedure what do you train them with ? I would personally be concerned if it was simply an 'experienced' person giving unstructured on the job training by word of mouth to the trainee. I am sure that people will create some form of documentation that outlines the process methods, and because this document could affect quality it needs to be controlled, and because it defines the process it should be audited.

Any takers ?

 

[Marc]

> would it simply be that because everyone is not doing
> the activity in the same way that it is an NC

That's the idea. If everyone is not doing 'it' the exact same way it's a finding.

I've used this method for years in proving a written procedure for something is not needed. It has been an excellent way of reducing documentation. The auditor takes a sample. It may be 2 or 3 people. It may be more. I've never seen 5 as a magic sample size, but rather the sample size depended upon the auditor and how many people were subject to the procedure (remember there is a difference between a documented procedure and a procedure). The bottom line is all have to be doing 'it' the same way.

> Personally I believe that in the absence of documented
> procedures you must start by auditing the output of the
> process. If the output (i.e. the desired result) is the
> same why question the methods used ?

This is evidence that the OJT (or other) training was/is effective but does not always guarantee everyone is doing 'it' the same way because often the same result can be obtained through different methods (procedures). Two different issues.

> If so what have we gained by ISO9001:2000's softening on
> documented procedures ?

I really don't think many companies will actually benefit significantly from the relaxed requirement for documented procedures.

 

[E Wall]

Process Custodians

The approach we're taking is identifying our process, appointing a process custodian, and document according to needs. The process custodian is responsible to outline the process scope and goals, identify what components are included, what the inputs and outputs are (along with suppliers and customers), what measureables will be used and what records need to be maintained.

Then Job Cards will be developed for specific tasks (components) of the process, as needed (again - up to the custodian). The custodian is responsible to communicate with all involved with the process to ensure they understand their roles and the procedures to use as well as to monitor process for conformance.

Eileen

 

[barb butrym]

marc...once again we see eye to eye...scarey isn't it? Could not have said it better myself...so I will say ditto.....

And M. I agree .... what do you train to, how do you know you have covered all the bases consistently? A lesson plan covers that, but what the heck.....a document ..... be it a plan a record or a procedure or a flow chart...what is the difference...just do it. maybe thats too simple for some people....but i find its easier to just do something than to try to figgure ways around it.....But then again i do understand some people have trouble writing procedures...so hire a consultant to interview your people and write them for you......or find someone in house thats good at it. I find a lunch meeting with a group of people that do the function, discussing it in depth with a procedure writer using post it notes and flow charts will get it done nicely, call it training and teh outcome is the procedure..will bring a multitude of new info to the table.......