Refreshing an old and boring topic - Job descriptions and Roles vs Process Documentation

[cferrer]

Thanks everyone. Fair enough. Here is my attempt at interpreting the comments:

• Dont over complicate. JDs fulfill a legit purpose to document what's expected from candidates and employees but need not be improved or questioned (nothing new here)
• JD have no real operational use (or value?). JDs contain only the what and not the how of a job. (I guess they are more of a planning document)
• JDs should be controlled but lag most often behind organizational change and are commonly out-of-date (no surprise here either)
• A possible innovation would be to move from a document based JD collection to a database (model-based) job profile system
• JDs are isolated and static documents. No one commented on linking JDs to other artifacts in the organization. No one has reported JDs being referenced on process descriptions, procedures or work instructions. No user-cases on JDs dynamically linked either on intranets or ERPs, or similar.

 

[John Broomfield]

Specifying the required attributes (behaviors), skills and knowledge required of a job holder can be useful to an effective recruiting process.

But cross-functional processes are a team sport.

 

[cferrer]

Specifying the required attributes (behaviors), skills and knowledge required of a job holder can be useful to an effective recruiting process.

But cross-functional process are a team sport.

Are you referring to JDs not having much value for processes other than recruiting because they contain information about single roles and say nothing about interaction between people or team skills?

 

[John Broomfield]

Are you referring to JDs not having much value for processes other than recruiting because they contain information about single roles and say nothing about interaction between people or team skills?

Nearly. Recruiting people with the potential to become competent may be assisted by a job spec or JD.

Individual task instructions, as and if necessary, are provided and may be linked to their procedure. Usually, the procedure specifies what the cross-functional team does (at a higher level) to fulfill process objectives.

It’s not a hard and fast rule though because many organizations mix their how to instructions with their documented procedures that specify who does what to fulfill process objectives.

 

[Pjservan]

There are a few eQMS programs out there that use the Job Description or equivalent as the basis to define some aspects of the training program required for employees to fulfilling that role. This becomes extremely useful when particular positions do require recertification or revalidation.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

In unionized workplaces, job descriptions are there to "safeguard" jobs.

In the rest of the business world, job descriptions are just a small component of "competence management", subject of
ISO 10015:2019 Quality management — Guidelines for competence management and people development

 

[John Broomfield]

One of the reasons why “working to rule” can cause work to stop.

 

[Kronos147]

Real world example:
An organization hired someone to head the organization. The job Description said he needed to be versed in ISO 9001. He was also the Management Representative (on file with the registrar, per their rule, not ISO 9001).
The audit was going slow, as the MR did not understand the requirements.
Resources (all of 7) was on the agenda.
"Show me your job description"... ok, ISO 9001 background required. "Tell me your ISO 9001 background"... crickets.

The 'controlled' job description calls for a skill. The skill was not present, no records of why they waived, or what was the plan to get the MR up to speed was identified.

Is this a non-conformance or no?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Real world example:
An organization hired someone to head the organization. The job Description said he needed to be versed in ISO 9001. He was also the Management Representative (on file with the registrar, per their rule, not ISO 9001).
The audit was going slow, as the MR did not understand the requirements.
Resources (all of 7) was on the agenda.
"Show me your job description"... ok, ISO 9001 background required. "Tell me your ISO 9001 background"... crickets.

The 'controlled' job description calls for a skill. The skill was not present, no records of why they waived, or what was the plan to get the MR up to speed was identified.

Is this a non-conformance or no?

What does "versed" mean?

 

[John Broomfield]

Tricky, because the evidence of MR’s sufficiency of knowledge (skill?) being adequate (or not) is still somewhat limited.

Continue the investigation of system maintenance processes to determine the adequacy of the MR’s competence in terms of the effectiveness of the recruiting and training processes.

Verify that internal auditors have sufficient knowledge of the standard to report on the conformity and effectiveness of the management system.