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

[Sidney Vianna]

The audit was going slow, as the MR did not understand the requirements.

Is this a non-conformance or no?

Under the assumption that you are conducting a 3rd party audit...the issue to me is NOT that the audit is going slow, but the implication that the organization has nobody with the KNOWLEDGE (and, thus the competence) to ensure their system complies with ISO 9001. It is NOT the job of the 3rd party auditor to ascertain the system complies. It is THE ORGANIZATION's responsibility to do so, prior to offering the system to an external party's assessment to verify the conformance to the standard. If the organization does not have anyone with the KNOWLEDGE required to develop and maintain a system in conformance with the standard, they OBVIOUSLY have a BIG PROBLEM. In the ANAB Bill of Rights & Responsibilities, they state, appropriately: "...The client organization, not the certification body, has the responsibility for conformity with the requirements for certification. .."

The issue is much graver than simply complying with the job description; it is the lack of a fundamental competence in the organization. Based on what I understood, this seems to be a clear violation against 9001:2015 5.3.a), 7.1.2 and 7.2.b).

 

[Kronos147]

What does "versed" mean?

The job description was more specific. It's been a while but I recall something similar to "completed a course..." and "5 year experience of relevant experience".

Whatever the specifics of the job description, it just wasn't verifiable with this person

Under the assumption that you are conducting a 3rd party audit...the issue... the organization has nobody with the KNOWLEDGE (and, thus the competence) to ensure their system complies with ISO 9001.

I agree.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The job description was more specific. It's been a while but I recall something similar to "completed a course..." and "5 year experience of relevant experience".

Whatever the specifics of the job description, it just wasn't verifiable with this person

I understand that, but, if you write up the nonconformity against lack of compliance with the job description, then, their "corrective action" could be to delete the requirement from the job description. And then, what? The fundamental problem of not having someone at the organization with an understanding of ISO 9001 STILL EXISTS.

 

[Kronos147]

I understand that, but, if you write up the nonconformity against lack of compliance with the job description, then, their "corrective action" could be to delete the requirement from the job description. And then, what? The fundamental problem of not having someone at the organization with an understanding of ISO 9001 STILL EXISTS.

That is why the organization will have to submit an action plan including the root cause. The assessor should not accept a plan that addresses correction without cause. What was the cause that would to lead to a correction of deleting the requirement in the job description?

One thing the organization may consider is they may have an issue with change control. They may have an issue with hiring. They may have an issue with training.

Findings are simply symptoms of the larger issue.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The CB auditor HAS to PROPERLY identify the problem. The organization has a FUNDAMENTAL competence missing in their rankings.

Just to play the game that you suggest, organization could list the cause of the problem as: misunderstanding that job descriptions were necessary. Corrective Action: eliminate all job descriptions.

And then, what?

 

[Kronos147]

The CB auditor HAS to PROPERLY identify the problem.

Actually, the auditor has to confirm that the objective evidence reviewed meets the requirements of ISO 9001, the customer, where known, and the organization itself.

The organization has an internal requirement (from Job Description) - MR has to have experience or training. NC - He did not.

Just to play the game that you suggest, organization could list the cause of the problem as: misunderstanding that job descriptions were necessary. Corrective Action: eliminate all job descriptions.

And then, what?

I wouldn't accept that root cause. It is almost a restatement of the problem. I would ask the organization "why did you misunderstand the job description."

Sidney, please let me know if I should drop this right here. It seems we may be at the point that we agree to disagree. There is enough stress in the world. If I am being less than helpful, I should refrain.

Respectfully,
Kronos


P.S. in the thread about "what should be changed in the next ISO 9001?", I should add please bring back the requirement for an organization to have a documented method as to how it will determine root cause. That was a bad decision to take that out, IMO.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Sidney, please let me know if I should drop this right here. It seems we may be at the point that we agree to disagree. There is enough stress in the world. If I am being less than helpful, I should refrain.

Either one of us can "drop" the exchange anytime. From my perspective I see this as an exchange of ideas and I am trying to make a point that CB auditors have to ADD VALUE to their work by being able to CLEARLY IDENTIFY the problems/weaknesses/nonconformities during the audits, so the registrant can work on a meaningful solution.

Linking the problem to a "requirement" in a job description just adds to the much maligned misconception that ISO 9001 is achieved via the say-what-you-do-do-what-you-say baloney.

Implementing a system (any system) requires knowledge. Lack of knowledge is lack of resources. The fact that a job description loosely requires such knowledge is totally redundant and we all should know that the first step in problem resolution is the CLEAR identification of the problem.

 

[Ralba]

My 2¢, the "Job Description" serves a role at two different points.

• First, it is a record of the criteria used to hire or promote someone for the job described, which both provides a very soft guarantee of their capability and protects the organization from accusations of incompetence by having a record.
• The other is to track the functions performed by each job/person in the organization and make sure none are left un-owned in the case of filling a newly vacant position.

The first is a hard requirement for most standards, the second is just darn useful. Note that it can only be really serve both purposes if your revision system allows for intact old revisions. By updating the job description at each annual/regular review, you can make sure the trifecta of Responsibility/Authority/Recognition is intact across all jobs and make sure nobody is getting overloaded with too many responsibilities. It is pretty common to see someone hardworking get overloaded with various tasks because they are just so darn eager or good at everything given to them that their name comes up every time a task is needing an owner.
"You know who would be great for this? XXXX, she has great attention to detail, an eye for quality, and..." ect ect

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The first is a hard requirement for most standards,

Where, in ISO 9001, is there a requirement for job descriptions?

 

[Peter Fraser]

Sounds like a big RASIC.

I prefer RACI, but what is in an extra letter! Best to avoid ARSCI, though!
If you define your processes using RACI (or similar) and hold the details in a database, you should automatically be able to generate a Role Involvement report which picks out all the tasks in all the processes where a selected role is involved (if you can also limit it to those tasks for which the Role is (only) Responsible then you are closer to what might appear in a Job Description). Whether this corresponds to what HR think that the job entails is another matter entirely...
It also means that as soon as you update any Process Description, the Role Involvement report is updated at the same time. Even better if you can flag up the competencies required for each task, and the risks identified for each task. Just another couple of ways to analyse your process definitions.