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

[Ralba]

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

That is the result of deleting and retyping portions of my post without reading it again. I realized it after I posted, but I thought "What are the chances someone comes in and corrects me before I get back to my computer?" Apparently pretty high .

What I meant was it is used to meet the requirements of 7.2 (competence). Every organization I have been with has used job descriptions to demonstrate compliance to 7.2 on at least some level.

 

[Ninja]

Every organization I have been with has used job descriptions to demonstrate compliance to 7.2 on at least some level.

Makes sense...most do in my experience...except for my last job.
We threw out job descriptions altogether...the huge amount of cross training we did made them a nightmare to keep up with (and to keep up with ERP permission sets, but that's a different animal).

We had an "Authority and responsibility" section that was pretty much boilerplate in our procedures, test methods, etc.
The boiler plate essentially said "Whoever is trained and signed off as competent to this document is both authorized to perform the processes/tasks within, and responsible to do so." A whole lot fancier than that word-wise, but same meaning...if we trained you to do something, and signed off on your competency, and you have the time to do this...go do it.

Made life a whole lot easier than flailing with job descriptions every day...

HTH

...well, not "altogether"...we listed some responsibilities as a sort of job description when hiring, but were clear in the interview that it was a minimum description, not a limiting description...

 

[Ralba]

Makes sense...most do in my experience...except for my last job.
We threw out job descriptions altogether...the huge amount of cross training we did made them a nightmare to keep up with (and to keep up with ERP permission sets, but that's a different animal).

We had an "Authority and responsibility" section that was pretty much boilerplate in our procedures, test methods, etc.
The boiler plate essentially said "Whoever is trained and signed off as competent to this document is both authorized to perform the processes/tasks within, and responsible to do so." A whole lot fancier than that word-wise, but same meaning...if we trained you to do something, and signed off on your competency, and you have the time to do this...go do it.

Made life a whole lot easier than flailing with job descriptions every day...

HTH

...well, not "altogether"...we listed some responsibilities as a sort of job description when hiring, but were clear in the interview that it was a minimum description, not a limiting description...

You didn't have any issues with left over tasks after personnel changes or identifying tasks that had been picked up by someone but were not formally assigned to any job? That would be my main concern without having a job description. If not, could you provide the nitty gritty details of your boilerplate process? You have peaked my curiosity.

 

[Ninja]

You didn't have any issues with left over tasks after personnel changes

Task scheduling, production scheduling, weekly mgmt meetings around "where are we?" let us keep track of what needed doing.
Managers managed...
Steve, you have a light load today...compact the hazmat waste and label it when you have a chance today. (Today being a key word).
Bob, the calibration crew is in today...you are the runner for bringing them gages, verify the data and stickers before putting stuff back. If you have any down time, get your inventory caught up.
Angela, you aren't casting product today...shipping is overwhelmed...go ship your face off and get the backlog down to 5 orders or less.
Your "job description" is to be able to cast product...and whatever else we need you for and train you for.
Management happened all day, every day...worked so much better that way...if you saw someone killing time, there was always a wide array of what you could sic them on...and you got to know the people and could sic them on jobs they didn't mind too much (usually).

If you don't have good hands-on managers...you fall back on job descriptions...and waste a ton of talent (IMO).

or identifying tasks that had been picked up by someone but were not formally assigned to any job?

Again, managers managed.
The jobs were assigned to the managers...and delegated from there. The managers had access to competency and training records electronically, so sorting out the "who does what today" took very little time.
If there weren't trained people available, looks like you need to free someone up next week to be trained to this...at the manager's discretion.

That would be my main concern without having a job description. If not, could you provide the nitty gritty details of your boilerplate process? You have peaked my curiosity.

Certainly not a "Boilerplate process"...just a boilerplate "keep ISO satisfied" while we go get stuff done.
Give your mid level and line managers access to 'who can do what'...and let them do their jobs...
then you can see whether or not you promoted the right people to manager...

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

First, we don' t know from the available evidence whether or not the MR had experience or training. What clause would this NC be written against?

 

[Ninja]

That would be my main concern without having a job description.

...and FWIW...

My "job description" (Assistant Director of Operations) was.......... wait for it........... "Increase NPAT year on year without fail for as long as you are here."
My performance reviews during the 2008 recession were not so happy things...nor did I expect them to be...I hadn't done my job.
"But it wasn't my fault!"....yeah, not buying it... NPAT either went up or down, and that was my job.
My managers got great reviews (from me)...I got pounded (by a semi-reasonable human, so I kept my job)...it was more of a teaching exercise to reinforce that NPAT long term was my job.

That's the only metric I was measured on. So I flowed down that goal to my managers in the forms of: OTD, Customer % reorder, Line yield, Lost work day incidents, Findings from external audits (NFPA, OSHA), avoidable equipment damage, etc.

We so often get tied up in standards and rules and restrictions to the extent that we forget what we are working to obtain (spoiler alert: Cash).
All of them are tools to achieve the goal...
OTD means nothing if your a sole source on a DOD contract...why have the metric?
Customer satisfaction means nothing if you have the only available option...why have the metric?
OTD means everything in a dogfight.
Customer satisfaction means everything for repeat sales in retail.
Pay attention to what increases NPAT for the long term...then guide your "job descriptions" by that.
{NPAT in the long term capsulizes everything...please name something it doesn't handle...}

 

[Kronos147]

First, we don' t know from the available evidence whether or not the MR had experience or training. What clause would this NC be written against?

It was written against 7.2 The organization shall...
a) Determine necessary competence...
c) where applicable, take actions to acquire the necessary competence...

The MR was the auditee, who supplied the controlled job description as objective evidence of determining the competence. MR statement that he did not comply, nor had the organization had taken actions to address was the objective evidence cited in the report.

FWIW, a few leading questions along the lines of couldn't the organization perhaps have sent an internal e-mail for a plan to recover was asked.

A good assessor will seek conformance. In the assessment, the auditee tells them 'this is nonconforming.' This has been experience, from both sides of the table.

 

[Jim Wynne]

It was written against 7.2 The organization shall...
a) Determine necessary competence...
c) where applicable, take actions to acquire the necessary competence...

The MR was the auditee, who supplied the controlled job description as objective evidence of determining the competence. MR statement that he did not comply, nor had the organization had taken actions to address was the objective evidence cited in the report.

FWIW, a few leading questions along the lines of couldn't the organization perhaps have sent an internal e-mail for a plan to recover was asked.

A good assessor will seek conformance. In the assessment, the auditee tells them 'this is nonconforming.' This has been experience, from both sides of the table.

I'm not sure I'm understanding. Are you saying that the MR gave himself up to the auditor as being incompetent?

 

[Kronos147]

Are you saying that the MR gave himself up to the auditor as being incompetent?

The auditor asked for objective evidence. The auditee said there is none.

More specifically: The auditee said there is no objective evidence of his training or competence to ISO 9001 requirements because he did not have any training or competence in regards to ISO 9001.