Safety Training - ISO 9001 / QS-9000 Safety Training Mandates - The SafeStart program


Fully vaccinated are you?
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:06:51 -0400
From: Jay Warner
Subject: Re: ISO/QS Safety Training Mandates

Workp1 wrote:

> Could use some information.
> How does ISO/QS address Training in the workplace? Specifically
> Safety
> Training. How does it address Safety Awareness, Behavior-bassed
> Safety, and
> general Safety as opposed to Specific Hazard (Lockout/Tagout, PPE,
> etc.)
> OSHA, EPA mandated training? Does it mention anything about
> Continuous
> Improvement?
> Please take a look at the ITS web site at and check
> out
> the write up about the SafeStart program and let me know if that can
> be used
> to meet all or part of the ISO/QS mandates.

Don't take my word as definitive, but here is the view from this bridge.

ISO has an 'element' on training. It says nothing about what or how you train anyone. The concern is that you specify what training is necessary for specific activities, then you train the appropriate people. Concurrently, you demonstrate as much.

If the SafeStart program was determined by mgt. as suitable for safe operation of specific equipment (or overall operations), then it would show up as a necessary part of preparation/continuation in selected positions/activities.

You would have a record sheet or log file, indicating who took the session. Documenting attendance for each session/class. If you spend a few minutes reviewing a portion with an employee, this needs to be logged, also.

Eventually you have a record of all training given each person. All of this is kept and used in the discussion of whether the training worked, and how to improve it. In the case of safety, the number of close calls might be an indicator of success, if you can get it documented well. This part might fall under corrective/preventive action.

It's too late for me to list it all out in full detail, but I think you can see there is a loop here, from _what_ is needed, to _who_ got it, to _how_ do you know, and _where_ do you improve/change it.

As an instructor, I have a little difficulty with the word 'given' as an indicator of training, but that can be handled at the interaction point between instructor and student, or student and student. It reflects a 'fill-the-bucket' philosophy of education/training, which ain't so and doesn't work. But the ISO part of your question doesn't care. Your preventive action should catch ineffective training. If it works.

Now, what does everyone else say?

Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133

Power to the data!

barb butrym

Quite Involved in Discussions
" shows proven proficiency/understands" is the terminology I use rather than 'given' or 'passed' the training. This can happen in the classroom, or later at the job site....depending,,,

Semantics, but it shows a record, and indicates whether the training was successful. Also has a place for further reinforcement/training/experience needed (Identification of needs) if done properly, can eliminate the need for detailed non value added procedures.
Top Bottom