Showing competency for new hires?


Involved - Posts
What are the guidelines for this? And what are some of you doing?
Right now we are doing nothing as far as documenting our new hires as it pertains to competency or testing.
I am thinking about implementing a quick aptitude test for new hires in the plant and assembly, but what about management new hires? Will their resume with education and work history be enough?
If it is why would that not work for shop employees when they fill out their apps and put down their education and work history?

Any help on this would be great.

I am already in the middle of putting together a training schedule and matrix for each employee and their machines/areas witch will be reviewed every six months, but this question is for new hires.



Our organization states that we hire new employees based on our perception of their competency level (obtained from application, educational records, past experience, etc.) After 90 days, the employee is assessed based on job description requirements.

If you will look in the Training Needs Assessment thread, I have posted a competency profile. It may not be the best but I think it will work.


Trusted Information Resource
Last edited:


Super Moderator
Are employee's able to achieve the desired results based upon their application of education, training & experience? Yes or No?

How do you make this determination as an organization?

Is the methodology you use effective?

Do you have a means of overcoming employee shortcomings?

Anything else is BS and superfluous.

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Randy and CarolX have good suggestions.

My guess is other people's competency guideline for specific positions (regardless of industry or actual task) will essentially boil down to:
  1. What specific skill does a person need to accomplish a task?
  2. How do we determine our requirement is valid?
  3. How can we test a person to see if he has the required skill before training?
  4. How can we train someone to acquire the skill? (in-house or outsource?)
  5. How can we evaluate the training?
  6. What guidelines do we use to ensure whether the training needs to be readministered?
  7. How do we evaluate whether there is a better method to perform the task or better training to learn the method?
(In my opinion, someone who needs to be supervised while performing a task is not yet adequately trained. "Supervision" being different than "checked" or "inspected." Certainly, "supervision" is different than just being available to answer a question.)


I think the easiest way would be to just have the supervisors check on their work. This is probably something that you do anyway. Your normal inspection/quality confirmation process also confirms competence. If I'm getting a lot of rejects, then my competence may be questioned.

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
db said:
...Your normal inspection/quality confirmation process also confirms competence. If I'm getting a lot of rejects, then my competence may be questioned.

This is one of the ways we do it. The operator number and defective operation are noted on the red tag. This info is included in our red tag log.

Jobs are assigned to operators by the department supervisor based on the type and complexity of the work to be done and the skill level of the operator. This works for us because we have about 50 skilled tradesmen on the floor and very low turnover. Our lathe department, for example, is 4 manual lathe operators and 2 CNC lathe operators. The newest one has been here for 4 years, the longest employed has been here for 12 years.
Top Bottom