M
Mike Smith
Thanks for the information Sam. I guess I better start getting prepared. It sounds unlike any course I have ever attended.
D
Don Wood - 2011
Wes Bucey said:Whatever happened to evaluating the course content and style?
It seems to me to be completely alien to Quality principles to hide any method of establishing a benchmark for continuous [continual?] improvement.
How do the students determine [if they fail] whether they [their ability, their study techniques] were the reason for failing or whether the content, context, and method of the course were adequate to prepare them for the exam?
Is it any wonder many consider the Quality profession to be SNAFU?
No personal aspersions here, just plain
Evaluations ARE conducted - every participant is requrested to fill one out - prior to the exam. And yes, they find that as humorous as we do!
In addition, course content and performance on exams is monitored and analyzed - just not by the instructors. That's done at the IATF level. Instructors can, and have, provided feedback on the exam process through Plexus and the IAOB - most of us aren't shy about that, and we're as keen to see qualified auditors pass as they are. There's been a number of changes introduced into the exam process since its inception as a direct consequence or participant feedback. Written exam questions have been added and deleted, a significant change was made in the oral exam process to make it easier for participants to understand what was actually being asked - it's an ongoing process.
While I personally disagree with not providing more specific feedback to participants, I understand the rationale. This is a professional certification exam - to get the certification, candidates are required to demonstrate that they understand and can apply the requisite body of knowledge as defined by the certifying organization. If they don't understand it, they don't pass the exam(s), and they need to go back and study until they do. Telling people what they missed makes it easier for them to pass next time - and it's not supposed to be easy.
DW
It's supposed to be hard?
Telling people what they missed tells them where they should focus their study. It tells them where the are weak. This is bad?
If the idea is to help people in areas where they are weak, telling them WHERE they're weak helps them focus on areas where they need to study. By not telling the person, the test people cause lots of lost time. It forces students to look at everything again, even what they know (of course they don't know what they don't know or do know). This in turn also induces students to question what they do know.
It is a 'professional certification' course / test, but if the implication is that the test should be hard, as you state, as opposed to ensuring the person is competent in the areas of study, that's a shame. If I know the material it should be easy for me. If I don't, it will be 'hard'.
I believe this is why I hear the same two things from almost everyone I have spoken to who has taken the course / test - It's often very subjective and, It's about money. This is unfortunate as it demeans the entire process.
I disagree. I don't think it's supposed to be an 'easy' vs. 'hard' thing at all. I was disappointed to hear it put in those terms. I thought it was supposed to be about competence and knowledge.Don Wood said:
Telling people what they missed tells them where they should focus their study. It tells them where the are weak. This is bad?
If the idea is to help people in areas where they are weak, telling them WHERE they're weak helps them focus on areas where they need to study. By not telling the person, the test people cause lots of lost time. It forces students to look at everything again, even what they know (of course they don't know what they don't know or do know). This in turn also induces students to question what they do know.
It is a 'professional certification' course / test, but if the implication is that the test should be hard, as you state, as opposed to ensuring the person is competent in the areas of study, that's a shame. If I know the material it should be easy for me. If I don't, it will be 'hard'.
I believe this is why I hear the same two things from almost everyone I have spoken to who has taken the course / test - It's often very subjective and, It's about money. This is unfortunate as it demeans the entire process.
D
Don Wood - 2011
Clarification
I respect your opinion. Let me clarify mine. That's how I, personally, view how the process is set up. My opinion, NOT that of Plexus, IAOB or IATF.
Having said that, I do feel that more detailed feedback should be provided to CB auditor candidates, for all the reasons you stated.
You hit the nail on the head - it's all about identifying who's competant to perform audits, according to the criteria set forth by the IATF. That's not an easy task. Nor should it be - auditors have a lot of responsibility. That's what I was trying to say when I said the process was "not supposed to be easy". I don't know of anyone involved in this process personally that's on a mission to make the exam process any harder than it already is. I'm here to tell you I'm not.
DW
I respect your opinion. Let me clarify mine. That's how I, personally, view how the process is set up. My opinion, NOT that of Plexus, IAOB or IATF.
Having said that, I do feel that more detailed feedback should be provided to CB auditor candidates, for all the reasons you stated.
You hit the nail on the head - it's all about identifying who's competant to perform audits, according to the criteria set forth by the IATF. That's not an easy task. Nor should it be - auditors have a lot of responsibility. That's what I was trying to say when I said the process was "not supposed to be easy". I don't know of anyone involved in this process personally that's on a mission to make the exam process any harder than it already is. I'm here to tell you I'm not.
DW
T
Topdog
Don-- You the man!
Don does an excellent job in training. Recently, I was fortunate enough to have Don for TS16949 Internal Auditor training and it certainly improved my knowledge and interpretation of the Specification. We just completed our Stage 2 with a recommendation for registation from the CB. Thanks Don for helping another soldier get the stripes.
Don does an excellent job in training. Recently, I was fortunate enough to have Don for TS16949 Internal Auditor training and it certainly improved my knowledge and interpretation of the Specification. We just completed our Stage 2 with a recommendation for registation from the CB. Thanks Don for helping another soldier get the stripes.
D
Don Wood - 2011
I'm the WHAT?
AWWWW! That's about the best compliment I've ever received in my entire career, and certainly the best compliment a trainer could possibly receive. Thank YOU!
DW
AWWWW! That's about the best compliment I've ever received in my entire career, and certainly the best compliment a trainer could possibly receive. Thank YOU!
DW
B
Bigfoot
ISO/TS Lead Auditor w/ Supplier Certification
Marc & everyone at the Cove: Thought I would add results from surveying the members of the Class I was in.
Course title: RAB Accredited ISO 9001:2000 Lead Auditor with AIAG ISO/TS 16949:2002 Supplier Auditor Certification
Training Org: Plexus (2 Trainers & 2 Observers)
Date: Jan. 26 - 30, 2004
Class Size: 17 participants
I surveyed those who were in the class and here are the results:
7 passed (41.1%), 8 didn’t (47.1%), 2 have not received any results (11.7%).
I found the course to be very intense, not from a material standpoint but more the manner in which it was presented. Instructors were very knowledgeable and did their best to keep it from getting bogged down. IMHO about one half of the participants really did not have any business being in this course. They either didn't have the background / preparation to be there or were ill equipped in the use of the Core Tools and the Quality System Standards (ie:ISO/TS 16949:2002, ISO 9001:2000, QS 9000).
A secondary issue with the course is with the scoring / grading / evaluation portion. IMO there is to much subjectivity involved with this process. According to the Pre class handouts & the instructors in the classroom the scoring of the assignments (written NC's), the Turtle diagram (tested item), and your NC's written from the scenario given during the testing, all are scored primarily by the lead instructor. There is a secondary review of test results with scores between 60% & 75% to check scores and re-grading.
Marc said:
Marc & everyone at the Cove: Thought I would add results from surveying the members of the Class I was in.
Course title: RAB Accredited ISO 9001:2000 Lead Auditor with AIAG ISO/TS 16949:2002 Supplier Auditor Certification
Training Org: Plexus (2 Trainers & 2 Observers)
Date: Jan. 26 - 30, 2004
Class Size: 17 participants
I surveyed those who were in the class and here are the results:
7 passed (41.1%), 8 didn’t (47.1%), 2 have not received any results (11.7%).
I found the course to be very intense, not from a material standpoint but more the manner in which it was presented. Instructors were very knowledgeable and did their best to keep it from getting bogged down. IMHO about one half of the participants really did not have any business being in this course. They either didn't have the background / preparation to be there or were ill equipped in the use of the Core Tools and the Quality System Standards (ie:ISO/TS 16949:2002, ISO 9001:2000, QS 9000).
A secondary issue with the course is with the scoring / grading / evaluation portion. IMO there is to much subjectivity involved with this process. According to the Pre class handouts & the instructors in the classroom the scoring of the assignments (written NC's), the Turtle diagram (tested item), and your NC's written from the scenario given during the testing, all are scored primarily by the lead instructor. There is a secondary review of test results with scores between 60% & 75% to check scores and re-grading.
B
Bigfoot
Class Results
Mike,
What were the results of your class?
Mike Smith said:
Mike,
What were the results of your class?
S
Sam
AIAG offers two courses for lead auditor certification; the one described here and the other which is for TS 16949 supplier lead auditor only. The agenda and grading process are different, but the subjectivity is the same.
Bigfoot, How did you obtain the class results? AIAG/Plexus will not release such information. I guess I can only assume that you callled each person in the class.
Bigfoot, How did you obtain the class results? AIAG/Plexus will not release such information. I guess I can only assume that you callled each person in the class.
Similar threads
