TRAINING ON SOP'S FOR SUPERVISORY STAFF

[Dan Watson]

One of my company's floor supervisors (in charge of heat treatment, plating, sorting and packaging) does not want to periodically review the SOP's used by these four areas on a periodic basis as the rest of the floor operators. He asks are "trainings necessary for me"?

We use a software database that will periodically say that a review is needed (usually one year) for the operators and the area supervisor. The way to review is to login to the software, pull up the document, and electronically sign-off. The total number for all four areas are 35 documents. The documents are a variety of Floor SOP's, customer requirements, QMS-related documents.

We are registered by Perry Johnson to ISO 9001 and IATF 16949. Other places that I worked in the past required the supervisors also reviewed the same documents as the floor operators to catch errors or changes. He asks "Is there a way to prevent this"? for him. That would open the door for all supervisors to ask for the same treatment. With this company, I'm sure the floor operators would then ask for the same.

What do other companies do? Should supervisors review the same floor documents, as well as the QMS and customer related documents?

Thanks!

Dan

 

[Golfman25]

I don't think the standard requires this. Why, specifically, are you doing what you do?

 

[Dan Watson]

I don't think the standard requires this. Why, specifically, are you doing what you do?

That is the way the former HR Manager had set-up the training matrix in the QMS software that we are using. I'm not sure what the cost would be (trying to find out) to "reprogram" the software. We have been using the software since 2017 after have a cumbersome paper system. Since the matrix includes the supervisors, we'll have to see how big of a change it will be and how much.

 

[Ashland78]

Yes, it depends on what your organization mandates. This is not an IATF standard.

On a side note I didn't know Perry Johnson was valid for IATF Audits within the IAOB... that is what I find interesting.

 

[Dan Watson]

Yes, it depends on what your organization mandates. This is not an IATF standard.

On a side note I didn't know Perry Johnson was valid for IATF Audits within the IAOB... that is what I find interesting.

Personally, I would not use PJ for registration. I think they are a poor registrar with poor auditors. Was already in place when I came here.

 

[Golfman25]

That is the way the former HR Manager had set-up the training matrix in the QMS software that we are using. I'm not sure what the cost would be (trying to find out) to "reprogram" the software. We have been using the software since 2017 after have a cumbersome paper system. Since the matrix includes the supervisors, we'll have to see how big of a change it will be and how much.

why are you reviewing and how does reviewing equate to training? Are you basically running a system where people are "re-trained" on the same stuff every year?

 

[Dan Watson]

why are you reviewing and how does reviewing equate to training? Are you basically running a system where people are "re-trained" on the same stuff every year?

Yes, that is how it is currently done. The other option the software offers is training upon change of document.

 

[Ashland78]

Personally, I would not use PJ for registration. I think they are a poor registrar with poor auditors. Was already in place when I came here.

I understand. But that says something about your company, as I am thinking they are not credible anymore.

 

[Kronos147]

One of my company's floor supervisors (in charge of heat treatment, plating, sorting and packaging) does not want to periodically review the SOP's used by these four areas on a periodic basis as the rest of the floor operators. He asks are "trainings necessary for me"?

If it were me, I would speak to the supervisor, and ask him to re-approve the documents, as he is confident they are correct.

I would then make sure a few of the documents (at minimum) were reviewed as part of the internal audit.

If the documents are found to be effective in the internal audit, they I would make some note in the control of documents procedure (or whatever your organization uses) and state that the re-approval can be authorized by the doc owner without review if there have been no changes to the process.

Are the trainings necessary for him? No, he should be competent. However, how does the supervisor train new employees if not SOP's? Perhaps an audit of the training records would be beneficial as well. Are the SOP's used for training?

 

[Golfman25]

Yes, that is how it is currently done. The other option the software offers is training upon change of document.

So the supervisor has a point. Why do I have to do this useless work? He has two options: just "check the box" like everyone else or raise an issue and essentially say this is silly. Unless someone can make an articulate business case for the requirement, your system will "suck" in his mind.

If it's me, I would do training upon change of the document. Can you do it just for a single person? This might be a good time to review the purpose of the requirement.