Training Question

[Bev D]

I believe that training objectives should be part of the annual review process - as part of the person’s development. Continuing education, gaining new skills etc. for advancement. In fact I’ve seen this used quite effectively for development. HOWEVER not as part of the QMS but as part of the HR process.

 

[Quality-Nation]

Sometimes, the organization wants to do more (than what they "have to" to get certified), and they raise the bar for themselves by, referring to the original post, "setting training goals going forward." If it's the case, then "setting goals" becomes their internal standard and they have to walk their talk. If they don't, it's a NC.
To make it crystal clear, "setting training goals going forward." is not a must in ISO17025, but it makes sense for some organizations, then they take it as their (internal) standard.
Randy commented earlier that "Depends on one's definition of "standard"". This is a fair point, but without defined benchmarks, auditors face challenges in assessing conformity.

I’m confused by your explanation. In this forum, I’m uncertain why you reference 17025. “Setting goals” isn’t the same as establishing quality objectives. People should be competent and I fail to see why an organization would establish “training goals”, but if they did, it’s not in scope for a CB auditor to comment on. Furthermore your last statement, “benchmarks” have nothing to do with auditing. ISO 19011 doesn’t refer. If you are using the term to mean criteria, please make that clear. We cannot “read between the lines” with posts and make any sense of helping the OP.
Suffice it to say, it isn’t a non-conformity. Period.

 

[SeanN]

I’m uncertain why you reference 17025

Same in ISO 900x (this specific forum) and a very limited number of others that I am aware of.

it’s not in scope for a CB auditor to comment on.

They can comment on, but they cannot give a NC just because there are no training goals in place.
"Standards", "benchmarks", "criteria" are terms people may use with slightly different meaning in their head/organization because their contexts may not be exactly the same. Auditors need to be able to somehow "switch codes" and understand the system in ISO900x.
Full stop.

 

[Paul Simpson]

In the past we received an corrective action for not having employee completed training on their review. We had records of training, but the auditors stated that it was part of establishing goals and discussing what training they completed and setting goals going forward. I do not see that as a requirement in the standard, as long as we have a records. Does that fall under a different part of the standard?

This was the OP. It does not tell us the clause cited or the evidence presented that a corrective action (sic) was raised. Without this information, it is impossible to provide the OP with information to understand what has to be in place or to understand what the requirements of ISO 9001 are in this space.

For example, the clauses relevant to employee training include 4.4.1 c, 5.1.1 f) and h), 7.1.1 a), 7.1.2, 7.1.6, 7.2 a) to d), 7.3, 7.5.3.1, 8.1 c) and d), 8.5.1 e), 9.3.2 d), 9.3.3 c)

The clauses relevant to personal goals and objectives include 6.2.1 including e), 6.2.2 c), 9.1.1, 9.3.2 c) 2) and 5)

There are others that can come into play. But this is enough to begin with.

Ok. Everybody read the OP’s response. And their original question. The requirement was not in THEIR documentation.

Their auditor wrote it up and that auditor is now gone.

The OP was asking if there was any requirement in the standard.

We can stop speculating about what might have happened.

I agree that it is pointless to speculate. It is also pointless to discuss each of the relevant clauses without understanding the problem.

First step in problem-solving - understand the nature of the problem.