Training Records - Content and System Requirements

[Stijloor]

Re: Training Records

I have always maintained that the true measure of training effectiveness is trainee competency. That is, are there errors occuring due to lack of knowledge/skill? If not, then the training is sufficient/effective. If there are errors due to lack of knowledge and/or skill, then I don't much care what the tests, simulations, drills, etc say, the training is ineffective.

Geoff Withnell

I believe that's what I said in the word DO.

Stijloor.

 

[AndyN]

Geoff: There's an expression my friend often uses, here in the USA - that 'that dog won't hunt". He's basically saying it doesn't matter what training you provide, it has to be with the right candidate, plus, if you take Deming's approach, errors are often an issue with the process.

I can cook and I've been trained, but if the method you give me is flawed, then no amount of further training etc will get the right result. We have to be careful not to blame errors on people ALL the time...

 

[Geoff Withnell]

Geoff: There's an expression my friend often uses, here in the USA - that 'that dog won't hunt". He's basically saying it doesn't matter what training you provide, it has to be with the right candidate, plus, if you take Deming's approach, errors are often an issue with the process.

I can cook and I've been trained, but if the method you give me is flawed, then no amount of further training etc will get the right result. We have to be careful not to blame errors on people ALL the time...

I'm not blaming errors on the people. If after the training, the trainee can not perform due to lack of knowledge or skill, the training was ineffective. The REASON the training was ineffective may be that the trainee lacks the capacity to learn, or the trainer lacks the skills needed to train, or any one of a number of other reasons. BUT, no matter what other evaluations say, if errors are occuring due to lack of knowledge or skill, the training was ineffective. I would expect a good training program to identify cases where the training has not provided the desired result. A person with no sense of smell should not be able to satisfactorally complete training as a chef. If they do, there is a fault in the training program - as well as in the HR system that sent that person to chef training. Or to use another example - to be effective, Marine Boot Camp has to not only turn young civilians into Marines, but identify those who do not have what it takes.

Geoff Withnell

 

[JoCam]

I can cook and I've been trained, but if the method you give me is flawed, then no amount of further training etc will get the right result. We have to be careful not to blame errors on people ALL the time...

This is what I've been asking. I know that you have to prove competency and how to do it, but how am I able to check that the initial training was adequate if the initial training material is not referenced? A relatively new Employee who has just completed their on-the-job training will not be quite ready for competency checks, but if the way in which they were trained is unavailable, and signatures are absent, surely the training matrix I'm looking at with a green blob signifying that they have been trained means nothing.

 

[Geoff Withnell]

Re: Training Records

I believe that's what I said in the word DO.

Stijloor.

We are in violent agreement

Geoff Withnell

 

[Geoff Withnell]

This is what I've been asking. I know that you have to prove competency and how to do it, but how am I able to check that the initial training was adequate if the initial training material is not referenced? A relatively new Employee who has just completed their on-the-job training will not be quite ready for competency checks, but if the way in which they were trained is unavailable, and signatures are absent, surely the training matrix I'm looking at with a green blob signifying that they have been trained means nothing.

Ah, I didn't understand. I am a great believer in pre- and post-testing. Presumably, a training needs assessment (formal or informal) exists so we know what the training is supposed to teach. Test the learner before the training, and then test again after the training. The delta is the training effectiveness. Sometimes there will be no delta, because the learner already knew the subject, and the training wasn't really required. Sometimes, because the learner isn't capable of learning the material. And sometimes because the trainer isn't qualified.

You don't need signatures from the trainee, you know he/she was there because you have their test results. If the results are normally good, than the training material and method must be good as well.

Geoff Withnell

 

[AndyN]

This is what I've been asking. I know that you have to prove competency and how to do it, but how am I able to check that the initial training was adequate if the initial training material is not referenced? A relatively new Employee who has just completed their on-the-job training will not be quite ready for competency checks, but if the way in which they were trained is unavailable, and signatures are absent, surely the training matrix I'm looking at with a green blob signifying that they have been trained means nothing.

Hello Jo:

Is there no plan or documented action for the required training, having been identified from the competency analysis? I personally don't get too excited over signatures, however some continuum from competency > plan of action > training > competency etc would be appropriate to show anyone!

 

[JoCam]

Hi AndyN,

No, there is no plan for training, just a matrix in each department showing peoples names against tasks. Coloured dots then signify whether these people are trained, trained to teach, awaiting training or if training is not required. No reference to training materials, procedures, method statements or dates of training are provided. Infact there is no evidence to suggest that the training happened at all.

 

[somashekar]

Hi AndyN,

No, there is no plan for training, just a matrix in each department showing peoples names against tasks. Coloured dots then signify whether these people are trained, trained to teach, awaiting training or if training is not required. No reference to training materials, procedures, method statements or dates of training are provided. Infact there is no evidence to suggest that the training happened at all.

There is no need that the training be visible...
There is no need that the training material be controlled...
There is no need that training happens on a day...
The training matrix in itself can be a training plan. More skills added to the training matrix, more people added to the training matrix, periodic visit and update of the training matrix, deployment of personnel to jobs based on training matrix can be a good record.

Coloured dots then signify whether these people are trained, trained to teach, awaiting training or if training is not required.

What process happens before the dots come up and then when they change color can be a very well thought out process which can be explained and supported by documents.

 

[JoCam]

What process happens before the dots come up and then when they change color can be a very well thought out process which can be explained and supported by documents.

Hi somashekar,

This is the part that is missing here, no documents or reference to them.