Training Records - Do all employees have to be trained on ISO 9001:2000?

[Troy Willett]

Who should be trained and why? It doesn't matter what any other company does or how they do audits and how effective the audits are. It is a decision by the people in charge of the blood lines of your organization to decide. Training is a benefit to those who need to use it. If you over-train all you Internal Auditors to a specific standard as opposed to the written procedures and relative job functions, don't they lose their objectivity and ability to audit well? What are they auditing? The procedures should be structured around how the people work and perform their jobs, not the other way around. An Auditor should be looking to see that the documentation matches the job junctions. Then you have a bench mark for improving. The system hinges on "documenting what you do" and then "doing what you document". It appears that all the dicussion regarding different automotive companies got away from the basics. What about continual improvement. Aren't Audits a forum for finding holes in areas where documentation is lacking, or offering opportunities for improvement (OFI's)? Is there any company out there that is so perfect that they don't need to improve? If so, then they are exempt from auditing themselves. Training is a direct link and issue. The individuals that make a company are different in their training needs. All (6) of my Internal Auditors will receive training of the new standard. We are ISO 9001:1994 registered at all (4) divisions and (3) remote sites. I can't expect my Auditors to learn it on their own that is for sure. They may not need (2) days like I received, but they will need a certain amount of training that sets a base line for them all to start from accompanied with coaching from me. You need to determine for your own company how much training is needed and why. Don't rely on the attitudes of other companies, regardless of their product, people or profit.

 

[Alf Gulford]

I have to agree with Barb's posting. Every department, sometime during the year in one of their regular meetings, gets to listen to my (approx.) 30 minute update/Q&A on ISO and our performance. More importantly, during our Initial Assessment audit our registrar told us that they expect to see something of this nature in every company they visit.

Works for us.

Alf

 

[barb butrym]

it just make sense....common sense. The quality system does not work in a bubble. You have new people coming from other companies and experiences and they all need to be on the same page. As an Auditor, i see plenty.....and a little training goes a long way. The standard and Tony have it right...you need to identify the training need ....then provide that training. when auditing, I am as concerned about how that need is identified as i am about the training record. If it was a specific training, the standard would say that.....it leads you to whatever is right for you. Unfortunately too many have taken liberty with that...as with many other requirements. As to auditor training to the new standard? well, again that depends. if the MGT Rep/company has a handle on all procedures and has changed/updated them, the Internal auditor needs minimal training. if the IA will be driving the document updates then they need more, obviously. I see the new 'auditors' getting into measurements more, and that may be a training of its own.

 

[Carl]

Some observations:

1. With the exceptions of Large sedans and full size pickups, Most of the cars in all the top 10 categories for consumer reports and most other buyers guides are imports, with the Japanese leading the way and the Koreans close at their heels.

2. You don't see Ford or GM offering a 10year/100,000mile powertrain warranty on ANYTHING. How can Hyundai et al do it?
I have no problem buying domestic and I have no problem buying foreign, but don't pi** down my back and tell me it's raining.

3. If you take care of any vehicle properly, Changing the oil, tune ups etc., the chances of a catastrophic (losing the engine) are greatly reduced.

4. Internal audits are nothing more than an excuse for common sense. The ONLY reason ANY company continues them to the level of detail that they do is because they live in fear of their registrar.

5. You didn't HAVE to use an outside source to train the employees to the ISO standard in the first place, why would you waste more money?

Carl-

 

[barb butrym]

Carl...i really disagree with that 'fear of the registrar' thing. I was doing internal audits long before 1987...because it was good practice and we felt even back then it added value to the company....i try to instill that to auditors i train, and for the most part, i think i do. Its healthy for auditors to do more tham "police", they are change agents and ambassadors. But that is only my humble opinion...

 

[Carl]

Barb, Your point is well taken, however we are speaking about an ISO related topic. The harsh reality of it is that MOST Companies that are ISO 9000 registered DO NOT use their auditors as "ambassadors of change". If You have worked, or continue to work for a company that actually uses the internal audit function for continuous improvement, GREAT!. How did you measure the value added to the company? I would also question how your auditors maintain their objectivity while being change agents. Sorry, I am not buying it. Internal audits serve 2 purposes, 1. Maintaining discipline in an otherwise unmotivated workforce. Are the employees following their work instructions or not? Any further "suggestion" or "adding value to the company" will end in subjectivity and supposition. Just like ALL ISO 9000 registration audits do. AND 2. Keeping the cert. on the wall.

As for the original thread, I have never, nor will I ever call an outside service in to do ANY training related to ISO 9000. It is a WASTE of the company $.

My not so humble opinion.

Carl-

 

[Al Dyer]

I see internal audit as a prevention method as opposed to a detection method and therefore cost effective to some point. Can we really determine the actual dollars saved from internal audit? Probably not.

Internal audit must be used in an effective manner. If a company has a once a year internal audit, it will not work and starts to move towards a detection method. It must be part of everyday business as usual to be effective.

Let's not limit the scope of what an internal audit is, say an operator has a daily checksheet of what is required at a workstation, is that not a type of internal audit.

The purpose of internal audit is to continuously monitor ongoing activities, not so much at the corporate/managerial level, but at the core of the business which is to produce a product that the customer wants to purchase.

By doing this the corporate/management sector is initially doing what they are supposed to do, giving the workforce the required tools to do their jobs.

Just call me ramblin man today!

ASD...

 

[Carl]

Al,
Sorry to disagree, a checksheet at a workstation is NOT an internal audit. If you don't beleive me, the next time the registrar asks for evidence of your internal audit program, hand him or her a stack of them and see what they say.

I think you all might want to look over 9001-2000 section 8.2.2 so that everyone is "on the same page"

Carl-

 

[Al Dyer]

Originally posted by Carl:
Al,
Sorry to disagree, a checksheet at a workstation is NOT an internal audit. If you don't beleive me, the next time the registrar asks for evidence of your internal audit program, hand him or her a stack of them and see what they say.

I think you all might want to look over 9001-2000 section 8.2.2 so that everyone is "on the same page"

Carl-

Carl:

Sorry to disagree, a checksheet at a workstation is NOT an internal audit.

Why not, I think it a major part of an internal audit system. It provides evidence of compliance to the requirements.

If you don't beleive me, the next time the registrar asks for evidence of your internal audit program, hand him or her a stack of them and see what they say.

I did and he suggested it that the I.A. process is not just about auditing elements, it's about auditing processes.

I think you all might want to look over 9001-2000 section 8.2.2 so that everyone is "on the same page"

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been on my last post. There must be an internal audit system that monitors all the elements of a quality system, whether it be ISO/QS/TS/AS/TE etc... but on top of it, a good business practice is to get continuous feedback on how the system is operating on a daily or weekly basis. This is done through "mini-audits" for lack of better words.

Does a line manager want to wait a month to find out how his/her operatives are performing? No, up to date information and a daily/continuous outlook will pinpoint deficient activities and lead to problem solving as the process runs, not monthly, quarterly or whatever the time fram of the "traditional" internal audit scheme.

By the way, don't be sorry to disagree, this is a forum for open discussion and we are all capable of adapting and learning as we go along. Your posts were informative and thought provoking, hope you register as a member of the Cove.

Have a good day!

ASD...

 

[Carl]

Al,

Now your talking! I agree a sound quality system would take full advantage. I meant only that it is unfortunate that Most ISO 9000 companies are more concerned with the certificate. It is the rare company that does not do Audits for the two points I mention above. As a quality Manager, it is my challange to try to "make them see the light" Not an easy task.

Thanks,

Carl-