Training Records - People who are not directly involved in processing product

[dbulak]

I was part of a conversation with other quality managers. The subject of training records came up. It seems that some companies did not include people who were not directly involved in processing product. For example, the accounting department. My thought is that all employees should have a training record and a job description. Would like opinions on this issue.
Again, thanks as always.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Re: Training Records

I was part of a conversation with other quality managers. The subject of training records came up. It seems that some companies did not include people who were not directly involved in processing product. For example, the accounting department. My thought is that all employees should have a training record and a job description. Would like opinions on this issue.
Again, thanks as always.

My opinion on this...each person involved in the Organization with responsibilities to assure that the organization meets the needs of interested parties should require some type of training and a record of that training.

It would include Accounting, payable, receivables and so forth. Accounting can affect interested parties, like suppliers, and customers.

But again, just my opinion

 

[pondo]

Re: Training Records

I concur.

 

[normzone]

Re: Training Records

In my experience you can choose to fight one of two different battles.

In the first, you establish that everybody has a job description, and all training gets documented in records. Initially you have to enforce this, and there are dissenters, but after a while people get used to meeting the requirements and it becomes routine, with only occasional lapses.

In the second, you allow exceptions because not everybody is directly involved with processing product. Because exceptions are allowed, you are periodically called upon to rule on whether this case is an exception or not. People begin not documenting things because they can rationalize that " it's not REALLY directly involved with product ". Then sooner or later something directly involved with product doesn't get documented, and you have to deal with the consequences.

I prefer the former situation.

 

[Stijloor]

I was part of a conversation with other quality managers. The subject of training records came up. It seems that some companies did not include people who were not directly involved in processing product. For example, the accounting department. My thought is that all employees should have a training record and a job description. Would like opinions on this issue.
Again, thanks as always.

When I receive these questions from my Clients regarding "ISO says this and ISO says that", I suggest to the Client; forget about ISO for a while. Does it make business sense to keep a record of training and development activities of ALL personnel? Does it make sense to verify and record that ALL personnel are competent?

Asking: "Does it make business sense" answers many "ISO" concerns and limits getting bogged down in what the document states.

 

[Marcelo]

The standard requires that people are competent, not trained. Training is one way to show competence (if training is a requirement).

Also, historically the requirement is related to people that can affect the quality of the product. So, people on accounting would not be required to have the competence demonstrated because they cannot affect the quality of the product.

 

[Marc]

The standard requires that people are competent, not trained.

Excellent point.

 

[RCH2016]

If accounting makes a billing mistake or a payment error, interested parties will feel the impact.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Good responses so far.

There are a couple of ways HR people go about this.

1) The traditional assigned roles approach, in which needed competencies are listed in job descriptions and people are brought in and prepared to fulfill the responsibilities to the extent necessary. This may require more resources for training, as people's talents and skills go unrecognized while the job goes unfilled waiting for the "perfect" employee or training is resourced for identified persons.

2) The skills matrix approach, in which peoples' talents and competencies are listed and matched to do needed jobs or tasks. This may require more time resources to identify everyone's skills, and to coordinate roles and scheduling.

Either way, it's true that the goal is competency. It's also true that it's about more than making product and/or delivering services. There are internal customers too, whose contributions are meant to help the organization succeed. They too must be competent to do their jobs. You wouldn't want an incompetent person to process your payroll, would you?

 

[Marcelo]

If accounting makes a billing mistake or a payment error, interested parties will feel the impact.

If the guy that cleans the bathroom does not clean it well, interested parties will feel the bad smell

As I mentioned, older versions of ISO 9001 clearly focused to have competence defined for people affecting product quality/requirements, which makes sense. The new version changed this for people that affects the "performance and effectiveness of the quality management system". This should be almost the same (as the QMS focus fulfilling on product quality/requirements) but gives margin to exaggerated interpretation, such as the ones mentioned.

The "interested parties"requirement too, which can go as high as you like.

Being reasonably, you should still determine competence to people affecting product quality and the like. It does not make sense (and I don't see it adding value, unless you think bureaucracy and paperwork is value) to require carefully defined competence requirements (and providing and maintaining the competence) things that do not directly impact your product/service.