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

[Marc]

Also see "Job Description/Requirements" which HR usually handles.

 

[Marcelo]

You wouldn't want an incompetent person to process your payroll, would you?

Surely not, but you also should not need to have to show to an auditor your carefully compiled competence matrix for your bathroom cleaners.

You obviously want to have competent people at all levels of the organization, but for compliance with a QMS standard, you would be better focusing on people that affects the product/service. Otherwise, what usually happens (and I've seen this a lot because in Brazil we do see people requiring that bathroom cleaners have explicit competence requirements) is that you focus on everything and loose your focus on the important stuff.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Surely not, but you also should not need to have to show to an auditor your carefully compiled competence matrix for your bathroom cleaners.

I'm not aware of a needed competency for bathroom cleaners, but I can certainly vouch there is a wrong way to do it and a client might be affected by that. But do they need to be on a matrix? If they would be, the list of needed skills for that would be so short that it's a quick line item for HR. Such a line might better rule out people from performing certain jobs in cases like, for example sensitivity to chemicals. In a smaller organization this sort of thing needs to be figured out. Reorganizations often involve the exercise but many people's skills still get missed. Mine did - and I don't mean janitorial skills, though I have them from the Navy.

It is true that the major focus belongs on areas that can affect customer satisfaction, but I do reiterate other skills, such as accounting, should be recognized and planned for. People who process controlled documents might need more technical capabilities, perhaps in Word.

 

[Marcelo]

It is true that the major focus belongs on areas that can affect customer satisfaction, but I do reiterate other skills, such as accounting, should be recognized and planned for.

And I don't disagree. What I think does not make sense is this being required by a QMS standard. It's a business need, not a QMS need.

 

[Jen Kirley]

And I don't disagree. What I think does not make sense is this being required by a QMS standard. It's a business need, not a QMS need.

It is hard to know where it starts and where it ends, isn't it?

I can offer that I have never once asked for a janitor's training records.

I have, however checked for their correct use of labeling on secondary chemical containers. But that is a different standard. Nonetheless, it is a competency need or the need for their supervisor to assure the right thing happens. It just depends on what is relevant to consistently ensuring the right things happen as the organization determines in context, then risk assessment and general planning. And with 2015 versions the intent is to make the QMS more clearly about business needs and less about a list of Shalls with a limit in focus on product/service.

 

[E Wall]

Let's not forget the core purpose of having using* a standard: The Customer, and as many reference ‘involved stakeholders or interested parties’

IMHO, if the processing activity can have an impact that negatively affects the customer/stakeholder/interested party (including the organization) then ensuring competency through training on initial process activities (as new-hire) as well as during change management is vital.

ETA: Remember the OP didn't ask what any standard requires:

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.

2nd Edit - as correctly pointed out by Marcelo my focus was on using not developing/writing a standard.

 

[Marcelo]

Let's not forget the core purpose of having a standard: The Customer, and as many reference ‘involved stakeholders or interested parties’

Sorry to disagree, but the core purpose to have a standard is, in most cases and in particular in the case of QMS requirements standards, to be evaluated by it (you don't have to use a standard to implement a QMS, or anything else). That's why it's important to focus on what really matters.

The trending of ISO 9001 to try and encompass all business aspects in a QMS standard is, in my opinion, really more related to grow the certification/consulting/other business, than to help customers.

The manufacturers know how to help customers as they should know their business. If they don't, a standard won't help at all.

ETA: Remember the OP didn't ask what any standard requires:

He did ask in the ISO 9000 series forum, thought. That's why I mentioned past standards as better examples.

 

[E Wall]

Healthy discourse is great for all.

I was taught and still agree with: Standards are set to establish requirements designed to ensure the reliability of the materials, products, methods, and/or services provided by an organization. Thereby establishing repeatable, reliable systems resulting in a "quality" product/service provided to customers or public at large. An organization would not do this unless it helped achieve its business goal(s); and these are intrinsically tied to an organizations customer base (for profit or not).

 

[Marcelo]

Standards are set to establish requirements designed to ensure the reliability of the materials, products, methods, and/or services provided by an organization. Thereby establishing repeatable, reliable systems resulting in a "quality" product/service provided to customers or public at large. An organization would not do this unless it helped achieve its business goal(s); and these are intrinsically tied to an organizations customer base (for profit or not).

I'm not sure if you participate in standards development, but after participating for more than 14 years in several Brazilian, ISO and IEC WGs creating standards, I can say that my opinion is totally different than what you say. What you say is correct, and it's a good way to show an idea of standards to users (who are not aware how standards are created), but there a a lot more to it than simply wanting to help whoever it may be (I would say most standards are created to help people creating the standards . Surely they do help others, including customers, too).

 

[RoxaneB]

My thoughts are aligned with Jan...put aside ISO and think about the business as a whole. Why wouldn't you have job descriptions for everyone? This allows an organization to then identify required training needs (such as familiarity with ISO 9001 or document control or spills containment or health & safety protocols or MSDS and so on).

Forget ISO and think about the value to be gained by having one system within the organization...in this case, identification and communication of responsibilities. Who does what...who needs to know what...why should the process of identifying this be any different for the President, the Quality Inspector, the guy on the line, or the janitor? If people know what they are responsible for, now we can start to figure out competency, achievement of goals, etc.

If you're under a deadline, it makes sense to apply the process to those directly involved in the process meeting Customer requirements, but as the culture grows and evolves, I highly encourage you expand the scope to include all positions. There is a benefit to the organization doing so.