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

[Marcelo]

I'm thinking that we are mixing some stuff here, and that's why the discussion is a little difficult.

The OP questioned about training and job descriptions.

Training is related to competence, it's one of the ways to give and demonstrate competence to people.

Job descriptions have nothing to with with showing competence. Job descriptions only show what people is expected to do, not why they are competent to do it.

So, if you think it's important to have job descriptions for everyone, great, do it for everyone. But I still think it's a business need, not a QMS need.

In the case of the QMS, having and showing competence is important. It's also important to have competent people in all levels.

However (and this is the focus of my original comment), for a standard such as ISO 9001, it does not make sense to expect that all competence requirements for all people in the organization are evaluated during an audit. so, from the standpoint of a standard, for external evaluation purposes, it makes sense to focus on people who affect product/services/customer satisfaction. If you want to include competence requirements for everyone, it's your business need/problem.

 

[Candi1024]

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

Costumers have such an important role. If they do their job wrong, I would look like Jaba the Hut on Halloween instead of the princess that I was aiming for!

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. It made me chuckle.

 

[Marcelo]

Costumers have such an important role. If they do their job wrong, I would look like Jaba the Hut on Halloween instead of the princess that I was aiming for!

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. It made me chuckle.

I always work closely with my costumers to make sure that won't happen. Unless I want to look like Jabba the Hut!

 

[Jen Kirley]

This really is a good discussion.

Being so closely involved with standards development, Marcelo is quite right to keep the focus on what the standard says. Keeping in mind that while this question is placed in the 9001 forum, all the standards I work to ask the same competency question and their language is becoming more consistent as the revisions are finalized.

I am a process thinker, educator/trainer, and auditor with a masters certificate in human resources. Not to brag because I am constantly surrounded by people smarter than myself, particularly here in the Cove. I merely want to put that background into the perspective of not looking at elements in isolation.

It is true that job descriptions and the matrix approach do not show competency and they are not spelled out as shalls in the standard. They are, however planning tools and the standards all ask for planning of resources, so I brought it up. They, or something else that's effectively used, are an input to the training and competency clauses now, and the knowledge management element in 2015 versions. The key words include, for example relevant. in 7.1.2 of 2015, it says "The organization shall determine and provide the persons necessary for the effective implementation of its quality management system and for the operation and control of its processes." Arguably that includes processes that contribute to customer satisfaction, but an organization that determines it does not want to get into labor law or tax law problems can decide competency is needed in internal customer processes like payroll. I would not be asking for that person's training records though, as I do process audits and the records I ask for are those of persons included in my sample.

I hope this helps!

 

[E Wall]

This really is a good discussion.

Agreed Jen!

I still hold with my previous statement (revised to confirm intent was based upon use of standard not writing/development of one). Each organization must determine the needs for training based on the impact to all customers/stakeholders/interested-parties (internal and external).

I'm not advocating going overboard, or having plan for every possible 'what if"...but each organization still has to evaluate the risks/rewards tied to determining needs of the system...including training.

For consideration: The interrelated impact (quality, environmental, health & safety) to the organization in addition to bottom line mentality:

Skilled employees directly affecting product/services offered for sale/use are trained. Non-skilled employees follow general guidelines but no training requirement exists.

Now, picture this and think it through with the different types of skilled employees to identify the impact. Skilled employee A is injured because non-skilled employee B error. We can even keep to existing reference to Janitorial. Employee B mops floor but doesn't put up warning cones. Employee A walks thru area still wet and has a slip/fall incident resulting in head trauma and requires a week or more out of work.

What is impact to the QMS?
1. Loss of critical employee skills, necessitating role be filled by another with less or non-similar skills (if this is even practicable - some skills are much harder to find/develop and requires splitting existing work and reprioritizing burdening existing staff)
2. On-the-job training for replacement employee, typically equals lower output or production/productivity levels during training period and ties up resources of coach and increase of follow-up or inspection of their performance including rework.
3. Potentially missing promised ship/delivery of goods/service to customer
4. The ever intangible cost of quality - loss of confidence of customer, impact to employee morale, distraction of event, etc...

Most organizations I'm aware of don't have an abundance of extra personnel resources on hand for skilled work performed...usually the opposite is true because of the costs associated with their employment.

IN conclusion, put minimum acceptable requirements in place deemed practicable for the organization and through periodic review evaluate need for continual improvement.

 

[Kronos147]

Forget ISO and think about the value to be gained by having one system within the organization...

So many organizations fight this concept to their detriment.

 

[qualityfox]

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

For some positions we show that a person's resume or interview matrix matches the job requirements. No training record is needed if competent people are hired. I was hired to implement ISO 9001. My resume showed I had the skills and experience and therefore did not need further training.

 

[RCH2016]

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.

Hi, Marcelo,

Generally I agree, but we do have 1 exception where I am now. Our Safety Training must be attended by ALL employees, and that training is recorded in our training database. I know that different companies handle this different ways, though.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

In my opinion, everyone needs continued training at a minimum. Things change, like standards, job descriptions, requirements, procedures and so forth. Training is always a good thing for any organization in my opinion.

 

[RoxaneB]

For some positions we show that a person's resume or interview matrix matches the job requirements. No training record is needed if competent people are hired. I was hired to implement ISO 9001. My resume showed I had the skills and experience and therefore did not need further training.

People's resumes can be:

• False
• Inaccurate
• Stretching the truth
• Out-of-date
• Skewed
• ...and so on...

Bob has a driver's license. This means that Bob is TRAINED. This does NOT mean that Bob is a competent driver.

Bob's competency as a driver could be demonstrated through:

• A company test - although Bob passed a driving test to get his license, so tests are not necessarily the best approach.
• Insurance rates - If Bob has really high insurance rates, this could indicate a history of accidents and/or claims.
• Ticketed traffic violations - Frequent speeding, inappropriate parking, failure to signal lane changes, etc. are all skills required to be a competent driver, but if Bob has a lot of tickets, this could indicate he's not so skilled.

The fact that you have training is a great start, but it isn't a good way to demonstrate competency.