TS 16949 Clause 6.2.2.4 - Employee Motivation and Empowerment Procedure

[db]

We've written into our procedure the "ongoing" measure of competency, but I do think I'm going to try the grandfather (db, sorry for the use of that term again! ) clause - see if it flies. I think it should, based on the standard.

Provided you are not trying to apply grandfathering to Employee motivation and empowerment, I would agree.

 

[SteelWoman]

Nope, only to the issue of competence UP TO THIS POINT. From this point forward of course we'll continue to judge competence (though hopefully not mine, since mine is questionable at best! )

 

[Karen R]

grandfathering...

We were told during training that grandfathering was OUT and we could not use that like we did with QS - that we have to 'demonstrate competence' and our registrar seemed to indicate the same thing during our last QS audit.

Of course we dont' have a better answer yet - too bad your audit isn't before mine!!

 

[db]

We were told during training that grandfathering was OUT and we could not use that like we did with QS - that we have to 'demonstrate competence' and our registrar seemed to indicate the same thing during our last QS audit.

It may be in the way you are trying to use it. The example I use is a welder in a fab shop. Because his/her output has been satisfactory over a number of years, I can easily say that based on past experience the welder has demonstrated competence. I do not need to perform an annual assessment for competency, because I do that with every job. Remember, as time passes, some skills will deteriorate. My eyes are not as good as they used to be and my hands are less stable. But the competency is validated in my daily welding activities.
This does not apply to all competencies, and some may need annual appraisals. But I suspect the majority do not.

 

[SteelWoman]

We phrased it this way in our Training procedure:

"Similarly, employees who attained their job classifications prior to November 2003 were "grandfathered" into those classifications under TS16949 since adequate methods of judging "competence" (primarily performance evaluations) were in place prior to the implementation of TS. These employees are considered competent and qualified to perform the duties associated with their job descriptions at the time. On-going competency is routinely judged through the methods outlined in 5.2 (below)".

 

[Randy Stewart]

I agree with db. My initial response to an auditor would be "You want What?" 6.2.2.4 asks for a process, well we motivate our employees by publicly flogging one a day while making the others recite our quality policy. In that way we motivate them not to screw up or off and we are promoting quality throughout the organization.

Really, if a manager or someone in authority considers them competent then the auditor can't tell you their not.

I have never run into a problem with this portion of the standard whether QS or ISO.

 

[db]

I agree with db. My initial response to an auditor would be "You want What?" 6.2.2.4 asks for a process, well we motivate our employees by publicly flogging one a day while making the others recite our quality policy. In that way we motivate them not to screw up or off and we are promoting quality throughout the organization.

Really, if a manager or someone in authority considers them competent then the auditor can't tell you their not.

I have never run into a problem with this portion of the standard whether QS or ISO.

Ahh yes, but one of my major points is that motivation (6.2.2.4) and competence (6.2.2, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2, 6.2.2.3) are two entirely different things. You can motivate incompetent workers, and you can demotivate competent ones. There may be some connection (competent workers tend to be more self-motivated?), we are mixing fruit (so let's make fruit coctail)

 

[Randy Stewart]

I understand, all I'm saying is that if I decide that Joe Smuckatelli can operate the copier then who is the auditor to tell me that I'm wrong? (unless he finds a way to blow the thing up while the auditor is using it - then again how would he know that it wasn't on purpose?)
We have people that have been here for 10 - 20 years and we decided based on experience that they were competent. I shouldn't need a statement in my procedure allowing me to do that. That's all. :ca:

 

[SteelWoman]

Agreed. It absolutely DEFIES LOGIC that employees who are competent one day are suddenly "suspicious" or INcompetent the day you implement TS. We entered that line in our Training procedure because it's been a successful tool in audits, to answer the auditor's question before they get the chance to ask it.

 

[db]

I understand, all I'm saying is that if I decide that Joe Smuckatelli can operate the copier then who is the auditor to tell me that I'm wrong? (unless he finds a way to blow the thing up while the auditor is using it - then again how would he know that it wasn't on purpose?)
We have people that have been here for 10 - 20 years and we decided based on experience that they were competent. I shouldn't need a statement in my procedure allowing me to do that. That's all. :ca:

Absolutely.

BTW, I would never disagree with someone with as many green dots as you have.