Yet Another 7.2 Thread (sorry)

[AHumanPerson]

My organization is re-evaluating how it handles "training", and I'm trying to come up with a plain English, actionable reformulation of 7.2 so that the folks making decisions can understand how to approach it in a way that covers all the bases; I think they might have tunnel vision on maintaining an internal training program, and I'd like to help them widen their view to competence more broadly. Here's what I got:

1. Determine the competencies needed for the business to function properly.
2. Ensure that relevant personnel have those competencies by:
   a. assessing the degree to which they already have them;
   b. taking actions to fill the gaps identified in that assessment, likely by either hiring or training (externally or internally, classroom or on-the-job); and
   c. evaluating the effectiveness of those actions, and following up as needed.
3. Retain evidence of competence (as appropriate).

Does that sum it up? Does it sound like it might be a little easier to understand for folks not immersed in ISO-speak?

I left out the "on the basis of appropriate education, training, or experience" because I think it's more-or-less implicit in the rest of what I put down, and I'm trying to keep it simple.

Thanks!

 

[Bev D]

There is nothing wrong with this, but there is a glaring weakness that most companies struggle with (search for training and competency here): how to effectively assess competency. Think about it a bit and come back here

 

[AHumanPerson]

There is nothing wrong with this, but there is a glaring weakness that most companies struggle with (search for training and competency here): how to effectively assess competency.

This part seems fairly simple to me; just record who can do what from the competencies you determined to be important, then compare it to what you need. The shop I work at is small enough that (I think, anyway; maybe I'm wrong) supervisors and managers know pretty well what their people are already capable of. Am I missing something?

I'm assuming we're talking specifically about 2a in the thingy I wrote; maybe I'm not understanding because you're talking about something else and using the word "assess" for it and I'm just being dense. Are you talking about evaluating whether training results in competency actually being acquired? And new hires actually being able to do what they say they can do? That kinda stuff?

 

[Bev D]

Are you talking about evaluating whether training results in competency actually being acquired? And new hires actually being able to do what they say they can do? That kinda stuff?

Yes. That kinda stuff. Too many people think that competency is assessed by the operators taking a quiz or simply staying awake during training and signing the attendance list. In a small company having supervisors and managers ensure competency might be enough for operators (except highly skilled positions like welding or NDE testing, etc.). Many people here are not at small companies with relatively low skill jobs. And don't forget that this requirement applies to engineers, buyers, inventory control, IT…not just ‘operators’.

 

[AHumanPerson]

Yes. That kinda stuff. Too many people think that competency is assessed by the operators taking a quiz or simply staying awake during training and signing the attendance list.

Oh! Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about now. That's what they do here a lot of the time, and part of what I'm trying to do is show them that there are other options besides in-house classroom training, and other requirements beyond training. Not clear enough?

I'm also trying not to become prescriptive, because that's not for me to do. I thought clarifying the requirements would be helpful enough.

 

[Bev D]

Clarifying the requirements is never enough because too many don’t understand what they mean. For example: training does not equal competency. Assessing whether or not training ‘stuck’ is not assessing competency. I know a lot people who got all As in engineering college who couldn’t do the thing in real life. I know a lot of people that got straight Cs that could run circles around the straight A guys all day every day.
Another clearer example is driver’s training. Think about it. People go thru classroom training to understand the laws, then they start driving with a copilot…finally they prove they can drive properly with a practical demonstration (the actual driver’s test).

You don't have to be prescriptive (unless you do, some people just dig in their feet) but you do have to be descriptive: what are some of the things that can be done to actually assess competency? Your job isn’t to restate the standard; it is to implement it. Very different.

 

[AHumanPerson]

You don't have to be prescriptive (unless you do, some people just dig in their feet) but you do have to be descriptive: what are some of the things that can be done to actually assess competency? Your job isn’t to restate the standard; it is to implement it. Very different.

My job is to audit and report. It's really tempting to try to do more. But yeah, you're right, I could at least flesh out my explanation a bit more.

Today I'm following up on what I'm hoping is an instance of 7.2a thru c being followed in an effective and straightforward way. If it actually is that, then I'll include it in my next report as a positive observation and say "this is how you do it!"

 

[Bev D]

If you are an internal auditor then your job is to understand the difference between assessing training effectiveness and assessing competency. And so on…

 

[Golfman25]

My organization is re-evaluating how it handles "training", and I'm trying to come up with a plain English, actionable reformulation of 7.2 so that the folks making decisions can understand how to approach it in a way that covers all the bases; I think they might have tunnel vision on maintaining an internal training program, and I'd like to help them widen their view to competence more broadly. Here's what I got:

1. Determine the competencies needed for the business to function properly.
2. Ensure that relevant personnel have those competencies by:
   a. assessing the degree to which they already have them;
   b. taking actions to fill the gaps identified in that assessment, likely by either hiring or training (externally or internally, classroom or on-the-job); and
   c. evaluating the effectiveness of those actions, and following up as needed.
3. Retain evidence of competence (as appropriate).

Does that sum it up? Does it sound like it might be a little easier to understand for folks not immersed in ISO-speak?

I left out the "on the basis of appropriate education, training, or experience" because I think it's more-or-less implicit in the rest of what I put down, and I'm trying to keep it simple.

Thanks!

7.2 doesn't require training. Talking about training simply confuses things. Focus on what it required by 7.2 -- Competence.

So as you say -- determine the competencies required. Plenty of sources for that, for example metal working has NIMS. Match the competencies to the players. Improve where deficient. And don't confuse competent with expert or perfection. You can be a competent QB without being the MVP of the league.

Classroom training for most people and most things is basically worthless. You might be better with individualized training -- let me show you, then you show me.

Good luck.

 

[AHumanPerson]

Focus on what it required by 7.2 -- Competence.

This is what I intended to do. Apparently I have not succeeded. I guess one thing I'm leaving out is that I want to point to 2b in the list I wrote and go "training lives here (and it's only one way to address it); how are we handling the rest?" I think the confusion already kind of exists here, and I'm trying to show that training isn't sufficient to ensure necessary competence.

So as you say -- determine the competencies required. Plenty of sources for that, for example metal working has NIMS.

Thanks for bringing up NIMS! I spent some time looking at their job role standards after you mentioned them; could be useful.

Classroom training for most people and most things is basically worthless. You might be better with individualized training -- let me show you, then you show me.

Agree. The positive instance I referred to earlier is an example of the latter.