Yet Another 7.2 Thread (sorry)
- Thread starter AHumanPerson
- Start date
I'm guessing there was some reliance on sampling plans.
AHumanPerson
Starting to get Involved
New question (I searched other threads on competence and wasn't able to find this): can a performance evaluation be considered equivalent to a competence assessment?
Looks like whats done here is support staff are evaluated based on "KPIs" tied to specific job functions that seem like they could reasonably be called competencies, but the "KPIs" operators are evaluated on are basically just scrap rate, production rate, and setup time. I guess those are at least indirect indicators of competence? What do y'all think?
Looks like whats done here is support staff are evaluated based on "KPIs" tied to specific job functions that seem like they could reasonably be called competencies, but the "KPIs" operators are evaluated on are basically just scrap rate, production rate, and setup time. I guess those are at least indirect indicators of competence? What do y'all think?
Last edited:
Randy
Super Moderator
Clear answer? Maybe, maybe not, it fully depends on what that activity (or process) looks for and evaluates against.
Want free example that outdates ISO 900-anything? US OSHA 29CFR1910.178 (l) Operator training (which includes a competency verification, retesting and all that.)
Competency is no more that demonstrated ability to apply, knowledge (don't matter where it came from) and skill. 50+ years ago I was awarded "Naval Parachutist Wings", they meant that I was "competent", not an expert, not the best and foremost, but competent (and I wasn't the best for sure).......Remember, even the lowest scoring graduate from medical school is called "Doctor" and has been determined to be competent.
What needs to be done? Is it being done as required YES or NO?
When I delivered/received formal training via instructor, we would (by process) include a performance assessment. Like all training materials... these existed on a spectrum.
"Performance evaluation" sounds (to me) more like an HR pencil-whipping exercise. I can't attest that I ever saw a performance evaluation for one employee that would meaningfully stack against some other random employee from the same company. With my direct reports I was always upfront and disclosed the mechanism for scoring the exceeds/meets/falls short metrics w.r.t. to work, all the 'personality' related stuff got 'evaluated' as individual comments, unless I felt there was a specific reason to document (for earned promotions, usually).
I certainly worked for managers that were not capable of delivering impartial evaluations... it can be pretty shocking to review performance evaluations with peers. I was often flabbergasted when reviewing the inconsistency in the past reviews of my newly acquired direct reports.
It is certainly an indication of competency isn't it? If they are meeting their performance goals, they are apparently competent. Simplest thing to do is have a section of the performance evaluation deal with any competency issues.
Randy
Super Moderator
What is the competence being evaluated?
What are the benchmarks or things that have to be ascertained or evaluated and against what criteria?
How often is the competency re-evaluated?
Who is doing the evaluation of competence?
Are they competent in the subject matter?
This is almost a process that can be described as a "mobius loop".
There are a few boogers in ‘using’ performance reviews as evidence of competence:
These can be remedied but I’ve experienced that those who can’t or won’t write an effective honest performance review are the same people who will whine and moan and NOT do anything approaching a true competence assessment because they like the current system which promotes their own incompetence (or laziness).
- What are the ‘objective’ criteria? Are they quantity related? (# produced, # defects ‘found’, #time s they violated procedures? - how do you measure that? Are they such that an individual person can be responsible for that metric? Or are they just blaming the operator from other’s mistakes or physics? Since most things that can be measured and that matter are based on a system of factors how do break it down to a single individual?
- Are they based on what their supervisor/manager and colleagues think of them? How do you know if this biased or not? (Ie how many ‘likes’ they got…
- From a privacy perspective, how can you even ‘show’ these to an auditor? Especially an internal auditor who has NO business seeing individual reviews?
These can be remedied but I’ve experienced that those who can’t or won’t write an effective honest performance review are the same people who will whine and moan and NOT do anything approaching a true competence assessment because they like the current system which promotes their own incompetence (or laziness).
You certainly can over-think it. And a lot depends on your risk analysis how deep you need to go. But for the average Joe worker it can work just fine.
Competency is evaluated at several steps. The initial review is during the hiring process. And then shortly thereafter during a "probation" period. Did the person's resume match is actual skills. Some positions go thru apprenticeship -- which has a competency review as part of getting moved from apprentice to journeyman. Some positions can get training with certificates demonstrating competency -- think CNC operators who have to actually perform to "graduate." Etc. Etc.
But then competency is also reviewed on an ongoing basis -- does this guy know what he is doing? That's part of the review -- what are his/her weakness? What can we improve on? What needs to be done to get to the next level? Etc.
And don't forget, we are looking for competency, not perfection.
You can redact identifying information if you need to show an auditor.
Similar threads
- Locked
