|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 ISO 9000:1994
 ISO TRAINING
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: ISO TRAINING |
|
Mark Smith Forum Contributor Posts: 32 |
posted 03 March 2000 10:00 AM
  
I currently have a Controlled company training matrix for ISO 9001 that identifies every position within the company along the horizontal axis and each Quality System SOP along the vertical axis (these SOP's are part of the quality manual and there is one for each element of ISO 9001). An "X" is marked to identify which SOP's are required training for EVERY position in the company. If I obsolete this matrix and simply provide an ISO overview to employees on a new hire and as needed basis, will I meet the requirements for element 4.18? All employees performing individual functions i.e. purchasing, are required to have records of training for that particular SOP and manufacturing people have detailed training records for each procedure they perform. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 04 March 2000 03:03 PM
Look at 4.18 in general. You don't have to train everybody in all the SOPs. Some people may receive no SOP training. Training is required for people to know how to do their jobs and associated documentation. Take an assembler. The assembler may not have to know anything about an "SOP' if s/he is trained in what to do locally as part of their job (eg. 'Put bad parts in the red box'. The assembler doesn't even technically have to know that the supervisor empties the box if that is the supervisor's job. People have to be trained in what is applicable to their job. And there is training as a strategic issue - which is another issue all together. IP: Logged |
|
Andy Bassett Forum Contributor Posts: 274 |
posted 08 March 2000 03:54 PM
I also use a Training Matrix, but in it i include three types of training. On the left axis i list the employee names On the top axis i list the training split into three groups A x marked next to the employess name means that he as to be trained in that particular procuedure or course, an A means that the training is already actioned. I also ensure that if the personnel have done any form of training the attend a Attendance sheet. Regards IP: Logged |
|
AJPaton Forum Contributor Posts: 73 |
posted 07 April 2000 04:15 PM
Back to the idea of personnel requiring training for their job. ISO section 4.18 says that personnel "shall be qualified on the basis of prorate education, training and/or **experience**". We've got people who've been building our product for 20, 30 + years, they don't need basics like Bill of Materials training, but how do we document experience replacing training? Thanks, [This message has been edited by AJPaton (edited 07 April 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Tom Goetzinger Forum Contributor Posts: 123 |
posted 07 April 2000 05:16 PM
In your training procedures, document your ability to "grandfather" skill or knowledge and a method for establishing that it exists. We created a mulitpurpose Training Communication form, which was signed off by the indiviuals supervisor as to what skills existed at the time we implemented our training records. We can also grandfather new employees based on their previous employment history and their supervisor's observation of their skills. We specifically stated that this only applied to production skills, such as blueprint reading, basic wiring skills, etc. IP: Logged |
|
barb butrym Forum Contributor Posts: 637 |
posted 08 April 2000 03:32 PM
grandfather based on their skills is the key...as it was always implied and will be stated in 9K.2000. record of proven proficiency, if you will..... in lieu of a training record IP: Logged |
|
Dawn Forum Contributor Posts: 245 |
posted 08 April 2000 11:23 PM
I, too have a matrix setup which specifies what job titles need to be trained on what procedures/work instructions. Unfortunately, due to this being a small company; we have a lot of employees doing lots of different stuff. It has turned out to be a night mare. Can anyone give me some suggestions on an easier way to maintain? Currently every revision must be signed off. It is a good system, but they are not getting signed off. I have resorted to hanging them on the bulletin board and this isn't working either. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 13 April 2000 06:27 AM
quote:Can you give some more detail of your problem? I have several small clients which have a matrix with all jobs and such. Each employee has a sheet which, as they complete training, the appropriate line is 'signed off'. A couple clients have a sheet for each job - when someone is trained they are added to the list of people qualified to do it. Are you over complicating the issue somehow? IP: Logged |
|
Susan unregistered |
posted 13 April 2000 04:06 PM
As a former mfg. mgr. in a wafer fab (with three separate mfg. sections) we were always downsizing/upsizing at the drop of a hat. The only way for us to keep the line moving was to do a tremendous amount of cross training not only within a section but between sections. We found that if we used an Excel spreadsheet(X bar = personnel, Y = certified positions within a section) we could monitor all personnel qualified/ certified at different jobs throughout the fab and move personnel as necessary. The second advantage was that it provided an easy tool for the supervisors to verify whether the appropriate individual certifications were current and available in the personnel files. IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
