The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
  The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Registrars and Registration
  Training records

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Training records
Mark Bidinger
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 5
From:St. Charles, IL
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 10 October 2000 09:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mark Bidinger   Click Here to Email Mark Bidinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Our 5 facility division has a directive to acheive registration to the new 2000 standard. Previous to this decision, one of the facilities was working on 1994. During that time they had an outside form perform ISO 9000 1994 training (1/2 day) for all the employees. They are conserned now that they will need to incure additional expense to train on the new version. Is this really needed, would not a registrar consider the original training adequate, with perhaps and hour or so from the management rep on the changes and how the employees will be affected?

IP: Logged

awk
Forum Contributor

Posts: 19
From:Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 11 October 2000 10:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for awk   Click Here to Email awk     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Mark:

I hope this reply isn't appearing twice. I was keying and my format disappeared. I'll try again.

I would contact the company, which provided the ISO training, and ask them what their business practice is concerning the ISO 2000 version upgrade.

As a Trainer I am providing the upgrade free of charge to those clients that recently received training to the 1994 version.

awk

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 11 October 2000 03:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Some of the ISO training is pure bunk. The majority of folks in a company only need to know how to do their jobs. Who are they planning on training?

Remember - ISO does not require internal training on what ISO is, etc. It requires people to know how to do their job, etc.

IP: Logged

Mark Bidinger
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 5
From:St. Charles, IL
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 11 October 2000 04:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mark Bidinger   Click Here to Email Mark Bidinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
thanks for the input Marc. i agree this training is not required and not a good use of company funds, in my own facility I did the exposure training myself in a couple of hours, with more than anough overview for the operators. However we have some facilities that feel this is a good way to show an auditor that employees are being provided comminucation on the quality systems, your thoughts

IP: Logged

Andy Bassett
Forum Contributor

Posts: 274
From:Donegal Ireland
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 12 October 2000 02:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Andy Bassett   Click Here to Email Andy Bassett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I cant honestly see the sense in training people too deeply in the standard itself, as Marc says it is more important that they know how to do their job.

However, somebody inside the company needs to know the standard.
There seems to be some ongoing discussion about the use of Internal Auditors (ie should they audit against your procedures or against the standard), my guess is that a Certification Body will expect your Internal Auditors to have an understanding of the Standard, whatever your arguements are.

Coming back to your orginal question, it is very often said that if your company was doing what the standard originally intended, then the new ISO 9000:2000 is not greatly different from the old one, however my experience is that very few companies were doing what the standard intended,so i see quite a big difference in application and therefore some new training required.
I personally see absolutely no reason why the training could not be done by the MR, providing the training is of a good standard.

Regards

------------------
Andy B

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 October 2000 03:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree - someone inside has to understand QS (or ISO). This is not to say folks should be kept ignorant of what is happening. It used to be that I believed in, and did a lot of, internal 'awareness' training. As time went by I saw this to be mostly a waste of time.

As far as internal auditors understanding the spec, it depends upon what you expect of them. My personal advice is to limit internal auditors to process audits. Let your MR do a yearly "Are our major systems still compliant?" audit. Like awareness training, internal audits are over-blown in their perceived importance. I personally believe internal audits are for companies which have a low level of control of their employees. Take a look at Toyota and Honda - no internal audit system. They don't need one. Ask yourself why.

> From: "JRT"
> Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
> Subject: Re: Toyota & ISO 9000
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:22:43 -0400
> Organization: AT&T Canada IES

> In my opinion the Japanese system do not require auditing because of
> the structure of the system. The Toyotas and Hondas employ "Lean
> Manufacturing" concepts where visibility of quality issues is front
> and foremost. JIT ensures that quality problems surface immediately at
> all levels. Using my company as an example: we would rather deliver
> substandard quality as a result of a fault in our manufacturing
> process rather than stop production and fix the problem...cost before
> quality. Whereas Toyota would not produce substandard product. They
> would fix the defect first and absorb the cost. AS far as ISO is
> concerned the principles are sound. The Japanese have nothing to gain
> from ISO because their systems are superior and that is the bottom
> line.
>
> JRT...

I agree 100% - these companies do not need a 'customer satisfaction' specification or internal auditing to excel.

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 12 October 2000 08:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Finally, comments suggesting internal audits are not really needed or imo not even effective.
If your process cannot tell you when something is wrong, then you have more problems then an audit can fix.(Like tires, maybe)
Thanks, Marc for sharing this with us maybe it will catch on.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 12 October 2000 03:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Maybe Toyota is that much better - I don't know. Last time I looked, I don't remember Toyota having a car ranked in the top 10 of Consumer Reports (maybe they are in some other report that I haven't looked at). I also think their cars are just as expensive as any other car. So where's the beef? I know internal audits may not help Toyota, but Toyota may not be that good either. Now, Honda may be another story. I don't know. Altough their cars seem just as expensive as any other car, they may have a better quality system that catches defects before they get out. I have at least seen their cars in some car magazines and rated favorably.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 October 2000 04:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
1. I don't trust Consumer Reports any more than I trust JD Powers (which rated MSN the #1 ISP in the 'world' 2 years ago).

2. Cost is only relative to a class of cars and does not (should not) reflect a level of quality. You can have a 'quality' sub-compact and you can have a 'quality' luxury car.

3. In the cases of Toyota and Honda, they look at the situation from an integrated design / manufacturing environment. When those are done well there is no need for 'quality' systems.

I have a Mazda 626 in my drive - a 1989 with 245,000 miles - have had few repairs over the years. Still drives well, burns no oil (no major or minor overhaul, ever) and - well, it's a 2.2 litre turbo and its the best car I ever bought. Its it quality?

Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do). Just my lowly opinion...

IP: Logged

Andy Bassett
Forum Contributor

Posts: 274
From:Donegal Ireland
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 13 October 2000 03:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Andy Bassett   Click Here to Email Andy Bassett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:

Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do). Just my lowly opinion...[/B]


ie 100% agree, but i wander if this also applies to quality standard, ie they are only needed in environments with low discipline levels. This would cetainly explain why Toyota dont need it.

Regards

------------------
Andy B

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 13 October 2000 08:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I hear you, Marc, but I think the "Japanese phenomenon" is way overplayed - Toyota included. I had a GM van that had over 270,000 miles on it which is an American car from one of the much-maligned Big 3. All I did is change the oil regulary and did some other simple maintenance items.
My cost argument is based on a within-same-car-class comparison. I don't see Toyota as any more cost-competitive as any other car maker. I'm not trying to bash Toyota, I'm just saying that I wonder from all these quality management initiatives (especially from Japan) - where's the beef? Anyway, that's my humble opinion, such as it is....

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 13 October 2000 08:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm not pushing a Japanese is better thing. I just used Toyota and Honda because of the automotive bent. As I said, I don't put much faith in consumer reports so to me their ratings mean little. To me it's a person's experience. While I don't think all American manufacturing is sub-standard, I stand my my comments that internal audits are bunk in any well run company.

And cost is relative. If I buy a certain 'class' of car, I don't always expect price parity among the contenders. +/- a couple of thousand isn't always a deal breaker.

No big deal. I just believe the 'internal audit' phenomena is 'over played' in its importance, particularly to well run companies.

And again, I don't see this as a 'Japanese superiority' thing. There are many well run companies world-wide. Fed Ex comes to mind in the service sector.

IP: Logged

Andy Bassett
Forum Contributor

Posts: 274
From:Donegal Ireland
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 13 October 2000 08:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Andy Bassett   Click Here to Email Andy Bassett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Im not so sure Roger. Toyota are pretty well-known to have a cost effective structure, they are siad to be able to operate the plants at 78% capacity and still make money. (Womack and Womack 'the Machine that Changed the World)

They have consistently made money over the years, and out of proportion with their size. Many years ago when Mazda was rescued it was only done on condition that they adopted the Toyota Lean Production method.

I travel quite a lot and i am consistently hiring cars, Toyota's are definitely one of the best designed vehicles on the road. In my corner of Ireland the old cars that you see most often tramping along are Toyota's.

Their secret is a consequent displined approach to work, that i believe lies in their culture.

But if you beleived that, maybe consultants should be offering courses in 'How to run Disciplined Companies', instead of Baldridge, TQM, ISO 9000 etc.

The world is too complex and dynamic to say what makes companies succssful, which is why most management fads are just that. The only common factor that i have seen that exists in nearly every successful company is discipline.

Regards

Regards

------------------
Andy B

IP: Logged

CJacobsen
Forum Contributor

Posts: 48
From:Williamstown, MA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 25 October 2000 11:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for CJacobsen   Click Here to Email CJacobsen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have to agree and am happy to have found some similar trains of thought to my own. Although I have created, trained persons in use, and implemented some fairly comprehensive process and system audit schemes, this quote could not be any more true:
"Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do)."
Excpet that even here their effectiveness is questionable. If the discipline is that bad more than likely the supervision or management is seriously lacking. In this case no audit scheme in the world is going to ever do anything more than point out the problems - repeatedly!

------------------
Christopher E. Jacobsen
cej@cjsys.net
CJSystems

IP: Logged

Dave Davis
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 7
From:San Juan Capistrano, CA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01 November 2000 08:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dave Davis   Click Here to Email Dave Davis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'd have to slightly disagree on the issue of internal audits. 1) You are discussing Toyota as an example - the information source needs to be questioned. Are you sure Toyota does no internal audits, or are you taking the word of the person making the post. 2) Internal audits are more like verification of process and system capabilities and effectivness. How does Toyota rate it's process capabilities and effectiveness without some sort of audit? I agree that without the support of the executive management that no internal audit system would prevail... but disagree that it's does not add value in measuring a quality system.

[This message has been edited by Dave Davis (edited 01 November 2000).]

IP: Logged

Don Evans
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:San Jose, Ca. USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 03 January 2001 09:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Evans   Click Here to Email Don Evans     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Please do not confuse good business practice with "culture" Japanese or otherwise. How many of you followed the Mitsubishi Automotive problem last year with the raid on the Mitsubishi Automotive President's personal house? The Japanese government carted away several boxes of customer complaints. This was reported in the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Internal Audits are only as good as the people doing them and in some cases are very necessary. "Control" of employees or not.

Please be careful. Toyota is doing and has been doing a good job but only time will tell if they can continue. Internal audits proper conducted and sustained can only help.

------------------
Don Evans

IP: Logged

Ron Byrge
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 6
From:Cincinnati, OH USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 17 January 2001 02:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ron Byrge   Click Here to Email Ron Byrge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The folks on the floor need to know their job, what to do with non-conforming product, and what to do with suggestions on improving the system/process. As for ISO awareness, they should be able to tell me what the policy of the company is, and the fact that they are working to meet their customers requirements (internal or external). Other than that, additional training, while maybe a tax right-off, really isn't necessary or even beneficial.
Just my $.02 worth...

------------------
Ron Byrge
Operations Manager
CwC Registrar, Inc.
http://cwcregistrar.com

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 17 January 2001 03:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with Ron. I couldn't give a hoot less if an employee didn't know what clause "5" says. That goes for the Top management too.

I feel as long as people are aware of the procedures they are to follow, and verifiably follow them, they are meeting the standard.

Sure someone has to be trained.....but not everyone, and definitly not on every word.

Business is not in business to have training. Minimize and supply the basic information.

The load of dung that some put out saying that everybody has to know everything about a particular standard is just so much hog wash. I'm a registered EMS-LA and I don't even have the stinking 14001 thing put to memory. I know the basics and I keep one nearby at all times for referencing to. For me to ask more of an organization would not be correct by my way of thinking.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!