Training Records - Proof of "training" per ISO 9001 section 6.2.2 (b)

RCBeyette said:

This is where a training matrix outlining the training requirements comes in handy - even for small companies.

Training on ISO is too vague a statement. What kind of ISO training? If you're hired to help maintain their ISO programme, yes, hopefully you are familiar with the standard.

Internally, however, by Training on ISO, they may mean their own ISO system - doc control, audit programme, management review, etc. And that you will need training on to help you learn their system set-up.

That's why I suggested the matrix be developed to show which documents are applicable to a person when they start. To say that an individual needs to be trained on documentation leaves the door open to interpretation or worse, incomplete training. What happens if the person responsible for the training leaves and some one new comes in? How do they know what to training people on? Or do they trainin on everything because that's what has always happened?

Click to expand...

People, in general, don't need to be trained on documentation, they need to be trained in the operation of processes, and only to the extent that their existing competence won't help. An auditor's job is to seek evidence that processes operate in accordance with standard requirements, which can be evinced even if operators (for example) don't even know that documentation exists.

qualeety said:

auditor agreed that the company has covered education, skills and experience (section 6.2.1) but he raised the conern that the company is lacking in "training" aspect.

Click to expand...

Did the auditor issue a non-conformance, or was it an "Opportunity for Improvement"? If a non-confromance was issued - ask him where is the "shall". If it was an OFI - be gracious and thank him.

CarolX said:

Did the auditor issue a non-conformance, or was it an "Opportunity for Improvement"? If a non-confromance was issued - ask him where is the "shall". If it was an OFI - be gracious and thank him.

Click to expand...

All good words of wisdom CarolX. I agree with you. The Big Word SHALL

In my company we have determined minimum training requirements for floor personnel (by process). The floor level SOPs that are in place cover a variety of functions within that process. All employees that work in that area are trained to the General SOP for the area (with training records being kept on a matrix), however, not all parts of that SOP apply to everybody. The Floor Level SOPs are available to employees on computer terminals at employee workstations. We also have Process Sheets (Work Instructions that are part specific) available on computerized terminals at workstations. (employees are not trained to these). These training methods were in place when I came here a few months back. Now, I need to bring something up that has been bothering me. Past practice has been that if there is a revision to an SOP, even if that change doesn't affect what an employee is doing, we re-train all employees to the new version of the SOP. This can feasibly involve 100 or more people and to me seems to serve no purpose, other than being able to raise the training record revision level to the current SOP rev level. Would it be ISO9001 compliant to write into my documentation that when changes to SOPs occur that don't affect all people previously trained to the SOP, only those affected by the change shall be re-trained? Those not affected by the change would be considered trained to the new level and training records revised accordingly. Changing training record levels would of course, require approval by the Mgmt. Rep. to keep it legit. It just doesn't make sense to me to train people on revisions that don't affect them.

As far as Forum rules go here, should this have been another discussion thread? Sorry, if so.

Jim Wynne said:

People, in general, don't need to be trained on documentation, they need to be trained in the operation of processes, and only to the extent that their existing competence won't help. An auditor's job is to seek evidence that processes operate in accordance with standard requirements, which can be evinced even if operators (for example) don't even know that documentation exists.

Click to expand...

I agree from the viewpoint that having me read the document on internal audits will more than likely not improve my comptence as an auditor, at least in regards to asking questions...unless, of course, there happen to be forms within the company on preparing for a audit, checklists, etc. My failure to use these documents reflects upon my competency as an auditor and upon the training system. Hopefully, somewhere, there is something that says I need(ed) to be trained on these documents. This training will help in my quest to be a competent auditor within the organization.

Operators may not know that documentation exists. I don't like that idea, but if they're competent and the means to demonstrate this are in place (and effective), what I like and don't like is moot.

And now I step out of the realm of ISO and into the realm of due diligence. Individual is hurt on the job. Organization says s/he was trained on how to properly and safety perform his/her task. Individual says otherwise. A training record is required as evidence of training. And a (signed) training record that says "...SOPs and work instructions" is a much weaker form of evidence versus "Operation of Equipment A" which is weaker than something that clearly states that the training topic was "WI-123 Equipment A Operation (Rev. 5)". And a copy of WI-123 details the safe and proper means to operate the equipment. I know, I know...this isn't an ISO requirement.....

horselady said:

In my company we have determined minimum training requirements for floor personnel (by process). The floor level SOPs that are in place cover a variety of functions within that process. All employees that work in that area are trained to the General SOP for the area (with training records being kept on a matrix), however, not all parts of that SOP apply to everybody. The Floor Level SOPs are available to employees on computer terminals at employee workstations. We also have Process Sheets (Work Instructions that are part specific) available on computerized terminals at workstations. (employees are not trained to these). These training methods were in place when I came here a few months back.

Click to expand...

Good information Horselady.Thanks.

horselady said:

Now, I need to bring something up that has been bothering me. Past practice has been that if there is a revision to an SOP, even if that change doesn't affect what an employee is doing, we re-train all employees to the new version of the SOP. This can feasibly involve 100 or more people and to me seems to serve no purpose, other than being able to raise the training record revision level to the current SOP rev level. Would it be ISO9001 compliant to write into my documentation that when changes to SOPs occur that don't affect all people previously trained to the SOP, only those affected by the change shall be re-trained? Those not affected by the change would be considered trained to the new level and training records revised accordingly. Changing training record levels would of course, require approval by the Mgmt. Rep. to keep it legit. It just doesn't make sense to me to train people on revisions that don't affect them.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting question. My take would be you would need to notify the employees affected by the change, but re-training...I don't feel that would be needed. Only because the change did not affect the way the processes are performed.

Just an added question: What was the change in the SOP?

horselady said:

As far as Forum rules go here, should this have been another discussion thread? Sorry, if so.

Click to expand...

I don't feel that this should be a different thread, just because it is still part of the OP question. But, you might get better responses, that focus on this particular issue with a new thread.

Please allow me to preface this post with the comment that I am not questioning the company's processes or positions...I am, however, trying to understand their processes/positions.

qualeety said:

In this company there is no specific training required to do one's job. A newly hired person should be competent to do his/her assigned duties.

Click to expand...

If by "competent" you mean in general skills such basic math, able to drive a car and things like that, yes, specific training would not be required in my opinion either.

qualeety said:

The general training is given during the orientation training and is more than adequate for a new employee to function. There is no specific training based on the working instructions.

Click to expand...

So all of the documentation that is in existence impacts all employees no matter their function?

qualeety said:

The question being asked by the auditor is "how does employee know what he has to do". The company reply is "we have written work instructions for his/her reference and if he/she is not capable of doing the tasks, he/she would not have been hired" and his/her compentency is being measured by employee performance evaluation. The company position is not to "train" each employees. (eg. go through individual work instructions)

Click to expand...

How does someone who is new to the company learn, for example:

• Software / databases unique to the company
• Proper forms to use and the flow of those forms (e.g., If situation A, see Joe....if situation B, see Jane).

For the most part, anyone is capable of doing any task, but we need to be trained on it if it is outside of our previous experience. And the odds of a person starting with a company that has the exact same set-up and their former company are slim to none, I would think that some form of training would be required.

That being said, I'm certain that you do train people on documents but don't call it that. You train them on Software XYZ - which happens to be "Processing a customer complaint".

qualeety said:

orientation training records and employee performance evaluation signed off new employee & supervisor. (note: emoplyee performance evaluation is signed off twice..at the start of the employeement and at the end of probation then done annually)
job descriptions including accountability, duties/responsiblities, and skills/knowledge/experince required

Click to expand...

But how do you show that an individual is trained to use the software or the form or those items specific to the process? For existing people, the fact that they are competent via your current set-up is fine. But when someone new starts, how do they clearly know what the training requirements are? The responsibilities may say "Customer order entry", but how does that translate to the need to be trained on the order entry software/forms?

qualeety said:

so the question is....does the company need to micro "training" and need a training matrix?

Click to expand...

How is a matrix considered to be micro-training? It provides a clear link to show who needs to be trained on what within your system. This will ensure effective training. If someone's job is order entry there is no need for them to read the document(s) on product testing, for example.

When someone new starts, the learning curve is sharp. Yes, they may have fulfilled a similiar position at their previous job, but things are different at your company. Why clutter them up with documents/information they don't need?

Re: "iso 9001 training records"

qualeety said:

In this company there is no specific training required to do one's job. A newly hired person should be competent to do his/her assigned duties. The general training is given during the orientation training and is more than adequate for a new employee to function. There is no specific training based on the working instructions. The question being asked by the auditor is "how does employee know what he has to do". The company reply is "we have written work instructions for his/her reference and if he/she is not capable of doing the tasks, he/she would not have been hired" and his/her compentency is being measured by employee performance evaluation. The company position is not to "train" each employees. (eg. go through individual work instructions)....

objective evidence provided to the auditor:

orientation training records and employee performance evaluation signed off new employee & supervisor. (note: emoplyee performance evaluation is signed off twice..at the start of the employeement and at the end of probation then done annually)
job descriptions including accountability, duties/responsiblities, and skills/knowledge/experince required

so the question is....does the company need to micro "training" and need a training matrix?

Click to expand...

As long as the skills are all defined, and competency against those skills are all determined, you have met the ISO requirements. You are not required to "micro" anything. On the other hand, the way you have described it does not give me a high degree of confidence that your employees are likely to be highly competent.

If it is working for you, very well, but I prefer to see a more robust approach in most companies.

Coury:
The change to the SOP was an acceptable baume reading range, which only applies to those who take the baume readings.

horselady said:

Coury:
The change to the SOP was an acceptable baume reading range, which only applies to those who take the baume readings.

Click to expand...

Than I don't feel that re-training would be required in this particular event, only for the person performing the reading.