Is the verb "to train" synonymous with "make aware of"?
Training Records - Proof of "training" per ISO 9001 section 6.2.2 (b)
Is the verb "to train" synonymous with "make aware of"?
Is the verb "to train" synonymous with "make aware of"? In other words, if I see you're about to sit down on a chair, and I know that if you sit on it, it'll collapse, and I tell you not to sit on the chair, is that an instance of "training?"
Helmut Jilling
Auditor / Consultant
...no, would not be "training," per se. But a lovely example of "Internal Communication" cl 5.5.3.
Then how is making someone aware of a process change "training"?
I've experienced auditors for various standards asking specifically for a training matrix.
I agree that a matrix is not evidence of training. It's a handy tool to show who is trained in what.
The evidence lies in the training record.
unless the matrix IS the record.
I dont' have a training matrix. I have a training database kept by HR. This database is based on the training records which, in my system, are forms signed by the trainee. Every time a document is created or changed part of the approval process is to list required training. This also ties into the database.
Now - I kind of separate training and qualification to an extent.
A person may be qualified to do a job base on past experience and require no training on some systems. But a person qualified to do a particular job will need to be trained on other things.
Example: part of the qualification requirements for my job is called out in the job description is a BS degree in an Engineering field. The record of that is my resume on file in HR. (I've never heard of an auditor getting anal enough to want a copy of a diploma
)
On the other hand I had to be trained on certain company polices when I started - like safety rules and HR stuff. So there is a training record for that and it is in the database.
I agree that a matrix is not evidence of training. It's a handy tool to show who is trained in what.
The evidence lies in the training record.
unless the matrix IS the record.
I dont' have a training matrix. I have a training database kept by HR. This database is based on the training records which, in my system, are forms signed by the trainee. Every time a document is created or changed part of the approval process is to list required training. This also ties into the database.
Now - I kind of separate training and qualification to an extent.
A person may be qualified to do a job base on past experience and require no training on some systems. But a person qualified to do a particular job will need to be trained on other things.
Example: part of the qualification requirements for my job is called out in the job description is a BS degree in an Engineering field. The record of that is my resume on file in HR. (I've never heard of an auditor getting anal enough to want a copy of a diploma
)On the other hand I had to be trained on certain company polices when I started - like safety rules and HR stuff. So there is a training record for that and it is in the database.
Helmut Jilling
Auditor / Consultant
well, I didn't say it was. However, this is an example of the limitations of analogies.
If training means to "teach information not already known," then we would have to picture a range.
In some cases, at the higher levels, making someone aware of a process change could be categorized as training. At lower levels, it probably would be classed as communication.
If I warn you the chair is moved, it would be considered communication. If I explain the mechanics of the chair rollers, and explain the chair moves in your cubical when you stand up, thus putting your posterior at risk when you go to sit down, then it would probably be considered training.
...of course, I might prefer to watch you spill, just for the soprt of it, but then the safety guy will be mad at me for making a recordable...
Ah, but is training teaching information not already known? Or, is it imparting practical skills used to put information (already known or newly imparted)to use?
I called a friend to learn how to decorate cakes. She "told" me everything there was to know as she knew it. I am now "trained" by your definition, but when I went to the store and bought the supplies, put them together as she told me, mixed the frosting and started decorating, I ended up with a mess. She told me all the right things. I put everything together right, but (and this is the huge part), I had not been "trained" to hold, squeeze, manipulate the decorating bag in a way that would produce the desired results. I DID now know that I needed to put the bags together correctly, hold the bag at a certain angle, squeeze and lift or squeeze pull and lift in some certain combination. What I didn't have was training to put all my newfound knowledge to use.
Training is much more than passing along information (knowledge). How many times have you heard someone say, after they got to try something new, "Oh, that makes sense now, I just didn't understand how it could work when you explained how it was done!" ?
Last edited by a moderator:
Helmut Jilling
Auditor / Consultant
No, I would still say you received some training. Apparently, you learned some things, enough to purchase the right supplies and begin. But, it would seem that your level of original competence needed more training than the little bit you received. I would say the training took a good start, but was not completed. You needed more...and apparently, it was therefore not yet effective. But, you did learn more than you knew at first. Further, she could pick up where she left off and continue your training.
If you prefer to call that communication, that is ok too. Training obviously has a very significant communication component. My position was that at some point communication begins to become training. They start from the same position. But training does not end (deemed effective and complete) until the knowledge is learned and synthesized. It's not done and effective until the practical skills are in place.
Last edited by a moderator:
Q
qualeety
thanks for your comments...will keep you informed when the final outcome happens
M
michelle8075
I came across this thread looking for something similar.
Recently, our receiving clerk was out on medical leave. Their "back up" was doing two jobs (their own and that of receiving clerk). In that time, I decided to review the job the back up was performing. It seemed that they were not aware of several records we kept in that area. We keep a log of discrepancies, a log of customer supplied product that wasn't up to date. The back up wasn't "aware" they had to complete the tasks or even how to do them. This proved a big issue. Other departments were "handling" what they felt was being missed in their requirements. Also, key quality metric statistics and data weren't being compiled.
After a couple days of that, we hired temporary personnel. Normally, the manager is in charge of completing in depth training for their new personnel. Since the manager was out and offsite on another project, I completed the training for the temp personnel. Still, after training them (included going screen by screen, step by step in the work instruction and being with them) they weren't always doing what logs were required.
Anyway, I am the QM and I conduct Quality Orientation which includes an overview only of our Quality System. I state that the managers are responsible for in-depth quality records, wi, etc. training. I don't get any type of evidence that they have trained their employees on these quality documents, wi, procedures, etc. I don't even get something back that says that the training was effective. The effectivness part though, can come out of my completion of internal audits in that process.
So, I do like the idea of creating a training matrix outside of what is in their job descriptions on the quality policies, procedures, wi, etc. That would help.
My question: For new employees, must I have evidence (sign off) of in-depth quality documentation, procedure, etc. training that their manager conducts? Should I be getting something from my manager's showing that the training was effective? I might be seriously missing something.
Recently, our receiving clerk was out on medical leave. Their "back up" was doing two jobs (their own and that of receiving clerk). In that time, I decided to review the job the back up was performing. It seemed that they were not aware of several records we kept in that area. We keep a log of discrepancies, a log of customer supplied product that wasn't up to date. The back up wasn't "aware" they had to complete the tasks or even how to do them. This proved a big issue. Other departments were "handling" what they felt was being missed in their requirements. Also, key quality metric statistics and data weren't being compiled.
After a couple days of that, we hired temporary personnel. Normally, the manager is in charge of completing in depth training for their new personnel. Since the manager was out and offsite on another project, I completed the training for the temp personnel. Still, after training them (included going screen by screen, step by step in the work instruction and being with them) they weren't always doing what logs were required.
Anyway, I am the QM and I conduct Quality Orientation which includes an overview only of our Quality System. I state that the managers are responsible for in-depth quality records, wi, etc. training. I don't get any type of evidence that they have trained their employees on these quality documents, wi, procedures, etc. I don't even get something back that says that the training was effective. The effectivness part though, can come out of my completion of internal audits in that process.
So, I do like the idea of creating a training matrix outside of what is in their job descriptions on the quality policies, procedures, wi, etc. That would help.
My question: For new employees, must I have evidence (sign off) of in-depth quality documentation, procedure, etc. training that their manager conducts? Should I be getting something from my manager's showing that the training was effective? I might be seriously missing something.
Similar threads
