We say that their job description outlines the duties and competencies that each person should have. Their resume and job interview is used to see if they meet all our criteria.
Great - a widely accepted method. These records (eg, JD + resume + interview notes/record) show that requirements have been specified beforehand, and that the successful candidate meets those.
The compentencies outlines in the Job Descriptions say that they have to "adhere to all quality policies, procedures, work instructions,etc.". However, nowhere does it say in the Job Description "Follow xyz procedure, and be competent at it"
No - and not much point putting it there either! The requirement to adhere to the system is a general one, often in the policy manual. All the policies may well apply - but does everyone really need to know ALL the procedures & work instructions? Or (as is more likely) are some procedures required for everyone and then some others only according to role? Eg, sales staff need to know the Sales procedure, say, and Production staff need to know the Production procedures, as well as work instructions. One way of doing this is ye matrix that others have already mentioned.
Basically, this is the question that I am still wondering about and need help with. (What training is enough, i.e. what are other companies out there faced with this similar situation do? what records have to be kept?proving effectivness to me ins't really an item with me anymore.)
I think for the employees to be competent at their jobs, they need this indepth quality training, as our managers consitantly fail to provide new employees with this indepth training.
What is enough really depends on your particular company & people.
Re. constantly fail... is there data/evidence/indicators that this is so? You might try looking for the data that supports this (eg, high product failures/faults? breakdowns in service? incidence of complaints) & use that to communicate the message.
They do learn "on the job", but without knowing about our policies and procedures that exist how will they ever know the intricate details and how are they going to carry out their job without consitantly being in noncompliance?
It can be expected to take some time - no one can get it all immediately (which is why training -- beyond just induction -- AND evaluating the effectiveness of same is important). But why don't they know about policies & procedures? Surely the training given includes knowing about these & where to find them?
I guess I don't understand why a new employee wouldn't be required to have in depth quality training by their managers on what their jobs require them to do. However, a current employee, having a new procedure in place, needs that training. Sure a new employee coming in can be competent at the job, but the details of how that job is carried out is another issue?
Maybe I'm just really confused....
No, I think you've put your finger right on the weakness. An existing employee doesn't necessarily need training in a new procedure. It may be enough for them to simply be made aware that the new procedure exists, and for them to read it & apply it.
But for newbies - yes, of course it's needed. Ways of doing really do vary, according to the size, nature & type of company, & the formality of the system. Here are a couple of examples:
* Newbie gets basic induction (specified on a checklist/form or similar). Form signed off by by both parties post-induction = record. Manager then assigns newbie to a buddy, who keeps an eye out, provides OTJ (on the job training) as required. Manager checks back with buddy & gets confirmation that newbie is OK - record could be an entry in mgr's diary (informal) or a formal signoff by assigned supervisor/manager of compentency.
May also include that after a specified period (3 months), Manager does performance review, writes up results, plan for further development as required.
* Project-based company, highly professional staff & contractors & high turnover: basic induction given on key points of system, including where further doco is, how to find it, when to use it. Follow-up: written test on important points, including references to the policies/procedures: they must use the doco to find the answers. QM reviews test, and follows-up any less than satisfactory answers (or those that indicate incomplete understanding, say of document control). Further monitoring via manager - records in team meeting minutes/actions.
What I experience, all too frequently, is managers telling me that they have 'done training' for their people - but they have not even a basic bullet list of what the training consisted of (ie, its content), nor nothing to show (other than verbal assurances again) that the person is now competent for their role. Which can't demonstrate any evidence to meet 6.2.2.
Hope these help. But do remember, it isn't just records of 'training' per se that is required, it's evidence of education, training, skills & experience. One MD got very hot & bothered about this when he appointed someone without any resume or interview. Why? because he'd had a lot of experience with this particular person over a period of at least 2 years in a professional capacity, & was highly impressed by her performance. He could simply make a (written) statement to that effect, & that would be a record.
