Confirmation that workers have read and will follow procedures

Your boss is correct, and very astute! I see zero benefit in getting people to do this, Anna. People will not participate unless they helped to create the documentation. Rely on the audits - that's all you need.

 

It's not required any place I'm aware of (standards, that is). I see nothing but issues, since - for the most part - the vast majority of folks aren't in the least bit involved in using procedural documents unless a) there's involvement in creating them b) a demonstration by (upper) management of the need to follow a documented process and c) an awareness why it's important to follow the process and how to handle when things don't go to plan. Simply signing off and wanting that seems to me to be a symptom of an underlying (cultural) issue which the software won't make any better.

 

I think we're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. It's called a job description where expectations are clearly laid out. Documents may come and go, but the overarching expectation is "Thou shalt follow the documentation relevant to your role and responsibilities." If your employees - who are responsible adults - are saying 'yes' without actually reading the document, shame on them. They are opening themselves up to "dismissal with cause" if found to be a contributing factor to an event by not following the documented procedure.

That said, an organization does need to take some steps to ensure they have developed an effective process for capturing training of employees. In my opinion, your current one works but is top-heavy with manual-ness. In a previous job, our document control software allowed us to:

• Assign impacted roles/positions to documented procedures
• Assign requirements upon revisions (e.g., no training need, e-training, formal training)
• Follow-up on outstanding training with process owners (e.g., "No response" to e-training requirements, incomplete formal training)

From there, audits and review of results (i.e., achievement of targets to process measures) gave us some sense of assurance that processes were being followed as directed. If results were not achieved or audits discovered a lack of conformance to documented process, it was up to the root cause analysis to determine if it was a training-related issue.

 

The only way I know of to truly measure if somebody read and understood something is by testing them by either asking questions and grading the results; or through demonstrated proficiency.

Otherwise, I think your system is just fine for what it is: demonstrating that people acknowledged they read and understood something.

If the boss is that concerned, I would suggest paying somebody to write, validate and administer test questions. And.. have a process for what to do if somebody doesn't pass the test.
Or, establish some kind of on the job assessment. Caution on this one... people are odd; and behavior and performance might be unduly affected due to observation..

My suggestion: keep doing what you're doing, and invest more time in process monitoring and improvements.

 

I have seen the voting button feature in Outlook used to great benefit because (as it was shown to me) there is a feature in it to produce a report showing those votes, by whom and their date/time stamp.

Golfman25 is right: you cannot do more. People need to be responsible, and accountable if they do not actually read the procedures. Keep in mind though, that not everyone will remember what they read the first time through. You can't control that either. We can only do so much.