7.2 Competence.

"The organization shall... retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence". This is the statement of the standard.

Yukon's statement is this: "Did you take any training for the upgrade...can you show me proof of the training?... Tony, if you can't answer these questions in the affirmative than a major NC would be raised because quite simply here is no evidence that you even know what the changes are".

The standard doesn't specifically require "proof of training" but "evidence of competence". Yukon throws a leading question as if the "only" evidence of being aware on the new requirements of a standard is the "proof of training".

The standard even mentioned the word "appropriate". If the auditee has the experience in setting up and implementing systems from the earlier to the 2015 versions for various organizations, attending a training may add little value and to use any "documented information" associated with the upgrade training for 2015 version as "evidence of competence" seems no longer "appropriate" for him.

By looking only at "proof of training" as "evidence of competence", the auditor failed to see the forest for the trees. I'm sure there is a profound reason why the standard place this statement: "ensure that these persons are competent on the basis of appropriate education, training, or experience" before the requirements for retaining appropriate documented information as evidence of competence.

 

So let me ask you this. Who trained the trainers? The ISO people issued a new standard and within a few months all sorts of "training" on the updated standard was available. The training providers didn't have any experience with the standard. How was all this training material created and by whom?
Why isn't my ability to read not sufficient to determine what the changes where and to implement those changes?

 

So why would you rely on the "training" of some mysterious organization? I could simply make something up and issue pretty certificates and they would be "trained." And to do that, I only need to read the standard and say "hey, that changed" and drop it into a power point.

So why can't we do that ourselves? If we have read the standard and compared it to the old one, why isn't that enough? For those of us who have ridden previous rodeos, it is enough.

 

or experience

 

namely: b ) ensure that these persons are competent on the basis of appropriate education, training, or experience. it does not say you need education training and experience, it says OR referring to one two or all are ALL ways of handling competence. it says or not AND.

 

But why would you say it that way? The standard requires competent auditors, not trained auditors. Wouldn't it be better to say "Internal Audits were conducted for each process by competent internal auditors as evinced by a review of their experience and audit results?"

 

The clause we are debating is titled "Competence". The standard mentioned the basis i.e. education, training,or experience. If an organization lacks the competence, the standard even mentioned the applicable actions to acquire competence such as training, mentoring, or hiring/contracting a competent person. But Yukon keep on his limited view that competence can only be achieved by training. Yukon mentioned (ad nauseam):

• "How can you have experience with the 2015 standard if you were not trained"
  
• "The key word here is training not education and not experience but training"
  
• "In summary Tony, not trained equals NC and I will accept that it may be Major or Minor depending on the variables".

Competence is foremost here not training. Even the title of this thread is "7.2 Competence".

 

Because competence can be gained thru experience (as well as education, training, etc.). My training in the QMS standards happened 20 years ago. A group of us spent 6 months learning about the current standard at the time and how to apply it to our companies. We got certified and ran our QMS. Since that time with every change of the standard, I took the new one, my pen and my post it notes and read it noting things that changed and items of interest. I may have even asked a question or two on these boards. No training and no certificates to show auditors. We then made applicable changes to our QMS. It's not that hard. It's not rocket science. But according to you, I am subject to a major NC because I can't show you a training certificate to the latest standard.

 

If I would encounter an auditor who can't understand that there are other ways to acquire the necessary competence, then I will surely show him/her the door. Call the CB and complain that they are not sending people that can competently assess our system and approaches.

 

Agreed

 

Rut oh. Since that time I have had six auditors and at least 2 CBs. Not once has my competence or "training" been an issue. And we are still certified. Go figure. Miracles happen every day.

You appear biased towards "certificated" training and unwilling to accept other avenues of competence. That's unfortunate for an auditor and his clients.

 

The issue that we lengthily debating is not about curtailing the importance of training. Training is important for those who need it. What we are debating is that a major NC will be raised just because the auditee (whose been setting and implementing ISO 9001 from the earlier to the latest version for various organizations) did not attend an upgrade training to ISO 9001:2015.