How do you interpret this phrase in the standard?

We had a Stage 1 audit yesterday and there was a significant amount of talk about the competence of the employees. One phrase in particular stands out to me. I've attached a screenshot but the phrase is:

"Applicable actions can include, for example, the provision of training to, the mentoring of, or the re-assignment of currently employed persons or the hiring or contracting of competent persons."

What exactly does this mean? It sounds like legalese amounting a whole lot of nothing.

 

Good day @claudiogut ;
@Miner describes it well.

I would also add the following...
1- Competence (as defined by ISO 9000:2015) is "ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results"
2- 'NOTES' within the ISO family of standards are not auditable to (i.e. your organization can not be held accountable to a 'NOTE')


Hope this helps.

Be well.

 

It kind of happened informally when the auditor was wrapping up. My colleagues in the room were engaged on that topic and we were discussing it yesterday.

 

As Miner and John have pointed out, no "interpretation" of that note is required as it's not auditable. Just make sure your people are competent which is generally done by a review of skills and abilities compared to the job requirements. Fix any gaps, which the note give examples of "fixes." Good luck with stage 2.

 

We have records of training and quizes to prove competency. I'm pretty sure those are enough to cover this, right?

 

In terms of the actual audit, sure. But I have had auditors point out points of emphasis and things they are seeing in the field to make sure we have them addressed. I appreciate the heads up.

 

Sure., better yet any reviews would be helpful.

 

It's not their job to say, "hey make sure you have this covered as I am seeing a lot of issues at other clients?" I guess, but as I said, I appreciate the heads up. I can choose to take a look or ignore it.

 

As @Andy Nichols and @Golfman25 have eluded to....'competency' is an output/demonstrated, whereas training is an input.

Depending on how they function, the result of competency quizzes can indeed demonstrate competency. Keep in mind, there also may be existing (day to day) ways of demonstrating as well...
e.g...
Consider a driver's license. We are trained, take a test, and are awarded a 'certificate' (license). However, if you've done any driving lately, you may have noticed that not all license holders are competent
So, what are the potential existing metrics that demonstrate a driver's competence?...
- Insurance records
- Police records
- etc...
The parallels in some organizations?
- First time throughput.
- Rate
...etc....

Food for thought.
Hope this helps.

Be well.

 

That is a silly, way over the top response. Talking about the particular standard and what's going on "out there in auditor land" is completely normal activity. It's not consulting. It doesn't breach confidentiality. They don't need any more credentials that what they have for auditing. They need not know anything about adult learning. It's just talking with people familiar with the standard. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Again, kind of over the top response.

Just look at the poster's case. A "comment" was made regarding competency. Their team looks at it and has a discussion. He comes here to get some input. He goes back to his org. and determines whether or not they have competency adequately addressed or whether they need improve it. Because of all that, it likely won't be an issue at audit time. There was absolutely zero harm with the comments by the auditor. And thinking, "it's not his job" so we aren't looking at it, may just lead them to a unneeded NC.