1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

7.1.6 Organizational Knowledge

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by tony s, Sep 26, 2016.

  1. Robert Walker

    Robert Walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I'm pretty new to Quality Management and ISO, but this clause seems pretty clear to me. I keep hearing people talk about relational databases, successional training ect.

    "The organization shall determine the knowledge necessary for the operation of its processes and to acheive conformity of producdts and services." We have determined that knowledge and put it into processes and detailed process instructions, that is the knowledge necessary for the operation of the processes.

    "This knowledge shall be maintained and made available to the extent necessary". We have documented process instructions describing how to make product.

    "When addressing changing needs and trends, the organization shall consider its current knowlede and determine how to acquire or access necessary additional knowledge and required updates". Our engineering department developes new process by taking into consideration old processes and developing new ones, and records the data.

    Where does the clause insuate that we need to do anymore than what I have mentioned?
     
  2. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Good day Robert Walker-
    Specific to your question, is someone insinuating/indicating that your organization "...need to do anymore...?" The standard does not specify the "how" in regards to meeting the stated requirements (i.e., although relational data bases and succession training are valuable tools, they are not specific requirements of the standard). The short answer, therefore, is you may not need to do anymore than what you have mentioned. However...

    In regards to your response specific to the verbiage....
    "This knowledge shall be maintained and made available to the extent necessary". Please allow me to challenge your response/position, (identified below as "1")...
    1- "we have documented process instructions describing how to make product."

    Please consider if that position ("1'), may not be same/similar to your previous stated response/position (identified below as "2")...

    2- "We have determined that knowledge and put it into processes and detailed process instructions, that is the knowledge necessary for the operation of the processes.

    Note that the requirement specified by the standard states (to which your reply is reflected in #2), is "...maintained and available...".
    Specific to that verbiage I would ask if you believe your position/response #2 fully addresses the verbiage of the standard. I believe you may see some gap exists in this area that you still may want to address.

    Hope this helps.
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    So, my reply would be "How do you know what you know?" and, "How do you discover what you need to know?"

    John correctly replies that documents often convey process knowledge, with ONE big caveat. Maybe. A well known manufacturer I worked at had 3 honkin' binders of instructions, written by engineers on how to build the product - which were ignored, since they were written by engineers FOR engineers. The assembly workers figured out a better way...
     
  4. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Define 'better'...and did either set of final product ever require a recall? ;)

    Not to say the Engineer-based documents were useless, but they may be been written to include certain content so that the final product would be safe, sustainable, meet specs, etc.

    Assembly workers might consider these items, as well, but did they have the knowledge to incorporate these considerations into their revised process?

    Too often we forget about our audience when attempting to transfer knowledge. We had an InfoTech geek attempting to teach an old-school nurse on a new piece of technology. She was becoming frustrated with him and he didn't understand why she wasn't grasping what he was saying. Finally, in a huff, she stomped over to a supply cabinet and came back with a bag of saline and a needle and an alcohol patch. She dumped these in front of him and said "Inject the saline into your *****." He looked at her in shock. The nurse snapped, "What's wrong? I just told you what to do. Why can't you do it?"

    The InfoTech geek replied, "I don't know how to use these and I don't understand why I should do that."

    The nurse crossed her arms and said "Now you know how I feel."

    Since then, that InfoTech geek has become one of our better trainers. He learned the importance of knowing how to translate all of his knowledge into the language of his audience. He doesn't "dumb it down" or come across as patronizing...he has simply realized that it's necessary for the audience to understand the topic if we want processes to be conformed to and sustained.

    Anyone who writes training documents, especially if they are a Subject Matter Expert (engineer or not), would be wise to learn this skill.
     
    Pancho and Jim Gardner like this.
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    My (basic) point is that there's often an immutable belief that what's committed to procedures and instructions is accurate, when in fact nothing is further from the truth...
     
  6. SHALINI GUPTA

    SHALINI GUPTA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    PUNE, INDIA
    Hello everyone, I am new to qualityforum ..

    From my perspective I think the organization Knowledge 7.1.6 is asking for the lesson learnt from the projects eg.. the difficulty we faced, failures, challenges etcetc,.... so that we can consider this knowledge for future projects..

    Also, when an organization changes any system & process (or adopting any new technology ) they shall consider its current knowledge.

    shalini
     
    tony s and Andy Nichols like this.
  7. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA

    Good day @SHALINI GUPTA and welcome to the forum;
    I have found a great deal of information from the team that responds on this site.

    Regarding your original post, your comments indicate that you are grasping the intent of the standard well. If your organization can show evidence of what you are stating, (and that this knowledge is "...maintained and available...") then your organization is indeed meeting the requirement of the standard (and, more importantly, creating an environment for the success of your teams).

    Be well.
     
  8. SHALINI GUPTA

    SHALINI GUPTA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    PUNE, INDIA
    Thanks, John..

    I will share some examples, right now I am working on it.....
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  9. SHALINI GUPTA

    SHALINI GUPTA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    PUNE, INDIA
    When we talk about Organizational Knowledge- 7.1.6 cl

    The first step is to create the knowledge bank so that the organizational knowledge will be easily accessible/available to all the employees. In this knowledge Bank we will share lesson learnt from projects, success stories, failure stories. So that the same mistakes will not get repeated.

    Also, we have to ensure that the people in the organization are using this knowledge else this will be useless.:rolleyes:


    "When individuals leave an organization, some of their knowledge also leaves" , so we have to understand how to retain their knowledge.:cool:
     
  10. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Is this "knowledge bank" a database? Is it in MS Access? Any software you can recommend?
     
  11. SHALINI GUPTA

    SHALINI GUPTA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    PUNE, INDIA
    Hey !

    Hi Tony, I have read your almost all post. You have a very good knowledge over systems.

    Well you can store data and make it available within the organization the way you want :) ... Its upto the organization and people.
     
  12. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Hi, Shalini.

    While I think your organization's ability to capture lessons learned from projects - such as what has worked and what hasn't worked - is a great idea, what about the day-to-day activities? Are you capturing those standard/routine activities, as well, so that knowledge of these routine activities is maintained and, hopefully, consistently applied?
     
  13. Serious Man

    Serious Man Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Most peoples are afraid of bureaucracy and boycott idea of creating any instruction.
    It is a best way to loose gradually a whole knowledge company had collected from a start of its operation.
    I see how it works in practice, when personnel turnover, absence of person who "remembers problem from the past" / "knows all the tricks of this activity", results in troubles.
    Troubles which takes money to be solved or additional time at least.

    Perfectly, there is a person with high managing skills who recognizes organizational current and future knowledge abilities and decides how much instructions organization needs.
    Evolution level - start from madness stage where there are instructions for everything. Later carefully eliminate some of them, but think twice before you eliminate.
     
  14. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    While I understand the concern you're presenting, part of our role as "agents of quality" or "agents of management systems" is to help convey the WHY behind the importance of standardization. Standardization may or may not come in the form of documentation; to your point, it's identifying where/when such documentation will add value.

    For some organizations, perhaps work instructions per se are not required, however, what about documentation for risk mitigation, and contingency and succession planning? Framing the need of/value for capturing knowledge from that perspective would perhaps resonate more with an organization over saying "Yeah, we need work instructions because of the standard or for the auditors."

    People win the lottery and leave. People are promoted. People retire. People move away. Whatever the reason, the shift within even one person's role can leave a gap of knowledge within an organization, potentially increasing the risk to the ability to meet stakeholder requirements. Having key/critical processes documented so that cross-training can be done in advance of such an event or having them available to help someone stepping into the role with little or no knowledge can help to mitigate such risks.
     
    John C. Abnet and Pancho like this.
  15. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    62
    The problem with standardized instructions is they are all "fastballs." Anyone can hit a fastball. But business throws numerous "curve balls" at you. True organizational knowledge is knowing how to handle the curve balls.
     
  16. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    A solution to this is to go beyond documenting the "happy path". It's easy to document the steps and activities when everything goes well, but I also document what to do when things don't go according to plan. I'm sure I haven't covered everything (i.e., the unknown unknowns), but between this approach and the identification/management of risks, I'd like to think that some of those "curve balls" that come our way can still be turned into "homeruns."
     
    Pancho likes this.
  17. Pancho

    Pancho Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Cypress, Texas, USA
    Great comments, Roxane. Couldn't agree more.

    Standardization is continuous improvement. Curve balls produce most strikes (NCs), but they are learning opportunities. And knowledge is most effectively captured in clear instructions on how to handle them wild pitches.
     
  18. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Very well spoken Roxane. (I used to use the "hit by a bus" analogy, but decided that "win the lottery" is much more appropriate)
     
  19. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    FWIW, I used to use "hit by a bus" or "beaned by a cobble" (it was an industry term) to denote a reason why there could be gap in personnel and/or knowledge, but "win the lottery" is a softer way to convey the same message. Then again, I will tailor my approach for my audience. Being in healthcare now, lottery is more appropriate...put me back in the steel-industry, and I'll go back to my cobble usage. ;)
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  20. NattyG

    NattyG Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Yes, often a matrix helps.

    Gap analysis and competency matrix based on a scoring system. If you score your staff based on experience, knowledge and understanding- based on your scoring system you'll be able to see who needs training the most.

    You could send out a memo for a training plan (internal and external), add that to communication and any sane auditor would accept that as evidence.

    Yes, you can expect to receive a non-conformance if you don't evidence organisational knowledge correctly, the staff are a fundamental part of quality.

    Passing internal knowledge and prepping for instances such as retirement are critical for business sustainability- particularly if you are a small business. Staff with years of experience take that away that organisational knowledge when they retire.