Training Records for.... everything?

OK - here's one for discussion.

I'm introducing the idea into an organization that when new information is documented, the QTBA (Question To Be Answered) is "does this document require training?" The lesson that I'm trying to socialize is to address this question from the perspective that if you're creating a new process, introducing a new tool etc. then it almost always needs some level of training.

And for every level of training - we need to know that it happened.

So - in your experience - when does training NOT need a record? I'm feeling like the answer is never, but I'm open to some counter-point here.

 

Help. : ) No one else responded.

 

We use a training matrix for basic labor job specific tasks, there is set criteria for becoming a 1 2 3 operator. For others to prove competence you can use training education or experience. I think any training that has been done should be recorded but training is not the only avenue to prove competence.

 

OK

OK - so the question was basically does all training require a record, and I think the answer is yes. I'll just have to keep it as simple as possible.

 

IDK. I think you need to define "training." If every time I tell someone how to do something it's considered training -- you have created a beast that cannot be fed. On the flip side, if it's a new process/machine/procedure, etc., and people get trained by a trainer/expert with power points and all, then that is obvious. There's a middle ground somewhere.

 

Same here as commented by Jennifer. Ask yourself "Would the absence of a record as evidence of training for a new process put the organization at risk of not achieving the intended outcome and not meeting the applicable requirements?" If your answer is "yes", then retain record.

 

Right - these are all procedural documents that have an immediate impact on the product being produced, the changes needs to be communicated to the users before the first use of the new document. Whether we call it training, communication, updates, etc. the same information has to be communicated and in this environment I need acknowledgement from the user that they understood the new information.

 

Good day @John Michael Kane ;
Great question.

I infer that you are actually asking two questions here (correct me if I'm wrong)
1- "does this document require training?"
2- ...when does training NOT require a record?


Consider this....
1-
I have a mantra that I teach my teams and customers in regards to considerations for "document control". That mantra is..." if it's wrong or gone, can it cause a non-conformance?" That same mantra can likewise be applied to a "controlled process". If the new or revised information is "wrong" or "gone" (non-existent) can it lead to a non-conformance? (Note: a nonconformance goes beyond product or service quality. It can also include injury, etc...). So I would consider this same method of vetting when considering item #1. If the training is "wrong" (ad hoc...reliant on different opinions or individuals or "gone" (no training occurs), can this lead to a nonconformance? If so, then would your organization not wish to strategically train?

2-
If your organization has gone to the effort of performing strategic training, why would the organization not want to have a record of this?
Consider this: A process is introduced or changed, and suddenly you receive a customer complaint. Wouldn't it be helpful to know if that training occurred BEFORE or AFTER the cause of the complaint happened?
Consider this: An injury occurs as result of an associate clearly violating and working contrary to the training they received and opens your organization to litigation . Would the organization not want to have record of that training.

Hope this helps.

Be well.

 

Great answer - t

Great answer - thanks