Is your response, “Yes!” or is it “Yea, I think so. How can I be sure?”
Are you trying to explain what you dofor training or describe how your site handles the Quality Training System?
Who is your audience?
Who are the procedures being written for?
There shall be written procedures even for training!
Step back and take a big view of training from start to finish. There are three distinct segments: (1) preparation, (2) delivery, and (3) measuring effectiveness. To some leaders, the idea of creating more than one training procedure for these three segments is baffling. Training isn’t that hard. Why are you making this so complicated, they ask? The simpler the process is, the easier it is to follow and administer, is what they are really thinking.
Yet, training root cause analyses involving operator or human error often yields some contributing factors around how the individual was trained. On the Job Training is not that simple after all and requires more than a check on someone’s to-do list. Find out why in the e-Book, Training Root Cause Analysis. In spite of this, the level of detail in Training SOPs is always a concern for both SOP Author and Approver.
But SMEs like KISS for Training
From an end-user perspective, I need enough detail so I can accomplish what I need to do without over-complicating my task, stay within compliance, and be effective as a qualified trainer. Since most Qualified Trainers are not full-time training professionals, the training procedures become their how-to tools not just a bunch of QA or HR rules about training. Without defining what your program includes and how to execute it, Qualified Trainers and other SMEs will conduct their training delivery assignments in a manner that is as simple as possible and may not be 100% compliant. Administrative procedures are not for them, they argue.
It takes 6 elements to make a training system robust
The big view of training may have 3 Big Blocks (preparation, delivery, and measuring effectiveness), but it takes 6 elements to execute it well. They are:
GxP and Training Curricula
Planned OJT for Procedures
Use of Qualified Trainers
Employee Qualification and Training Effectiveness Measures
On-Going GxP Refresher Series
Training Documentation Process
For each of these elements, there needs to be a set of “how-to-execute” instructions. However, it is not enough to describe what these elements are. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation and inconsistent documentation or no documentation at all. For example:
Does your organization complain about over-allocated curricula?
Do they understand the documentation requirements for your LMS?
Does your training document explain how to conduct OJT? You’d be surprised just how many different techniques SMEs have for conducting OJT on their watch.
Can anyone who has a signed training record be a department trainer? If yes, you need to upgrade your criteria and create a process around nominating and qualifying SMEs for OJT. Training is on the top 10 list for inspections.
So how is this not complicating Training?
The debate for the 1 All-Encompassing SOP (standard operating procedure) vs. multiple tailored work instructions will always bring comments after the latest version goes into effect. This includes non-QT end-user feedback criticizing how complicated and confusing the procedures are! When pressed further for specifics, most admit that they just want to train themselves and not deal with the documentation requirements. So, addressing one set of concerns can actually create more complaints around the very changes. See the table below for pros and cons.
Remind me again who these procedures are for?
The answer to the number of SOPs argument lies in determining what is appropriate for your end-users. While addressing the ease of navigation and use concerns is laudable, it is not always realistic to satisfy all users. It comes down to a combination of appropriateness and acceptance with a little cultural history mix in. When you find yourself in the middle of this debate, ask yourself the following two questions:
Does the “Training SOP” contain many pages detailing steps for each of the 6 elements? This is an indicator that you need to break it up.
Do you have too many standalone task-focused SOPs that could be grouped into a few larger processes? Recall the 3 Big Blocks of Training (preparation, delivery, and measuring effectiveness). Will this satisfy the end-users concerns?
Back to the opening question
You need to explain what your Training “Program” contains in a high level policy that answers “the what”. But you also need to describe how your training is conducted. Three “how-to execute” procedures are usually sufficient: preparation process, delivery and documentation process and measuring training effectiveness process. V-
I got a phone call from my Lead SME’s boss one morning. “How many more sessions do you need”, I asked him. I had already delivered 4 back-to-back workshops with class sizes of 25-30 SMEs; which was beyond optimal. So I asked him why. I needed to find out what was driving the surge in identified Qualified Trainers (QTs). I learned that a retrospective qualification needed to take place in order to close out an inspection observation. The total number of SMEs needing “proper paperwork” was well over 700. Since the redesigned training system was now in effect, these undocumented SMEs as Trainers would have to follow the new procedure. Or would they? Our discussion shifted to what type of training these SMEs will be delivering.
I then shared a related story with him. Several years prior, I got entangled with a “CAPA crisis” that involved QTs. No sooner did we launched the QT program and put the new procedure into effect, the CAPA quality system temporarily shut down shipping over a weekend. Upon return to the site, I was summoned to an emergency meeting from the security gate. Amazingly, a new practice/rule that only a Qualified Trainer can conduct training evolved from “only OJT QT’s can deliver OJT and perform Qualification Events” as per the SOP! This was clearly a case of misunderstood scope.
Does every SME need to be qualified as a Trainer?
In the Life Sciences arena, there are 5 recurring situations that require training: Self, Corrective Actions, Classroom (ILT), Structured OJT, and Qualification Events (Final Performance Demos).
Self can be achieved by the individual reading the procedure and signing the training record. This is also known as Read & Understand (R & U) for SOPs. I personally don’t think of it as training, it is reading. Yet, in some situations, reading is all that is required to gather the SOP information. If on the other hand, you need to execute the steps of the SOP and complete required forms, then additional training with the SOP Author or a QT is the appropriate next level of training.
Deviations/ Corrective Actions stemming from a Corrective Action Preventive Action incident. Minimally an SME or the SOP Author is needed to ensure the credibility of the content. These types of training sessions have become known as Corrective Actions “Awareness” Training. And more and more SMEs are now being required to deliver this training in a classroom setting. They need to be qualified to deliver classroom sessions especially if the event is related to a significant CAPA or regulatory inspection observation.
Classroom (Instructor-Led Training) is preferred for knowledge-based content affecting a wide range of employees. The skillset needed is facilitation / managing the classroom and delivering content as designed by the instructional designer. Think of GMP Refresher sessions in the Training Room.
Years ago, it was a lot clearer to distinguish between classroom trainers and SMEs as OJT Trainers. OJT was delivered 1-1 by “following Joe/Jane” around. Classroom Trainers delivered their content in a classroom of many learners using slides, flipcharts, and handouts. They were usually full-time dedicated training staff. Instructor-led training requires training in learning theory design and practice in what used to be referred to as platform skills. Today, it is more commonly known as “Running a Classroom” or “Basic Facilitation Skills”.
Many of today’s OJT QTs are also being requested to deliver “Group Training” sessions on content found within their SOPs. While the target audience may be the same set of peers, the scope, objectives, and tools used to deliver instructor-led training is vastly different from the OJT train the trainer course.
Structured OJT is On the Job Training delivered by a Qualified OJT SME using the approved OJT Methodology. OJT QT’s attend the Qualified Trainers Workshop which focuses on the OJT Steps Model, how to perform the equipment, and complex SOPs via hands-on and the challenges of Life as a Trainer. Should every seasoned employee become a QT based on their seniority and subject matter expertise? No, not necessarily. Because there are some SMEs that don’t want to share their knowledge and therefore, may not make an effective OJT Trainer. Establishing a set of nominating criteria provides an objective rationale for additional interpersonal qualities that help define a more well- rounded SME.
Qualification Events (the Final Performance Demonstration) are formally documented observations of learners performing the procedure/task at hand in front of a Qualified OJT SME using an approved SOJT Checklist or rubric. It is these events that set apart a Technical SME from a Qualified Trainer. The QT workshop includes a dedicated lesson on what to look for during Q-Events and what the QT signature means for the integrity of the Employee Qualification Program.
Can having too many QTs be a problem?
It can be when there is no one else to train; to deliver OJT steps. While many of you may be wishing for this situation, it can eventually happen if staffing levels are adequate, shifts are normalized and SOPs revisions are managed via R & U only with the LMS. How do you keep your QTs engaged and fresh if there are no opportunities for OJT sessions? I have some ideas for you to explore.
Re-examine the practice of online R & U only for SOP revisions. I bet some of those revisions were significant enough for a face to face discussion (aka Group Training) and there is probably at least one SOP revision in the past year that should have required a demonstration of task for optimum transfer of learning back on the job. *Just because all employees are now qualified, doesn’t mean the program sits in hiatus waiting for new hires to join the company.
When you have too many QTs who may be underutilized, it is also an appropriate time to administer the Trainer Mojo Assessment. Based on the QTs scores, it might be time to say thank you for a job well done for the low scoring QTs. You may be pleasantly surprised by who is ready to walk away from the training role? Or you may have a cadre of QTs who legitimately need more training and hence, the need for some new modules is now justified. Many of your excess SMEs were identified long before criteria was put into a place or the SOP was established. If the Trainer Mojo Assessment doesn’t bring any discussion, perhaps it’s time to “re-nominate” them using the criteria within the SOP and offer a refresher series on the QT Workshop content. Or arrange for developmental assignments that expand their subject matter expertise or advances their training repertoire into a classroom facilitators?
What is exciting for me is that many OJT-QTs are stepping up and volunteering to attend the SMEs as Classroom Facilitators workshop as part of expanding their QT’s toolkit. Many of them want to learn more about teaching peers and working with adults. A few have now become promoted to full-time trainer for L&D /QA departments. Which of your OJT QTS are ready to step up and move into the classroom? It’s time to find out and be part of the current trend. -VB
Are you looking for management support for the Qualified Trainers and the time needed to deliver SOJT? If only we were required to have a procedure for that! It may not be an SOP or even a policy document, but industry guidance documents provide a lot of references to management involvement.
ICH Q10 – Pharmaceutical
While not mandatory, management needs to seriously take notice of ICHQ10 guidance document released in April
2009 (1). In particular to the following:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY 2.3 Quality Planning
“(d) Management should provide the appropriate resources and training to achieve the quality objectives”.
“CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL QUALITY SYSTEM
4.3 Outcomes of Management Review and Monitoring
The outcome of management review of the pharmaceutical quality system
and monitoring of internal and external factors can include:
(b) Allocation or reallocation of resources and/ or personnel training.”
Under a Quality System: Managers Expectations for Training
Referencing the Sept. 2006 issue of Guidance Document for Quality Systems: IV. Management Responsibilities | B. Resources (2), we see alignment with the training CGMPs for continued training so “as to remain proficient in their operational functions and in their understanding of CGMP regulations.” “Typical quality systems training should address the policies, processes, procedures, and written instructions related to operational activities, the product/service, the quality system, and the desired work culture (e.g., team building, communication, change, behavior).”
And my personal favorite, “When operating in a robust quality system environment, it is important that managers verify that skills gained from training are implemented in day-to-day performance.” The responsibility for training under a quality system is not assigned to just one person or one function. It is a shared responsibility across the entire organization.
Goals of the
Train-the-Trainer Program (TTT) vs. OJT Program vs. Employee Qualification Program
In order to have qualified employees, they need to receive structured on the job training delivered by a qualified trainer who is content qualified and training process qualified via a Qualified Trainers’ workshop. Each of the three “programs” has defined outcomes that are dependent upon each other. Unfortunately, the term program has been a bit overused throughout the years and can have a variety of meanings for folks. For purposes of this blog, TTT program means OJT Qualified Trainers workshop, OJT Program means OJT methodology/procedureand Qualified Employee program means having a robust quality training system beyond the newest Learning Management System (LMS).
As you can see from the diagram, Qualified Trainers are at the core of all three “programs”. The OJT QT Workshop is designed to prepare the QT’s for the realities of life as a Qualified Trainer. It includes the pre-work of familiarizing themselves with the Quality Training System procedures and then in class: exploring basic learning theory and committing to what the QT signature means. The OJT Program is about delivering structuring on the job training consistently following the approved methodology. An Employee Qualification Program is the validation of training effectiveness of the OJT methodology and the clarity of the underlying procedures.
Readiness Factors for SOJT
and an Employee Qualification Program
Let’s start with a written purpose statement for having qualified employees beyond it’s required. What is the company’s philosophy on achieving qualified status? Is there agreement among the leadership for the level of rigor required to demonstrate performance and achieve a pass rating? Where are the SOJT program goals written? Does a schedule exist for SOJT and qualification events other than an LMS printout with required due dates. That is not a schedule for SOJT. Do you have clearly defined objectives for the QT workshop captured in a document or perhaps a procedure? Is there a single owner for all three programs or is responsibility and accountability assigned accordingly?
Ronald Jacobs and Michael Jones, in their 1995 ground breaking book, Structuring on-the-Job Training, inform us that SOJT as a system functions within a larger context, namely the organization. SOJT is not a standalone program. Conflicts, competing priorities and mixed messages can influence the success of your SOJT program. What else is going on in the organization that will compete for the same set of QTs? Remember they are also your most experienced and technical subject matter experts. How is the overall Employee Qualification program aligned with the other quality systems?
Recognition for QTs and
Most QTs are not fully dedicated to delivering training for departments. There are pros and cons for this decision. For now, I will leave them out. Suffice it to say, they are tasked with both their “day” job and the responsibility for delivering training when needed. They are at times, doing two jobs. Whether or not they are compensated additionally for delivering SOJT, acknowledging their contribution to the department and the organization is part of management support. It takes more than “you are doing a good job, keep it up”.
Often supervisors and managers don’t know what else they are supposed to
do to show their support, other than allow them to attend the QT workshop. The interested ones will “pop” in during lunch
and chat with their direct reports.
Others will show up at the end for the poster activity (equivalent to a
written test) and some will come to learn about the parking lot issues that
need follow up. The energy in the room
when this happens is amazing.
“When operating in a robust quality system environment, it is important that managers verify that skills gained from training are implemented in day-to-day performance.”
Guidance Document for Quality Systems, Sept 2006
To help ease the knowledge gap between a manager and their now Qualified Trainer, I started delivering the Leadership Briefing module prior to the QT workshop delivery. The purpose is to provide an overview of the content highlights, alignment with initiatives / CAPAs/ agency commitments and more importantly to secure agreement for the following:
criteria for nominating a QT
roles and responsibilities of QT
scope of work QT’s can be assigned
expectations for QT’s post launch
what happens day one after workshop is done
what is the status of the SOJT checklists
scheduling and budget concerns.
If the organization says they support the qualification program, then what happens when employees achieve qualification status? Nothing? A non-event? Or is it announced in newsletters, plasma screens and other company announcements? Is it a big deal to be able to perform independently and free up a much-needed QT for another learner? I keep hearing over and over again about how there aren’t enough QT’s to deliver SOJT the right way. One would think qualification status on SOPs, especially big complex processes deserves SOME kind of recognition. Just how committed are the managers and supervisors? QTs and employees draw their own conclusions about the level of real management support for the programs.
If truth be told, after launching the QT workshop, many supervisors privately don’t support the program. They lose their top performers during the workshop and the hours it takes to train someone. Forget about giving QTs adequate time to complete the paperwork properly! And then leadership wonders why good documentation practice (GDP) issues continue to be a problem? The non-distracted performance observations that QT’s are expected to conduct for the qualification demonstration drive supervisors and line managers crazy the most – what, they can’t do anything else but observe? Hence, many QT’s are asked to multi-task just to get the work done: not enough resources they are told. For supervisors, productivity and the workload will always trump SOJT and qualification events, until their bonuses include completion of training and qualification events.
What Real Support Is
Supposed To Look Like
My key take away message is that attending the TTT program/ QT workshop is not the end of the OJT program or the Employee Qualification Program but rather the launching point. Management support needs to go beyond just nominating QTs and allowing them to participate in the workshop. The real support is in the alignment of goals, clarifying expectations continuously, allocating resources for training and budgeting time to deliver OJT using an approved OJT methodology that includes qualification events. This commitment of time and sponsorship for qualified employees is a culture shift for many line managers and site leaders. But actions do speak louder than words. -VB
(1) Guidance for Industry Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System | US Department
of HHS | FDA | CDER | CBER April2009 ICH
(2) Guidance for Industry Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical CGMP Regulations U.S.Department of HHS | FDA | CDER | CBER | CVM | ORA| September 2006 Pharmaceutical CGMPs
Jacobs RL, Jones MJ. Structured on-the-job training: Unleashing employee expertise in the workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler: 1995.
How can you tell if your site is ready for SOJT?
HPISC has created a 2 part checklist of questions and attributes to explore. The checklist is available gratis when you become a HPISC mailing list member. Just be sure to include that are you interested in receiving the SOJT Readiness Checklist.
On the Job Training is as old as some of the original apprentice-style forms of learning and ranges from very informal like follow Joe around to structured OJT that is formally documented and includes a qualification event observed by a Qualified Trainer. While OJT means on the job training, the steps for OJT can also vary from trainer to trainer and from company to company unless the methodology is captured in an approved written procedure.
Multiple Performance Demonstrations Occur
One of the first instances of a demonstration occurs from the trainer himself. S/he shows the learner how to perform the technique, task, or process. The learner observes and asks questions. Then the roles reserve and the learner performs a mimicked rendition of what s/he observed. The trainer provides feedback and sometimes will ask questions intended to assess the knowledge gained as well.
Is one demonstration enough to determine OJT is done? Sometimes it is. When the task is simple, one time is all that most learners need. When the task or process is complicated, it will take more than one demonstration to get the SOP steps right. The nature of the SOP or the complexity of the task at hand determines this.
But, how do I proceduralize that, you ask? It starts by not arbitrarily picking the magic number 3. I have engaged in countless discussions regarding the exhaustive list of exceptions to forcing the rule of 3 times to practice. And some QT’s will argue for more than 3 sessions especially when the procedure is so infrequently performed. It’s not strictly about the number of times. We recognize that multiple sessions become practice sessions when the learner is still demonstrating the procedure under the supervision of his/her trainer. But documenting the number of demonstrations and/or practice sessions is still a challenge for the Life Sciences Industry.
At what point, is the learner going to be qualified to perform independently? As an industry, there is no standard number of times. There are no standard learners either. There is a range of “quick studys” to typical to slow learners. The caveat to this is monitoring both the quick study and the slow learner. In the QT workshops, this topic is explored using scenarios with tips and techniques that are shared during the debriefings. Qualified Trainers know what is typical and they are empowered to evaluate the outcome of the learner’s demonstration(s). Is the procedure being performed according to the SOP or is the learner still a bit hesitant about the next step? Is s/he relying on the QT for the assurance that the step is right? While the steps may be performed correctly, is it also the confidence of both the QT and learner that we are assessing as well.
How many times is enough? Until both the learner and the QT are confident that s/he is not going to have an operator error deviation a week after going solo. The QT is ultimately the one who has to assess progress and determine that “with a few more sessions”, my learner will get this or no, s/he may never get it and it’s time to have a discussion with the manager.
BTW, what does “Qualified Employee” mean?
Being SOP Qualified is the demonstrated ability of an employee to accurately perform a task or SOP independent of his OJT Qualified Trainer with consistency to meet acceptable quality standards. It satisfies the CFR ξ 211.25 (c ) regulation, “there shall be an adequate number of qualified employees to perform”.
Don’t be tempted to take the Performance Demo short-cut!
The end goal of OJT and the Qualification Event is for the employee to perform independently of his/her QT. In order to be “released to task”, a final performance demonstration is scheduled, observed, and documented by an OJT Qualified Trainer. But don’t be fooled into taking the performance demo short cut! The last step in the training portion of OJT is a performance demonstration to show the OJT-QT that the employee can perform the steps AND perform at the same level of proficiency as his/her peer group. If s/he can’t perform at this level, then the learner is not ready to “go solo”.
He may need more encouragement to build up confidence, correct paperwork documentation errors, and time to become proficient with his/her speed while maintaining accuracy. That’s what practice sessions are for; time to master confidence with the steps and increase speed. When his/her performance is on par with “business as usual” performance levels, then the employee is ready to perform the final demonstration aka the Qualification Event. While the “readiness indicator” may not be documented, the (Q-Event) must be formally captured, assessed with the outcome being documented and communicated to both the learner and his/her supervision. It is a separate event from the OJT demonstrations.
Final Performance Demo = Qualification Event
During the final performance demonstration, the QT observes the learner’s performance. When feedback is provided, it is evaluative and the rating result is formally documented. Granted, when someone is watching us, we tend to follow the rules. With enough repeated practice sessions, learners tend to perform procedures as “business as usual”. It’s how they learn the ebb and flow from their peers. This is the optimum moment to determine if s/he is truly ready to perform without coaching or supervision from his QT. If a QT has to interrupt to correct a misstep or remind the employee that his step is out of sequence, the event is terminated and documented as requires more review.
More training practice is then scheduled until readiness is once again achieved. And this also means the learner cannot sign for his work without his trainer’s co-signature or initials. Do not misinterpret this as signing for the verification entry aka the second check. In this situation, the Qualified Trainer cannot be both the co-signer and the second check person verification/reviewer. You will need three sets of initials to properly document the supervision of a learner requiring more practice. Otherwise you violate data integrity rules around independent verification.
Qualification events are not intended to be a rushed get ‘er done / one and done paperwork exercise. Sufficient time for proficiency and expected department productivity levels is required to ensure knowledge has been retained and skill can be accurately repeated. OJT demonstrations are not to be misused as the Q-Event. This distinction is critical to ensuring a successful qualification event and the confidence of consistently performing the SOP tomorrow, next week, etc. And not creating a deviation one day or one week after declaring the learner qualified.
It happens when QT’s are urged to “get’em done” by impatient or overly anxious supervisors consumed with productivity and not quality metrics. With the qualification event being so recent, the QT will most certainly be interviewed as part of the investigation. The checklist will also be examined. This tool is supposed to help the QT be as objective as possible and consistently evaluate performance as demonstrated. But typically, the checklist used to qualify individuals shows all Yeses; otherwise, they wouldn’t be qualified status. And that, of course, depends on how well the critical steps and behaviors are captured in the OJT Checklist. Yes, he was able to demonstrate the step, critical task, and/or behavior, but what we don’t know is how well? Are we to assume that No means “No, not at all” and Yes means performed “Well” or it is “As Expected” or “Adequate” or maybe, in this case, it was “Sort of”? The comments column would have been the ideal place to record observations and enter comments.
Validating Your SOP Effectiveness
Meeting FDA expectations for qualified employees is paramount. But the “100% Trained on Curricula Requirements” printouts aren’t winning favor with FDA. In the March 2015 article, “Moving Beyond Read & Understand SOP Training”, I asserted that the current 100% trained reports and SOP quizzes would not be enough to satisfy the performance challenge for training effectiveness. Are your employees qualified? How do you know? has become the training effectiveness question asked at every inspection. The use of “100% completed” reports is a metric for completeness only; a commonly used data point from the LMS. It does not address the transfer of learning into performance back on the job. Neither does the 5-question multiple-choice “SOP Quiz”. The true measure of effective OJT is an observed performance demonstration of the SOP; aka the qualification event.
Employee Qualification is the ultimate Level 3 Training Effectiveness Strategy
The focus of Employee Qualification is about the employee’s ability to apply knowledge and skill learned during OJT back on the job or in the workplace setting. I call this Transfer of Training. Others in the training industry refer to this as Level 3 – Behavior Change. Actual performance is the ultimate assessment of learning transfer. If an employee is performing the job task correctly during the final performance demonstration (Q-Event), his performance meets the expectation for successful “OJT Required SOP”.
Yet, according to the 2009 ATD research study “The Value of Evaluation”, only 54.6% of respondents indicated that their organization conducts Level 3 evaluations. The top technique used is follow-up surveys with participants (31%), while observation of the job was fourth (23.9%).
If on the job assessment is the “ultimate” measure of transfer, then why isn’t it being used more frequently? “Post-training” assessments are time and labor-intensive. But for organizations that have to meet compliance requirements (46.9% of survey respondents), documenting training effectiveness is now on FDA performance radar.
Not all SOPs require a Qualification Event
SOPs generally fall into two categories: FYI-type and OJT Required. The more complex an SOP is, the more likely errors will occur. Observing “critical to quality” steps is a key focus during the final performance demonstration. However, a 1-1 documentation path for every OJT related SOP may not be needed. Instead, batch SOPs a/o multiple SOPs of similar processes can be grouped into a “module” with documentation supporting similarity. Where there are differences in these SOPs, then the Q Event would also require observation of these unique CTQ differences.
An active Employee Qualification Program also verifies that the training content in this case the SOP, accurately describes how to execute the steps for the task at hand. If the SOP is not correct or the qualifying documentation (checklist) is too confusing, a cause analysis needs to be conducted. Successful qualification events also validate the OJT methodology is effective. That Qualified OJT Trainers are consistently delivering OJT sessions for “OJT Required SOPs”.
What does “Qualified Employee” mean for a company?
Qualified Employee status is not only a compliance imperative but a business driver as well. A qualified workforce means a team of well-trained employees who know how to execute their tasks accurately and with compliance in mind, own, and document their work properly. When anyone in the organization can emphatically answer “Yes, my employees are qualified and yes, I have the OJT checklists to back that up”, then the Employee Qualification Program is not only working but is also effective at producing approved products or devices fit for use. The bonus is a renewed level of confidence in the ability of employees to deliver on performance outcomes for an organization.
*The Value of Evaluation: Making Training Evaluations More Effective. An ASTD Research Study, 2009, ASTD.
What happens when the performance demonstration becomes more of a "this is how I do it discussion" instead of an actual demonstration? Read the Impact Story - I've Fired My Vendor - to learn more.
I can still picture my employee “blue card” that listed my department training events when I think of training records. Long before the days of LMSes, we logged events like the monthly Safety and GMP Meetings and an occasional deviation awareness session. But logging every SOP? That was unheard of until I was asked about it during an interview. After I accepted the position, I soon found out why that was such a watershed moment for the industry and me.
during the Qualified Trainers (QT) workshop, I would ask QTs the following two
do you deliver OJT?
all would answer the first question the same way: on the job training. And then I would ask the attendees to form
into groups to discuss the second question among fellow peers. I purposely mixed the groups so that there
was equal representation of manufacturing trainers and QC analytical laboratory
trainers and a fascinating exchange occurred between the attendees. During the debriefing activity, we learned
that there was a lot of variability in how the trainers were conducting
OJT. How can that be when they all
answered the first question so consistently? “Well”, one of them said, “we don’t have a procedure on it so I just go
about it the way I think it should be done.
I’ve had success so far, so I keep on doing what I’ve done in the past.”
Declaring your OJT Model
In order to get consistent OJT, you need to define your OJT steps and you need to ensure that only approved content (i.e. SOJT checklists) will be used to deliver OJT; not the SME’s secret sauce. I’m not proposing a cookie-cutter approach for QTs to become all the same. But rather, I am advocating a clear distinction between each step/stage / phase so that both the learner and the QT know exactly where they are in the OJT process, what is expected of them in that step and why the OJT step is needed. This is no longer just go follow Joe or Jane around; this is structuring the OJT sessions. Defining your OJT steps in a methodology ensures that all QT’s consistently deliver their 1-1 sessions and document the progression through the steps.
I’m less focused on what you call these steps or how many there are. I am looking to see how these steps move a new hire along the journey to becoming qualified prior to being released to task. For me, this is what makes OJT really structured. And that model needs to be captured in a standard operating procedure or embedded in a training procedure so that all employees are informed and aware of how they will receive their OJT.
The Assess Step
What is your purpose for this step? Is it to evaluate the learners’ knowledge and skill via a performance demonstration, the effectiveness of the OJT sessions, or to determine qualified status? The answer matters, because the QT will be providing feedback that impacts very different outcomes.
The visual on the right indicates the main difference between how QTs feedback is used during a performance demonstration for OJT vs. feedback for the Qualification Event. Despite that, the learner is asked to perform the procedure the same way. Is it clear to the learner what the performance demonstration means? Does your methodology articulate the difference between a practice demo, a readiness demo, a performance demo and/or a Qualification Event demonstration?
Documenting OJT sessions presents a challenge for many trainers and document control staff. What is considered an OJT session? My favorite lament is – “Do you know what that will do to our database not to mention the amount of paperwork that would create!” A workaround to all these questions and concerns is to capture at least one session along the progression of each OJT step as per the OJT Model, thus documenting adherence to the procedure.
For example, the first OJT step may be READ. It means Read the SOP first, if not already completed. We are pretty good at documenting R & U for SOPs. Then, the next step may be DISCUSS / INTRODUCE the SOP. Capture when that discussion occurred if it’s different from Step 1- READ. The “trainer demonstrates” portion can also be documented. Where it gets tricky is when we ask the learner to demonstrate and practice. Are we required to capture every OJT session or just one?
Why not capture the last instance when it is confirmed the learner is ready to qualify? If we keep it simple and document that our learners have experienced at least one instance of each step /stage, then we are complying with our OJT methodology and minimally documenting their OJT progression. It is important to describe how to document the OJT progression in the SOP. Don’t leave that up to the QT’s to figure out. It is in our documentation, that we also need to be consistent.
How do you know if someone is qualified to perform this SOP?
Ideally, the answer would be because:
1.) we have a structured OJT process that includes a task specific OJT Checklist and
2.) we can look up the date of completion (Qualification Event) in our LMS history.
And that, of course, depends on how well the critical steps and behaviors are captured in the SOJT checklist. The checklist is a tool to help the QT be as objective as possible and consistently evaluate performance as demonstrated. In the article, “A Better Way to Measure Soft Skills”, author Judith Hale explains the difference between a checklist and a rubric.
“Checklists only record whether a
behavior occurred, though, and not the quality of the behavior. Rubrics, on the other hand, measure how well
the learner executed the behavior.” p.
What I typically see are checklists with varying levels of tasks, steps and/or behaviors with a column for Yes, No and Comments. What I don’t see is a column to mark how well the learner performed! Is it enough to mark Yes or No for each item since most Q Events are Pass or “needs more practice”? Maybe.
But consider the following situation. A human error deviation has occurred and the LMS indicates the technician has earned qualified status. The document used to qualify this individual shows all Yeses. Yes s/he was able to demonstrate the step, critical task, and/or behavior, but what we don’t know is how well? Are we to assume that No means “No, not at all” and Yes means performed “Well” or it is “As Expected” or “Adequate” or maybe in this case it was “Sort of”?
An additional column describing what it means to score low, medium, high or in our situation: Poor, Adequate, As Expected, and even Exemplar could provide much needed insight for the root cause analysis and investigation that will follow this deviation. It provides a level of detail about the performance that goes beyond Yes, No, or Comment. In most checklists I’ve reviewed, the comments column is hardly ever used.
What does the QT Signature Mean?
What the signature means on the document used to qualify an employee performing the task, technique or procedure as defined in the tool is whether or not the performance matched criteria (Y/N) or to what degree if using a qualitative rubric.
It does not mean that said employee completed all his curricula requirements.
It does not mean that said employee explained how to execute the procedure without performing it.
It does not mean the QT is responsible for the future performance of said employee.
In fact, it means just the opposite. It documents that on this date, said employee was capable of performing the procedure as expected and that from this date forward, said employee owns his/her own work including deviations. The employee is no longer being supervised by the QT for this SOP. Without this understanding and agreement, the integrity of the whole program is put into question, not just the effectiveness of SOJT. Be sure to explain this in the QT workshop and in the Robust Training System SOPs. – VB
Hale,J. A Better Way to Measure Soft Skills, TD, ATD, August, 2018, pps. 61-64.
In Part 1, we find Cara, a performance consultant has been hired to help a former client with implementing a robust training system. After waiting 3 months for the executive leadership group to get aligned around the priority for Miguel’s RTS project, Cara finally got to debrief her assessment findings. But a new development surfaced that was unexpected.
In part 2, we observe how Cara brings her inexperienced design team up to speed on how to be a team.
In part 3, we learned how Cara facilitated the design team of SMEs through various stages of working as a team to manage internal politics and a team member’s personal agenda.
In this Final Part of the Change Readiness Gap Impact Story, the design team launches and gets a surprise visit from the agency.
“But future state is being designed on the assumption that change control will be redesigned first. We still have a lot of preparation work to do before we are even close to submitting these for change control. And that is why change control is out of scope for this team. We will not delay our deliverables because we decided mid-stream to go fix change control first. There are plans for a change control project team to begin and some of you may be tapped to participate.”
After the change control rant from their distressed team mate, whenever anyone even mentioned the word change control, they joked and said: “we’re not allowed to discuss change control anymore, remember?”
Robust Training System SOPs: IMPLEMENTATION: The GO-LIVE STRATEGY
Through the efforts of Miguel negotiating behind the scenes, a new quality manager, Stuart, was hired right as the team began to work on the implementation strategy. The timing was ideal because the team was ready to present their recommendations on how to go live and this was Stuart’s first priority.
Meet your new project leader
While Stuart got caught up to speed and completed his onboarding tasks, Cara transitioned out of the project manager role and back into external consultant mode. The team had successfully designed their process flows and together decided the number of procedures that made sense for the organization as well as where to park the content. They collaborated on the design of forms while leaving room for flexibility given the nature of work for each department. The team had two proposals that competed with each other and Stuart, now fully up to speed weighed in with his decision.
Critical vs. important: OJT documentation or curricula accuracy
The first proposal mapped a path forward based on OJT as the priority. This was clearly identified in the gap assessment report and what appealed the most to the executives given their business objectives. The second proposal was logical and made more sense to start from an overhaul of the curricula; ensuring that the training and qualifications were the right requirements for the right roles. At the next meeting, Stuart took the lead and announced that he chose the curricula proposal and would defend this choice to Miguel and the executives as his first major task assignment.
Stuart was successful in his curricula proposal pitch with the executives. He was able to make a compelling argument for both efficiency and effectiveness. His next task was to finalize the implementation plan. So he asked the team to meet once again to refine the “Go-Live Strategy”.
“Please Pardon Our Appearance”
In order to move forward with the necessary tasks, the team needed the authorization to complete the work using the newly designed forms and process without approved Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Releasing the new design before the sub-tasks were complete, would create an “out of compliance” situation at the onset of launch. And yet, going forward without an approved procedure also put them in SOP violation status.
As part of the team’s drafted implementation plan, Stuart generated a change control package that documented the project, articulated the necessary steps, included the process flow diagrams as well as the forms. Included in this packet, was the timeline for execution. The effect of this documentation was to communicate that all these changes were not out of control but rather a controlled and planned change in the current procedures in order to make them standard once the subtasks were in place such as the updated position curricula.
Delivering the Qualified Trainers Workshop was a critical implementation task that needed to be timed with the SOP roll out. The day before the Qualified Trainer’s workshop was to be delivered by Cara, Stuart called Cara and announced that a regulatory inspection was to begin on the same day. While disappointed with the delay, Cara was optimistic that the training portion of the inspection would be favorable. One month later, Stuart phoned her back.
“Can you deliver the workshop next week?” Stuart inquired.
“Yes, I’ll clear my calendar. But how did training do?”
“All in all, it went well. We have some issues of course,” Stuart added.
“What about the training implementation plan? Was it accepted or challenged?” Cara asked.
“Well, we didn’t get cited for being ‘out of compliance’ so that was good. But it was clearly stated that the plan MUST be executed ASAP! Hence, the reason for my call, today,” he answered.
Cara was pleased to hear that the Robust Training System (RTS) training project finally became a “Top Site Priority”.
END RESULT: Future State is now Current State
A few months later, Cara also delivered a GMP Basics course and qualified the site trainer to deliver it routinely as per the new training procedures. The RTS project was now officially closed and life as new normal began. Their next follow up inspection was favorable. A few minor issues and some verbal comments for training. With this earned “regulatory approval”, the company was able to move forward with plans for launching their new product.
LESSONS LEARNED: Breaking down silos one meeting at a time
While the project team of SMEs learned how to collaborate in order to achieve project charter deliverables, the business units were very much still entrenched in their functional silos, defending current practices. Deviating from approved procedures, even with a regulatory recommendation to prioritize the execution of the training plan, was not well received. Stuart and his staff faced resistance from front-line supervision with right-sizing their curricula. Through determination and persistent “working meetings”, the curricula sub-project finished.
Given the curricula “battle”, Stuart initially backed off from communicating the big project picture in the hopes that early accomplishments would inspire the front line to continue with the tasks and not overwhelm them with too much change at once.
Instead, the OJT checklist sub-project was also slow, tedious, and a struggle. Incumbent subject matter experts (SMEs)were reluctant to share their expertise or participate in the generation of the OJT Checklists, let alone be required to use them and not change the content without following the change control process. Ironically, as new SMEs were vetted, the quality of the content improved and the checklists became a non-issue.
The decision to delay project launch until Miguel felt confident that the executive leaders would sponsor the project and approve resources for the design team was paramount for keeping the momentum going forward after the initial launch meeting.
Miguel recognized early on that the identified design team SMEs needed a specially developed curriculum to prepare them for the challenges that lay ahead. The first four meetings as introductory lessons provided context as well as content and established the project lexicon while reinforcing team ground rules.
Being prepared to defend the change control packet and explain the “Go-Live” Implementation Plan with FDA investigators not only gave credence to the project but it also elevated the importance of plan execution and made completion an urgent priority. -VB
Has this situation ever happened to you? You are in a root cause meeting and the *CAPA Investigator is conducting an interview with the primary individual involved with the discrepancy. When questioned why did this happen, he shrugs first and then quietly mumbles I don’t know. When pushed further, he very slowly says I just kind of went brain dead for a moment. And then silence.
While that may be the honest truth, the investigator must resist the temptation to label it as Operator Error and explore possible causes. One of my favorite root cause analysis tools for “I Don’t Know Why” response is to use the Fish Bone Diagram also known as the 4 M’s diagram. This tool provides a structured focus to explore many possibilities and not just stop at the first plausible cause; such as Operator Error. Aptly nicknamed, the 4 M’s are Man, Machine, Methods and Materials. When the results of this exercise points to a training or operator related issue, don’t stop at “operator error –> retrain”.
Consider for a moment, what this retraining session would look like. Will re-reading the procedure be enough to “jog his memory”? Will repeating the procedure be a good use of precious time when s/he already knows what to do? More than likely it won’t prevent “going brain dead” from happening again. Instead, do the HPISC Training 2 Step:
Step 1 – confirm the results of the gap analysis
Ask: What task, what step(s) or actions are in question?
Step 2 – address why the original training did not transfer back to the job.
Using the 4 M’s diagram as the framework, explore Man, Machine, Methods and Materials questions with regards to the training this operator receives. See diagram below. The full set of questions can be found in the eBook Training Cause Analysis.
Is this really worth it?
I think it is. Conducting these 2 steps will accomplish two objectives. It will provide further evidence that some kind of training is needed. And it will highlight what areas are in need of revising either for the performer, the training program or course materials. Yet, there are some who will resist this added work because it’s easier to find blame than to uncover the cause. Fixing the true root cause could trigger a re-validation of the process or an FDA filing if it’s a major process change. Why create more work? Isn’t it easier to just retrain ‘em? No, not really. Finding the true root cause is the only effective way of eliminating many of the costly, recurring problems that can plague manufacturers.
But what if
Some folks will push back with the excuse – “this never caused a problem until now”, so it must be the operator’s fault! This may be the first time it was discovered but that does not mean the procedure is 100% accurate. Often, experienced operators know how to work around an incorrect step and don’t always report a misstep in the procedure while a less savvy operator follows the procedure and causes the non-conformance to occur. See Sidebar SOP Logic Rules. Is the procedure difficult, lengthy or requires weeks to become proficient let alone qualified? Was the qualification routine or performed as a simulation? Was the procedure written with support from a lead operator or qualified trainer? Did the draft version undergo some kind of field test or dry run prior to release? And the classic situation, are proposed changes hung up in change control awaiting effective release?
Understanding Why Human Errors Occur
Industry practice is evolving to explore why people make the decisions they do by looking at the Organization’s systems. It’s usually a poor decision made somewhere in the error chain. We must believe that the person who made the poor decision did not intend for the error to occur. As part of CAPA investigations, we need to explore their physical environment as well; the conditions under which they make those decisions. The Training Program Improvement Checklist can be requested using this link to capture your findings.
If you are going to spend time and money on training, at least identify what the gap is; fix that and then “train” or provide awareness on what was corrected to prevent the issue from re-occurring again. That is after all, the intention of *Corrective Action Preventive Action investigations. -VB
Many QA/ L&D Training Managers are tasked with improving their “training program”. An integral component of a robust quality training system is the Qualified Trainers (QT). Having a cadre of existing department Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) as Trainers can be very helpful when implementing the rollout of the new quality redesign to meet regulatory commitments and expected timelines. But, sometimes it can also lead to sustainability issues after the launch is over and the next big project becomes the new site priority.
During my on-site response to an urgent performance problem, the Head of Operations expressed deep concerns about inconsistent OJT being delivered by his trainers. A series of significant non-conformances occurred in his area. As part of the CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action) investigation, trainers were interviewed to uncover how they trained the identified employee(s) and what was said specifically for each step of the procedure. Their responses revealed a lack of consistent process and the use of varied content; despite having an OJT checklist, the procedure, and approved Training SOPs.
Once a Trainer; Forever a Trainer
I was then invited into a conversation with the Training Operations Manager (My Performer), regarding her desire to upgrade the existing department SMEs as Trainers. Responsible for the effectiveness check of the CAPA corrective action and the overall quality of Operations OJT sessions, she complained that many of the trainers should no longer be considered Dept. Trainers. While she had position title influence, she was frustrated by the lack of support for her “improvement suggestion”. I became her catalyst to help her push through the fixed barrier regarding SMEs.
The site followed a cultural assumption regarding department SMEs: once a Trainer; always a Trainer; regardless of feedback and informal impressions of their ability. Without any tangible criteria and lack of assessment tools, my Performer had no authority to remove the underperforming Dept. Trainers. Granted these SMEs were long ago chosen when the widely accepted practice of being proficient as a technician after a year earned them the designation of subject matter expert and automatically, a Dept. Trainer. Today, the Life Sciences Industry, with FDA investigators’ observations, has evolved their understanding that it takes more than seniority and R & U SOP training to become an OJT QT. Unfortunately, the environment where my Performer worked, the mindset about acquired expertise still held.
Significant CAPAs can be Drivers for Change
Undaunted, my Performer seized the CAPA as an opportunity for change. Leveraging suggested criteria and the use a form to document justification for each Dept. Trainer, she now had a process (SOP with form) that she could “educate” her colleagues on what it takes to become a Qualified Trainer. The focus of her message dramatically changed. She became strategic in her communications, using the effectiveness check portion of the CAPA as her “Why / WIIFM for Operations Managers”. In order to close out the CAPA, Managers had to complete their portion of the form.
The long-term success of my Performer depended on her owning her solution. She never lost of her original desire; she was patient and waited for her colleagues to accept today’s best practices for OJT QTs. In the meantime, we brainstormed on a variety of feedback options that could be used to evaluate the current status of each SME at the same time the Managers completed the new form. My Performer chose a rating system and arranged for a 1-1 sessions with Operations Managers to discuss what rating they would use for each criteria if they got challenged during a CAPA investigation or a regulatory inspection.
While the results were not formally documented, my Performer was effective with the assessment rating exercise. The Managers reconsidered who they wanted to nominate based on the new formal criteria and the informal ratings discussions. They did not automatically submit the form for all existing Dept. Trainers. A constructive dialogue then ensued regarding skills remediation support for those SMEs deemed as potentials. At last, my Performer achieved her desired outcome. “As catalysts, we build a bridge, light the path, and give [ ] our hand to help [ ] demolish or jump over obstacles”, (Haneberg, 2010, p.96). I was privileged to be part of a dramatic shift in their training culture.
An alternate alignment exercise
For many, adding ratings suggests a formal performance assessment and this can raise HR issues if not fully supported by the organization. In addition, many Operations Managers do not have the luxury of “weeding out undesirables”. They simply do not have enough SMEs to complete the training curricula generated requirements. Yet, there needs to be mutual consent between manager and identified SME in order to effectively deliver the OJT Methodology and to ensure a successful learner experience.
For those situations where automatically re-nominating existing SMEs is raising a red flag, I created the Trainer Mojo Assessment. Nominated SMEs and existing SMEs as Trainers rate themselves on 10 attributes that align with the characteristics of an effective OJT Trainer. Low scoring SMEs/QTs are encouraged to have a discussion with their management regarding continuation in the program and possible action steps. For SMEs/QT’s that score in the On-Target range, this is both validation of the nomination and confirmation that manager and QT are in sync. For high scoring QTs, this is also confirmation and an early indicator for potential QT Rock Stars!
Haneberg, L. Coaching up and down the generations. Alexandria, Virgina:ASTD, 2010.
You might be interested in the Impact Story – From Dept. SME to QT.
The Client Request –”Can you help us upgrade our Trainer Qualification process?”