BHPB Coal Training Audit - Onsite Review

• Document No:

• Client / Site:

• Report prepared by:

• Audit Committee members:

• Conducted on:

  Date

Effectiveness

• Do all training stakeholders know about the Operation's training scheme? <br>A minimum of 2 personnel are to be questioned<br>

  All training stakeholders are aware of the training scheme, its intent and content.

  Some of the training stakeholders are aware the scheme exists and understand its intent and content

  Some of the training stakeholders are aware the scheme exists but do not understand its intent or content

  The majority or all of the training stakeholders do not understand nor know the scheme exists

  NA

• The process to enable personnel to undergo or commence training does not delay the commencement of training <6hrs?<br>

  The process of approving training to commence consistently does not exceed 6hrs

  The process of approving training to commence can exceed 6hrs

  The process of approving training to commence exceeds 6hrs

  There is no process to authorise a person to undergo or commence training

  NA

• Are the scheme appendices up to date and information is available to support/explain changes ?<br>

  Appendices contain current and complete data. Information to support changes is available and stored in a consistent location

  Appendices contains incomplete or superseded data. Supporting information is available but does not align with appendices

  Appendices contains incomplete or superseded data. Supporting information is not available to support/explain changes

  Appendices are not available

  NA

• Is there evidence that the RPL/RCC process is understood by stakeholders and applied as per the stated in the scheme? <br>

  BHPB Coal RCC/RPL process is clearly understood by relevant stakeholders (i.e. TAs, A&I team) and correctly applied across all training activities.

  Relevant stakeholders are aware of the BHPB Coal RCC/RPL process but do not correctly apply it to training activities

  Relevant stakeholders do not understand the BHPB Coal RCC/RPL process

  Relevant stakeholders do not know of the BHPB Coal RCC/RPL process

  NA

• Do operational stakeholders clearly understand the induction process for the Operation?<br>A minimum of 2 personnel are to be questioned<br>

  The Operations induction process is clearly understood by relevant stakeholders and is consistently correctly applied

  Relevant stakeholders are aware of the Operations induction process but do not correctly apply it

  Relevant stakeholders do not understand the Operations induction process

  Relevant stakeholders do not know of the Operations induction process

  NA

• Do operational stakeholders clearly understand the content expert process for the Operation?<br>

  The content expert process is clearly understood by relevant stakeholders and is consistently correctly applied

  Relevant stakeholders are aware of the content expert process but do not correctly apply it

  Relevant stakeholders do not understand the process to apply when using a content expert

  Relevant stakeholders do not know of the process to apply when using a content expert

  NA

• Does the refresher model enable refresher training to be completed with minimum impact to the Operation? i.e. Do people need to leave site? How many people are impacted for the training?<br>

  The refresher model provides for efficient and effective refresher training for personnel with minimal impact to the operation

  The refresher model provides to effective refresher training for personnel however the impact to the Operations is great with personnel needing to leave site or attend external training

  The refresher model for the operation is neither effective nor efficient.

  A refresher training model doesn’t exist

  NA

• Does the scheme outline the system for storage of training and assessment records?<br>

  The scheme outlines a clear and effective process to store training and assessment records addressing how, where, period they are maintained and how they can be accessed and archived.

  The scheme outlines a process to store training and assessment records addressing how, where, period they are maintained and how they can be accessed and archived however it is not easy to understand

  The scheme does not outline a process to store training and assessment records within the Operation

  NA

• Are the refresher periods nominated for each activity supported by risk assessment or operational/legislative evidence?<br>

  Clear refresher periods are nominated for all competencies and are supported by evidence to demonstrate how the periods were established

  Clear refresher periods are nominated for all competencies but are not supported by evidence to demonstrate how the periods were established

  Refresher periods are not nominated for all competencies or the periods are not easy to understand.

  Refresher periods are not nominated for competences

  NA

• Is there evidence to demonstrate a review and evaluation of the training system, both internal and external training activities? <br>

  The training system (both external and internal training) is reviewed and evaluated regularly and information is collated, reviewed, actions initiated and stored in a consistent location

  Evidence that the training system (both external and internal training) is reviewed and evaluated regularly however there is no evidence to confirm it is reviewed, actions are initiated or it is not stored in a consistent location

  Inconsistent evidence that the training system (both external and internal training) is reviewed and evaluated regularly

  No evidence to confirm that the training system (both external and internal training) is reviewed and evaluated

  NA

• Is there evidence of the scheme being reviewed annually (as a minimum), changes recorded as per document control guidelines?<br>

  The training scheme is reviewed annually, changes are clearly recorded in the document control section of the document and are supported by information stored in a central location which outlines how the change was managed onsite (where applicable)

  The training scheme is reviewed annually, changes are clearly recorded in the document control section of the document however no information is available to confirm how the change was managed onsite (where applicable)

  The training scheme is reviewed annually however changes are not clearly recorded in the document control section of the document

  The training scheme is not reviewed nor up to date.

  NA

• Is there evidence the site induction is reviewed annually (as a minimum) and changes are recorded as per document control guidelines?<br>

  The site induction content is reviewed annually, changes are clearly recorded in the document control section of the relevant document and are supported by information stored in a central location which outlines how the change was managed onsite (where applicable)

  The site induction is reviewed annually, changes are clearly recorded in the document control section of the relevant document however no information is available to confirm how the change was managed onsite (where applicable)

  The site induction is reviewed annually however changes are not clearly recorded in the document control section of the relevant document

  The site induction is not reviewed nor up to date.

  NA

• Is there evidence the Operation's specific training material training and assessment material is reviewed every 5 years (as a minimum) and changes are recorded as per document control guidelines?<br>

  The operation's specific training material is reviewed within the nominated 5 year period, changes are clearly recorded in the document control section of the relevant document/s and are supported by information stored in a central location which outlines how the change was managed onsite (where applicable)

  The operation's specific training material is reviewed within the nominated 5 year period, changes are clearly recorded in the document control section of the relevant document however no information is available to confirm how the change was managed onsite (where applicable)

  The operation's specific training material is reviewed within the nominated 5 year period however changes are not clearly recorded in the document control section of the relevant document/s

  The operation's specific training material is not reviewed nor up to date.

  NA

• Is there evidence of re assessment/training following changes to Operational specific material i.e. SOPs, incidents, technology changes etc? <br>

  Clear evidence of re assessment/training occurring, consistently stored in the correct location and accurately recorded against the personnel training file

  Clear evidence of re assessment/training occurring however is not consistently stored in the correct location or accurately recorded against the personnel training file

  Inconsistent or unclear evidence of reassessment/training occurring.

  No evidence of reassessment or retraining occurring following changes to Operational specific material

  NA

• Is there evidence of consultation with the Operation's workforce when undertaking changes to the scheme and supporting guidelines & processes?<br>

  Evidence available that demonstrates comprehensive consultation with a cross section of the workforce on changes to the scheme & supporting guidelines & processes. Questions and concerns have been documented and stored in a consistent location

  Evidence available that demonstrates consultation with a cross section of workforce on changes to the scheme & supporting guidelines & processes however no record of questions and concerns have been documented and stored in a consistent location

  Evidence available does not clearly demonstrates consultation with a cross section of workforce

  No evidence of consultation with the workforce on changes to the scheme & supporting guidelines & processes

  NA

• Is there evidence of changes to scheme, supporting guidelines & processes being communicated with the workforce?

  Evidence available that demonstrates comprehensive communication with all relevant stakeholders and broader workforce on changes to the scheme & supporting guidelines & processes. Questions, concerns & supporting information has been documented and stored in a consistent location

  Evidence available that demonstrates communication with all relevant stakeholders and broader workforce on changes to the scheme & supporting guidelines & processes however questions, concerns or supporting information has not been documented and stored in a consistent location

  Evidence available does not clearly demonstrate communication with key stakeholders and broader workforce

  No evidence of communication with the workforce on changes to the scheme & supporting guidelines & processes

  NA

• Comments/Notes

Effectiveness

• Are Supervisory personnel aware of the TNA and understand its intent & content? <br>A minimum of 2 personnel are to be questioned<br>

  Supervisory personnel are aware of and understand the TNA requirements for their direct reports

  Supervisory personnel are aware of the TNA but do not understand its purpose or application.

  Supervisory personnel understand the purpose of a TNA but do now know of it being available to their crew/department.

  Supervisor personnel do not know of a TNA nor understand its purpose or application.

  NA

• Is there evidence of a review process for the Operation's TNA to ensure compliance?

  Evidence of a simple and effective process exists and is applied to audit the compliance of the Operations TNA against statutory compliance and the skills mix

  Evidence of a process exists and applied to audit the compliance of the Operations TNA against statutory compliance and the skills mix although perceived as complex and ineffective.

  Evidence of a process to audit the compliance of the Operations TNA against statutory compliance and the skills mix however it is not applied.

  No evidence of a process to audit the compliance of the TNA.

  NA

• Is there evidence of regular reporting and communication on the TNA status to the Operation?

  Evidence of regular and clear communication to the Operation on the status of the TNA, identifying key areas of focus to achieve compliance

  Evidence of communication to the Operation on the status of the TNA however it is not consistent or sent to all relevant stakeholders

  Evidence of communication to the Operation on the status of the TNA however it is not perceived as clear or useful

  No evidence of communication of the TNA to the Operation

  NA

• Comments/Notes:

Effectiveness

• Are Operational personnel aware of the skills mix for their department?<br>Interview with minimum of 2 personnel<br>

  Operational personnel are aware of the skills mix requirements for their department.

  Operational personnel are aware of the skills mix but fail to understand how it applies to their department

  Operational personnel know of a skills mix but do not understand its purpose or application, nor able to access it.

  Operational personnel do not know about the skills mix, nor able to access it.

  NA

• Is there evidence of an process to support the development and review of the skills mix and it is effectively applied?

  Evidence of a simple & effective process exists and is applied to create and adjust the skills mix. Information to support amendments is stored in a consistent location

  Evidence of a process exists and is applied to create and adjust the skills mix however is not simple or effective. Information is not available to support the amendments made

  Evidence a process exists to create and amend the skills mix exists however it is not applied

  No evidence of a process to create and adjust the skills mix exists

  NA

• Comments/Notes:

Effectiveness

• Is there evidence of a contingency training plan to be utilised in the event of wet weather or unplanned downtime? <br>

  A comprehensive and flexible contingency plan exists which is available to and known by Supervisors & Trainer/assessors to apply in the event of wet weather or unplanned downtime,

  A comprehensive and flexible contingency plan exists which is available however it is not readily available or known of by Supervisors & trainer/assessors

  A plan exists but is not comprehensive, flexible, known to or utilised by Supervisors & Trainer/assessors.

  A contingency plan does not exist

  NA

• Are Supervisory personnel aware of the training plan?<br>Interview with minimum of 2 personnel<br>

  All supervisory personnel are aware of the annual training plan, its intent and content

  Some of the Supervisors are aware the training plan exists and understand its intent and content

  Some of the training supervisors are aware the training plan exists but do not understand its intent or content

  The majority or all of the supervisors do not understand nor know the training plan exists

  NA

• Is there evidence to demonstrate a process to develop, monitor accuracy and amend the training plan? <br>

  Evidence of application of a clear and effective process to develop, monitor accuracy and amend the training plan.

  Process to develop, monitor accuracy and amend the training plan available however not consistently applied or understood within the Operation.

  Unclear process to develop, monitor accuracy and amend the training plan.

  No evidence of a process to develop, monitor or amend a training plan.

  NA

• Does training and assessment which takes place within the Operation align with the training plan?<br>

  Clear and consistent evidence that training occurring within the operation is aligned with the Training Plan.

  Inconsistent evidence to demonstrate training activities are aligned with training plan. Training appears to be planned in majority of instances however large amount of adhoc training still occurring.

  Training & assessment activities is not aligned with the training plan. Training appears adhoc and reactive

  Training plan not available

  NA

• Comments/Notes:

Effectiveness

• Are the records stored in the location nominated by the Operation? <br>

  Records are easily accessible and available in the correct location for the requested sample.

  Records fail to be available for >50 percent of the requested sample.

  Records fail to be available for 50< percent of the requested sample

  No evidence of records or evidence to support training files of personnel selected as part of sample.

  NA

• Are the records stored in a consistent manner? <br>

  Clear and effective document management process exists and is applied consistently to the documents in the requested sample

  Evidence a document management process exists but is not applied consistently to the documents in the requested sample

  Document management process exists but not effective or easy to understand

  No evidence of a document management process being applied

  NA

• Do CMW know how to access their training records?<br>

  All CMW know where to and can demonstrate how to access their training records

  CMW know where to access their training records but fail to be able to demonstrate it

  CMW do not know how nor can demonstrate how to access their training records

  NA

• Comments/Notes:

Effectiveness

• Do the Operation's LMS qualifications naming conventions align with Coal standard?<br>

  LMS codes align with BHPB Coal naming conventions and are correctly applied

  Inconsistent application of the BHPB naming convention guideline applied to LMS code development

  Naming conventions are not aligned with BHPB Coal naming conventions

  NA

• Are pre requisites which support assessments entered into the LMS transcript?

  All pre requisite evidence is accurately recorded on LMS transcript

  Pre requisite evidence not consistently recorded on LMS transcript.

  Pre requisite evidence not recorded on LMS transcript.

  NA

• Are generic Coal LMS codes used to capture skills/competencies generic to the industry? i.e. SOAs etc

  All skills and competencies which are generic to the industry are captured using Coal LMS codes.

  Coal LMS codes are inconsistently used to capture generic skills and competencies

  Coal LMS codes are not used to capture generic skills and competencies. Skill prefixed LMS codes are applied instead.

  NA

• Does the training data accurately reflect the Coal approved training process?

  Data is consistently recorded in line with Coal approved training process

  Data is inconsistently recorded in line with Coal approved training process

  Data is not recorded in line with Coal approved training process

  NA

• Is evidence of data cleanse activities? i.e. delimiting old appointments or inactive codes

  Detailed evidence available to demonstrate completion of regular data cleanse activities including information to confirm process has been completed with consultation with key stakeholders

  Evidence available to demonstrate completion of regular data cleanse activities however is not supported by information to confirm consultation with key stakeholders has occurred

  Evidence available to demonstrate data cleanse activities however does not confirm it is conducted regularly or is supported by a clear process

  No evidence available to demonstrate data cleanse activities

  NA

• Comments/Notes:

Effectiveness

• Does a relationship exist between the onsite training stakeholders?

  A collaborative and supportive relationship exists between key onsite training stakeholders who are working towards an aligned goal.

  A relationship exists between key onsite training stakeholders however there is evidence of poor communication and lack of goal clarity.

  A relationship does not exist between key onsite training stakeholders which results in confusion and process inefficiencies.

  na

• Is there evidence to demonstrate training representatives are regularly engaged in Operational process/procedure reviews i.e. SOPs, PHMPs, risk assessments?

  Consistent evidence is available to demonstrate that training representatives are regularly engaged to contribute to operational process/procedure review

  Evidence is available to demonstrate that training representatives are engaged to contribute to operational process/procedure review but it does not appear to be regular

  No evidence is available to demonstrate that training representatives are engaged to contribute to operational process/procedure reviews

  na

• Comments/Notes:

• I confirm that the information stated in this report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

• Signature of auditor:

  Sign