I have an assignment at work to "grade" employees mechanical skills in our plant. Most of their work centers on piping, valves, motors, gearboxes, and pumps along with the associated tools, safety, and some minor rigging and cutting/welding skills. I come from a office working background and have almost 2 years at this job in a plant environment. Some of the 3rd shift people I barely see. Has anyone done something similar or have any good ideas? Their pay is effected by my judgment so I want to do as good a job as possible. I am thinking some king of written test with a few practical hands on tests. Thanks for any ideas
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Mechanical skills testing for plant employees - ideas to implement? 3
- Thread starter USAeng
- Start date
give them a lego kit to build ... see how they figure it out ...
a) read the instructions, plan the work,
b) leap in.
obviously you could use something more situationally appropriate (tho' a lego toy would be fun).
i guess there are three areas to assess ...
1) basic technical knowledge/skills
2) procedural (read and follow a drwg)
3) problem solving (figuring things out on the fly)
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
a) read the instructions, plan the work,
b) leap in.
obviously you could use something more situationally appropriate (tho' a lego toy would be fun).
i guess there are three areas to assess ...
1) basic technical knowledge/skills
2) procedural (read and follow a drwg)
3) problem solving (figuring things out on the fly)
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Most of their work centers on piping, valves, motors, gearboxes, and pumps along with the associated tools, safety, and some minor rigging and cutting/welding skills.
My inclination would be to grade heavily on safe practices during the hands-on part of the test. Provide safety glasses and see if they're worn, etc.
My inclination would be to grade heavily on safe practices during the hands-on part of the test. Provide safety glasses and see if they're worn, etc.
Have you Googled "Mechanical Skills Test"? There are quite a few options.
You need to be very careful, though. In my experience, a lot of shop employees are there (in the shop instead of the office) because they don't like taking tests. That is, they left school and went to work not because of low intelligence, but because they did not do well on tests (which made them feel stupid). Be prepared to see a lot of backlash if you start a written test program and watch out if they find out their pay will be related to how well they do on the tests. Not only will this make you a Bad Guy, but it can actually create a problem that is worse than the one you have been assigned to address.
You can mitigate some of this by making sure everyone understands that the test is designed so that nobody can make 100%. Also, test a variety of areas, not just ones that have a direct impact to the jobs. That is, design the test so that it appears more as a skills assessment than a knowledge grading. Have a few plumbing questions in there (if you are dealing with a metalworking shop), for example, just to prove that there is nothing wrong with missing some of the questions.
After the test, express the results merely as a ranking, not a absolute score. Before releasing the results, go over them with each employees direct supervisor to see if he agrees with them; if you run into a situation where Employee Alpha is ranked #3 and Employee Gamma is ranked #16, but the supervisor tells you that Gamma is much better at doing the work than Alpha, make sure you can document this and let it affect the final result. Perhaps put the rankings in 5 buckets, and do it so there are only a few in the top bucket, and nobody in the bottom bucket.
Good Luck!
rp
You need to be very careful, though. In my experience, a lot of shop employees are there (in the shop instead of the office) because they don't like taking tests. That is, they left school and went to work not because of low intelligence, but because they did not do well on tests (which made them feel stupid). Be prepared to see a lot of backlash if you start a written test program and watch out if they find out their pay will be related to how well they do on the tests. Not only will this make you a Bad Guy, but it can actually create a problem that is worse than the one you have been assigned to address.
You can mitigate some of this by making sure everyone understands that the test is designed so that nobody can make 100%. Also, test a variety of areas, not just ones that have a direct impact to the jobs. That is, design the test so that it appears more as a skills assessment than a knowledge grading. Have a few plumbing questions in there (if you are dealing with a metalworking shop), for example, just to prove that there is nothing wrong with missing some of the questions.
After the test, express the results merely as a ranking, not a absolute score. Before releasing the results, go over them with each employees direct supervisor to see if he agrees with them; if you run into a situation where Employee Alpha is ranked #3 and Employee Gamma is ranked #16, but the supervisor tells you that Gamma is much better at doing the work than Alpha, make sure you can document this and let it affect the final result. Perhaps put the rankings in 5 buckets, and do it so there are only a few in the top bucket, and nobody in the bottom bucket.
Good Luck!
rp
In high school I worked part time at a bicycle shop as a mechanic. All summer long we would fix customer bikes, all winter long we would overhaul the bikes we took in trade for resale the next season. This was back in the day when the planetary gear two and three speed hubs outnumbered the bikes with derailleur gear shifts. I took a Schwinn factory training course after a year or so of working there. One of the tests they gave at the end of the course was a bucket with all the parts for three different brands of planetary three speed hubs. We were timed to correctly assemble all three which had to work properly before the clock was stopped. I set the Schwinn company record. I made a lot of money for a kid in those days stripping down used bikes to the bare frames and rebuilding them from the ground up, cleaning, fixing or replacing every component as needed for resale. I would do three or four of the same model at once, my version of an assembly line.
That is the only mechanical skills test I ever took & I liked it but then I've always loved taking tests.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
That is the only mechanical skills test I ever took & I liked it but then I've always loved taking tests.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
-
2
- #8
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
It sounds to me like your management is expecting some sort of 'gain' to be gotten from this exercise, which course is not unexpected, otherwise why waste everyone's time and company resourses. The issue is, WHAT exactly is it that they expect to gain? Or to put it another way, what 'problem' is it that they want to solve?
Now if the 'problem' is something like low-quality, poor productivity, too many workplace injuries, excessive machine and plant maintenance/repair costs, etc., then what you've been asked to do is very reasonable and everyone, when they're made aware of the issues, should generally accept the process and the intended goals and be willing to fully cooperate.
However, since you specifically mentioned that the workers wages would be directly impacted by what is learned, this sends up a red flag immediately. If the 'problem' that your management is seeing is that people are getting paid too much money and that this activity is intended to identify those individuals whose wages can be reduced, then you're in big trouble. After all, if there are NO real expectatiosn that any of the previously mentioned production/safety related issues will be resolved with this effort but rather that there must be an overall reduction in the 'cost of labor', then that means that irrespective of how the workers actually get ranked after whatever tests or evaluations are completed, someone is going to look at that list and they are going to draw a line and everyone below it is going to get a cut in pay (or perhaps hours, but then that's the same thing) and I think I'm safe in saying that I doubt that anyone will look near the top of the list and draw a second line where those above it will get a raise. It does not sound like your management is looking for a 'net-zero' outcome here. They want to gain some sort of benefit and again, if it's NOT going to be with respect to that list of production/safety related issues then there is ONLY one thing left that it could possibly be.
So you have a choice, if it's truly related to those production/safety issues previously mentioned, then get going and do the best job that you can. But if there's any chance at all that it's nothing more than a 'snipe hunt' trying to find out who should get their pay cut, then no matter what you do next, first thing would be to update your resume since if you do go through with this and it does result in pay cuts or some other 'cost-reduction' outcome where the workers are the ones impacted, then I suspect that it would not be in your best intersts to continue to "work in the plant environment" or anywhere in that company for that matter.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Now if the 'problem' is something like low-quality, poor productivity, too many workplace injuries, excessive machine and plant maintenance/repair costs, etc., then what you've been asked to do is very reasonable and everyone, when they're made aware of the issues, should generally accept the process and the intended goals and be willing to fully cooperate.
However, since you specifically mentioned that the workers wages would be directly impacted by what is learned, this sends up a red flag immediately. If the 'problem' that your management is seeing is that people are getting paid too much money and that this activity is intended to identify those individuals whose wages can be reduced, then you're in big trouble. After all, if there are NO real expectatiosn that any of the previously mentioned production/safety related issues will be resolved with this effort but rather that there must be an overall reduction in the 'cost of labor', then that means that irrespective of how the workers actually get ranked after whatever tests or evaluations are completed, someone is going to look at that list and they are going to draw a line and everyone below it is going to get a cut in pay (or perhaps hours, but then that's the same thing) and I think I'm safe in saying that I doubt that anyone will look near the top of the list and draw a second line where those above it will get a raise. It does not sound like your management is looking for a 'net-zero' outcome here. They want to gain some sort of benefit and again, if it's NOT going to be with respect to that list of production/safety related issues then there is ONLY one thing left that it could possibly be.
So you have a choice, if it's truly related to those production/safety issues previously mentioned, then get going and do the best job that you can. But if there's any chance at all that it's nothing more than a 'snipe hunt' trying to find out who should get their pay cut, then no matter what you do next, first thing would be to update your resume since if you do go through with this and it does result in pay cuts or some other 'cost-reduction' outcome where the workers are the ones impacted, then I suspect that it would not be in your best intersts to continue to "work in the plant environment" or anywhere in that company for that matter.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
-
1
- #11
MikeHalloran
Mechanical
Ranking employees is one of the things that Management is paid to do.
If you're not getting Management money, and maybe even if you are, it ain't worth the blowback.
If the crew comprises the sort of artisans with whom I've worked in fab shops, they already know who's good at what task, just like when you were in high school and college, you and all of your classmates knew who was likely to score highest, and next highest, and so on, right on down to the bottom, on any given test.
... and they're not going to be happy about being tested.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
If you're not getting Management money, and maybe even if you are, it ain't worth the blowback.
If the crew comprises the sort of artisans with whom I've worked in fab shops, they already know who's good at what task, just like when you were in high school and college, you and all of your classmates knew who was likely to score highest, and next highest, and so on, right on down to the bottom, on any given test.
... and they're not going to be happy about being tested.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
When I was a manager back 25 years ago with McDonnell Douglas we had to always have a so-called 'totem pole' (and it had to be written down and in your files) that ranked your team's members, but it was never so that I could cut someone's wages but rather as a 'tool' that I had to use if I wanted to promote or give someone a raise that exceeded whatever the base-increase was going to be. Granted, it was also there if and when management come to you and said, "You have to let someone go this Friday, who's it going to be?". And if you didn't give them the name of the person at the bottom of your 'totem pole' you had better have a damn good reason why not.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
rb1957 said:
I was thinking the same thing...probably one of those 'Right to Work for LESS' states.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
bigTomHanks
Mechanical
Wow! I'm sorry you have this ridiculous assignment and the spineless management have left it to you to do their dirty work. Here is what I would do if I were in your shoes right now. The "test" would be a list of skills that person could have for their position with check boxes next to them. The number of checked boxes divided by the total possible is their "score." This makes mis-management happy and doesn't ruin your credibility with the workers.
You are not qualified to do the test. Have someone from the department looking for people do the test. Someone with the technical know-how. Otherwise they will blame you later for hiring the wrong people.It is not the job of the Personnel Dept. to screen the applicants for their technical skills. You bring them in, they test them and recommend them, you hire them.
Don't take on more than you can handle.
Don't take on more than you can handle.
I have been on both sides of this, and I can tell you one thing. Invest the time and energy in training your people to do what you need in a safe, standardized way. Give them the tools and training to do this. It will in itself, give you a good indicator of the cross-section of skills you have (Cream rises).
"Is the juice worth the squeeze?"
Not in my opinion.
Invest in people means just that.
"Is the juice worth the squeeze?"
Not in my opinion.
Invest in people means just that.
One particular testing requirement should be the ability to read operators manuals and be able to follow instructions detailed in these manuals. I remember an accident that was nearly fatal to a press operator. Over the years maintenance had personnel failed to follow the torque specifications and replacement of threaded studs dictated in the manufacturers specification.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question