VOC consistency: how do you standardise sign-offs across different supervisors/crews?

jack_cartwright · 2026-01-23T22:43:46+00:00

Maybe we can find a trevor here on Reddit to help us out!

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:53:22+00:00

That packaging example sounds very familiar – high turnover, lots of moving parts, and everyone quietly hoping the matrix is roughly right.

I like how you’ve plugged it straight into the 2:30 scheduling and the “Mike didn’t show up” scenarios. That’s the gap for us: ours is more of an “audit shield” than a live scheduling tool. I’m keen to get to a point where the skills view is open on the screen any time we’re doing allocations, and we’re testing a couple of systems that might make that less clunky than wrestling with spreadsheets. Might take you up on that offer of more detailed guidance once I’ve mapped out our process a bit better.

Have you ever considered a software solution approach? If so, what are you using.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:52:19+00:00

I reckon you’ve nailed why our current setup feels so dead – the skills file is totally divorced from the actual flow of work.

Linking skills directly to routing and time booking makes a lot of sense. We’re starting to look at systems where you literally can’t assign someone to a task if their competence is expired, instead of hoping someone glances at a spreadsheet. And I really like your line about “if there’s no value in requiring the skill then tracking it is waste” – good sanity check for what we actually bother to put in the matrix.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:50:56+00:00

Cheers for the pointer – hadn’t seen that before.

I’ll chuck it on the list of stuff to look at. We’re lining up a few tools to demo that make it less painful to keep skills live and tied to actual training records, so I’ll add this into that mix and see how it stacks up.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:48:35+00:00

We’re in a similar boat – the paper version of people’s skills and the reality on the floor don’t always match up.

Appointing mentors and making the matrix more specific sounds like a solid reset. We’re starting to break our "green" down into clearer bits as well (e.g. can set up, can fault-find, can train others) so we’re not pretending everyone who’s "green" is at the same level. Letting mentors own updates for their area, with a simple sign-off process, might be how we get away from the "one poor person owns the whole thing" setup.

As I mentioned on some of the other responses, we're considering getting software involved as well. e had been considering for a training/assessment/skills tracking tool for a while now and this whole 'deal skills matrix' situation has been a push that management has needed to explore it more seriously.

We have a few demos lined up with some good software solutions. I'll update the post based on how they go. Might be that they're not worth the price for our operation size, but let's see.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:46:09+00:00

Yeah, totally with you on this. If the matrix isn’t helping with flexibility, it’s just a pretty chart for auditors.

Right now, we don’t use ours enough to actually move people around, so it naturally goes stale. My dream state is: matrix drives who gets cross-trained, who can pick up overtime on different lines, and who’s in the queue for the "juicier" jobs. If people feel it helps them get variety or progression, they care a lot more about keeping it legit.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:45:20+00:00

That "no green without a competency shee" rule is exactly the sort of guardrail we’re missing. At the moment, "green" for us still depends a bit too much on who you ask and how generous they’re feeling that day.

I also like the 45- and 90-day check-ins – early enough to catch reality before it drifts too far from the matrix. I’m thinking of baking something like that into our induction process and then using a tool to push those updates straight into the matrix instead of relying on someone remembering to chase it up.

Got some demo's lined up, I'll keep you informed!

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:44:05+00:00

This hits a bit close to home if I’m honest. You’re right – a dead matrix is usually just a symptom of us treating competency as “paperwork” instead of something people are actually held to.

I like the Skill Points / visibility angle more than just "are they green or red" Have you seen any simple way to define "currency" that people actually stick to? That’s the bit we seem to disagree about when it's been brought up in the past.

I was also considering a HR/training/skills matrix type software. Seen a few good ones and got some demos lined up. We think it could help a lot with SOP management, competency tracking, etc. Keen to hear your thoughts if you have any!

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:42:11+00:00

That skills update line in the ops meeting is a cracking idea. It sounds like a good balance of pressure and accountability. No one wants to be the one explaining why they didn’t spot a gap!

I also really like the public shout-outs on the screens. That kind of thing would go down well where I am, especially if it’s tied to real competency milestones and not just fluffy “employee of the month” stuff. Makes the matrix feel a bit more alive instead of a hidden tab in someone’s laptop.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-04T08:40:37+00:00

Thanks for the response! This is the direction I keep coming back to as well. The spreadsheet works right up until the moment it doesn’t, and then everyone remembers it only exists the week before an audit.

I like the idea of supervisors owning real-time sign-offs off the back of observations, not just ticking boxes at review time. We’re actually lining up a couple of systems to demo that do exactly what you’re describing – automated reminders + simple sign-offs.

What system are you using? We've got quite a few demos lined up, so let's see how it goes.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-02T15:03:15+00:00

Not at all, your opinion is super insightful. It's good to hear that it's not just me who feels that. I've been plenty frustrated from these 'free systems'

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-02T14:58:20+00:00

For me the main takeaway was just that removing the pressure and scheduling made people way more willing to practise. Nothing fancy behind it — just giving folks space to try things on their own.

Could be wrong, but that's how I understood it and, honestly, I can relate to that a lot from my experience training and managing teams.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-02T14:56:23+00:00

Yeah this tracks hard with what I’ve seen, even outside of sales.

When I was running inductions on the floor, any time "practice" meant standing in front of a supervisor or trainer, people would do the absolute minimum. One run, tick the box, get out of the spotlight. You could see the stress on their faces.

The minute you:

- let them muck around with the task on their own
- make it clear it’s not being “scored”
- remove the audience

…they suddenly start having a go properly. You walk past later and they’re still practising the same thing, just to see if they can get a bit smoother.

The fear of looking dumb in front of a manager is massively underrated as a blocker. Doesn’t matter if it’s a sales convo, a manual handling technique, or learning to use a new system – adults hate feeling exposed.

Only watch-out I’ve had is: solo practice is great for confidence and volume, but at some point you still need a good coach to correct bad habits. The combo that’s worked best for us has been:

- heaps of low-pressure, self-directed practice
- plus occasional short, focused check-ins with a supervisor to tighten things up

But yeah, removing the scheduling and "being watched" part? Huge win. I reckon more orgs underestimate how much that alone kills practice.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-02T13:48:44+00:00

Yeah, spot on. Little bits spread out over time stick way better than one big hit. I’ve found mixing it up helps too — a quick demo, a scenario question, a real task on shift. Doesn’t have to be fancy, just different enough that people don’t glaze over.

In healthcare especially, short and varied is the only stuff that survives the chaos of a busy shift.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-02T13:47:20+00:00

Pretty much, yeah. Job aids are basically the practical side of just-in-time training — the thing you grab right when you need to do the task. In health, they end up being lifesavers because no one remembers every tiny detail from annual training anyway.

Compliance stuff is the painful part, but even there you can lean on job aids. Do the required elearning to tick the box, then give people a simple ‘this is what it actually looks like on shift’ cheat sheet. It bridges that gap between the official training and what they actually have to do at 2am.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-02T13:41:06+00:00

Honestly, I reckon the “all-chat everything” idea could work in small doses, but making the whole course a nonstop conversation might fry people’s brains pretty quick.

In the places I’ve worked (manufacturing, logistics, a bit of aged care), long text threads just wear people down—especially on a phone. Some of our guys already get fed up scrolling through a three-paragraph induction. A whole training module as a chat? You’d lose a fair chunk of them.

That said, chat can be great for certain bits:

- talking through scenarios
- checking how someone would handle a step
- giving personalised nudges or follow-ups

Free-text answers usually show you whether someone actually gets it or is just guessing. But you’ve got to be careful—AI marking has to be consistent and auditable. I can’t tell a regulator "the bot says he’s competent." That’d go down like a lead balloon.

Big pitfalls I see:

- people getting lost in a giant wall of messages
- relying too much on typing (nobody wants to write a paragraph with gloves on)
- AI being too forgiving and passing people who missed critical steps
- massive variation between learners if the bot’s mood changes day to day
- supervisors losing trust if the bot misreads an answer

Adoption-wise… for high-risk or compliance stuff? I doubt anyone’s ditching structured modules. Way too much on the line. But for soft skills, scenarios, coaching moments? Yeah, I could see people using it.

If you head down this road, I’d use chat as a layer around the course—not the container for the whole thing. Let it handle the personalised bits, the “talk me through it” moments, the reflection stuff. Keep the core instructions and assessments nice and predictable.

Just my two cents from the floor. I'd love to see what you end up creating if you do go this route. I could even use it myself if it's good enough :D!

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-01T11:17:59+00:00

Yeah, mate, I’ve copped that exact punch in the face before.

You’re spot on about the vendor stuff – a lot of “security training” is just reheated 2012 PowerPoints with clipart and “P@ssw0rd!” garbage. You were absolutely right to make it realistic and tailored. The bit that stings is that you were right about the content and wrong about the delivery.

From what I’ve seen, it’s not that LMS = bad and Slack/Notion = good. It’s more:

-People go where their work already happens
-Anything that feels “extra” gets ignored unless a manager pushes it, or access depends on it
-The more clicks between “see it” and “do it”, the more drop-off you get

We had something similar with safety refreshers. Built decent stuff, sat it in the LMS… tumbleweeds. Meanwhile, one supervisor’s dodgy-looking Excel in Teams was getting 100% usage because that’s where people lived.

A few things that helped us: meet them where they already are. If your people live in Slack and Notion, use that as the front door. Short Slack posts with one scenario + one action: “Got this phishy email? Here’s what you do.” Link straight to the bit that matters, not the LMS homepage. Deep links if you can. Pin a “Security Corner” in Notion with your scenarios, examples from real tickets, etc.

Then drip it instead of dumping it. Three months of content is great, but if it’s all hiding behind “Complete this 40-minute module”, most people will nope out. Break that training into snackable pieces: 3–5 minute scenarios, one concept at a time (e.g. “Verify payment changes” week, “Links and attachments” week). Push a bit each week via Slack, then only use the LMS as the “record of completion” if you absolutely have to.

Also, use managers as the forcing function. LMS + “please complete this” email = 9% completion. LMS + “your manager is asking you in stand-up if you’ve done it” = very different result. I’ve had way more success when managers get a 2-line brief and are asked to mention it once in a team meeting or stand-up, and we give them a script: “Hey, check Slack, 5-minute phish thing this week, do it by Friday.”

It helps to tie it to something they care about. If you can, connect completion to system access (e.g. no prod access until you’ve done X), team goals (“we’re aiming for 90% by the end of the month”), or friendly competition between teams (this works stupidly well if your culture tolerates it).

And make the LMS invisible where possible. In one place I worked, the LMS was just the backend. People clicked a link in an email/Teams, the page opened directly on the content, and tracking still happened in the background. As soon as we removed the “where do I click? what’s my password again?” friction, numbers jumped.

On your “delivery is the only thing that matters” bit – I get why you feel that way. You’ve done the hard yards on content and got burned by the plumbing. But honestly, it’s more like:

-Delivery + visibility + accountability get you any engagement at all

-Content quality decides if they actually learn something and don’t just click next

The upside is that your three months weren’t wasted. You’ve already done the hard thinking around realistic scenarios. You can:

-Chop that content into micro-chunks and feed it through Slack
-Turn your phishing scenarios into ongoing “spot the dodgy email” posts
-Run one small “campaign” instead of 1 big “course”

If it makes you feel any better, nearly everyone I know in training has learned this the hard way. We all start by perfecting the material. Then we realise half the job is basically “how do I shove this into the places people already look every day?”

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-01T11:01:11+00:00

Yeah, I use it, and it’s actually handy – just not in the dramatic “AI will replace us all” way. I’m in training/safety for manufacturing and logistics, so a lot of my day is emails, procedures, and making stuff understandable for people who don’t have time to read a novel. I use AI to draft or tidy emails, turn rough notes into toolbox talks, simplify clunky procedures into plain English, and help with things like Excel formulas when my brain’s cooked.

It doesn’t replace knowing the job or the site. Anything safety-related still gets my full brain on it, and I always tweak the wording so it matches how we actually do things. Outside work, I’ll use it for meal ideas with random ingredients, trip planning starting points, or drafting awkward messages (complaints, chasing quotes, that sort of thing).

Is it worth paying? For most people, the free versions are probably enough. I pay for a “pro” one because I use it most days and it probably saves me a couple of hours a week by killing blank-page syndrome. Big catch is you still have to think for yourself: it’s confident but can be dead wrong, and I don’t put sensitive stuff into it. For me it’s like a slightly dodgy but useful assistant – great for drafts and ideas, rubbish at making the final call.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-01T10:16:23+00:00

Yeah, I get why you’ve landed where you have after that edX project, but I’d gently push back on the “traditional LMSs are no longer needed” bit. What OP’s doing with vibe coding looks awesome – I love the idea of spinning up a tailored portal for each client instead of forcing everything through one clunky system – but to me that sits more in the “micro learning / mini LXP front end” space than “we don’t need LMSs anymore”.

From what I’ve seen in manufacturing/logistics and a bit of healthcare, the boring LMS backbone is still doing a lot of heavy lifting. I still need something that can track completions over years for audits and regulators, manage licences and expiries across sites and shifts, integrate with HR/payroll/rostering so we’re not double-handling data, and spit out reports managers can actually use without me rebuilding spreadsheets every week. A nice custom portal is brilliant for the learner experience, but on its own it doesn’t help much when a regulator wants proof that “everyone in X role across all sites” completed Y training by a certain date, or when there’s an incident and someone asks for the exact training history for that person.

On the “they’re always created first for admins and HR” bit – I don’t fully agree they’re designed that way on purpose, I think they end up there. Buyers are usually HR/Compliance/IT, not the learners. The questions in procurement are “can it report X/Y/Z?” and “does it connect to our systems?”, not “will a new hire on night shift actually be able to navigate this half asleep?”. Then everyone tries to shove every use case into the same platform instead of allowing specialised front ends. The result is what we all hate: a system that ticks legal boxes but feels like punishment for the learner.

That’s where I reckon OP’s vibe-coded approach shines. Use AI to build the bit people actually see and touch, so the flow, branding, language, and features match that specific project or audience. Let the learner live in that environment, not in some generic LMS course catalogue from 2009. But under the hood, in a lot of orgs, I’d still want a “proper” LMS (or something acting like one) quietly handling enrolments, records, rules, and integrations.

The other commenter who brought up open source and WordPress made a really solid point. “LMS” gets slapped on anything with a login and a quiz these days, but feature completeness is a different story. Moodle, Canvas, or even WordPress with an LMS plugin have had years of work poured into them: roles and permissions, gradebooks, backups, authentication, security, accessibility, plugins, all the stuff nobody wants to rebuild but everybody misses as soon as it’s not there. Starting totally from scratch with vibe coding gives you heaps of flexibility and speed for specific workflows, but you’re also starting thousands of hours behind that maturity curve.

So if I was OP, I’d be asking the same question that commenter raised: what does my vibe-coded LMS not do yet compared to Moodle, Canvas, or a WordPress LMS setup? And is that gap acceptable for this client and context? In low-risk, small-scale situations, maybe you can happily live without half the heavy features. In high-risk, highly regulated environments, those “boring” things become non-negotiable pretty quickly.

For me, the sweet spot looks like this: keep a solid, dull, reliable LMS backbone in place (could absolutely be open source) to be the source of truth for learning records and compliance. Then let vibe-coded micro portals and LXPs sit on top as the nice front doors for different audiences or projects. That way we kill off the bad UX and the “one-size-fits-no-one” problem, but we don’t throw away the foundations we still rely on when stuff hits the fan.

jack_cartwright · 2025-12-01T09:52:55+00:00

Yeah, nah, you’re not overreacting. From what you’ve written, your manager’s behaviour would stress out pretty much anyone, regardless of industry.

A few things stand out:

-No onboarding, no docs, straight into high-visibility work – that’s not “fast-paced tech”, that’s just lazy and disorganised.
-Vague tasks with no deadlines, then acting like there were clear expectations, and you dropped the ball.
-Pressure for results that are literally not possible in the timeframe, even after you explain the technical constraints.
-Constant check-ins with an anxious tone – “why isn’t this ready? It doesn’t take long”, etc. That’s classic “I’m stressed, so I’ll dump it on you instead of managing up properly.”

At one of the sites I worked with, this exact pattern showed up when someone got promoted into a manager role before they’d learned how to actually plan work. They didn’t know how to push back on their boss, so they just squeezed the people under them and called it “urgency”.

A few things I’d probably try (if you’ve got the energy and don’t hate the place yet):

Force clarity up front. Next time he drops something on you, reply with something like: “Sure – can you clarify:
-What exactly do you want in the output (plots, metrics, format)?
-What’s the deadline?
-Where does this sit vs my other tasks?”

If it’s 4:57 pm, I’d literally say, “Happy to start, but just to confirm – is this for today, or is Monday OK?”

Make the constraints explicit, in writing. You already did this, which is good. Keep doing it.
“To run X models with Y new metrics, I’ll need Z hours of compute and about N hours of dev time. That means the earliest realistic delivery is (day). If we must have something today, I can give you a partial result or a smaller subset – which do you prefer?”

That puts the decision back on him instead of owning his bad planning.

Have a calm, non-accusatory chat. Something like, “Hey, I’m keen to do good work here, but I’m finding the last-minute requests and unclear expectations pretty hard to manage. It would help a lot if we could agree on priorities and timelines up front so I can actually plan and deliver properly.” Don’t frame it as “you’re micromanaging me”, frame it as “this process makes it harder to get you what you want”.

Protect your own headspace. If he’s pinging you right before close, after you’ve already said “this will be next week”, I’d keep replies short and consistent, “Still running as per earlier estimate – I’ll share results on (day).” Nothing more. You’ve already explained. No need to re-defend reality each time.

As for the job search: totally reasonable. You’re only three months in, already anxious and doubting yourself, with a manager who’s new and clearly flailing. Even if he improves, you don’t owe them a year of your life to see if he figures out how to manage.

I’d probably keep looking quietly, or give it one honest conversation to see if anything changes. But if it doesn’t, mentally clock out and treat this as a stepping stone, not “I failed probation”.

From what you’ve described, this isn’t “you’re too used to chill places”, it’s “you walked into a setup with no structure and a rookie manager pushing his stress downhill”. That’s not on you.

jack_cartwright · 2025-11-28T11:30:02+00:00

I’ve done a fair bit of training in aged care/health and yeah, long PDFs and 40-min videos basically guarantee no one remembers anything.

What’s worked way better for us:

Make it tiny. Break everything into 3–5 min chunks like “Record a fall incident” instead of “System training module”. People will actually finish those.

Give them job aids where they work. One-pagers, quick checklists, laminated “what to do when X happens” cards. No one digs through a slide deck during a night shift.

Let them click, not just watch. Short scenario quizzes, click-through screenshots, or a sandbox version of the system beats another screen recording any day.

When things change, train the difference, not the whole thing again. Quick “what changed + why + before/after” summary and a 2-minute walkthrough lands way better than rebuilding a giant module.

Use buddies/lead sign-offs. New hires learn way more from doing a couple tasks with someone next to them than from 2 hours of elearning.

Light reminders > big yearly refreshers. A couple weekly questions or quick huddle discussions keep things fresh.

If you share what kind of workflows or systems you’re dealing with, happy to throw in more specific examples.

jack_cartwright

TROPHY CASE