How to deal with operators who fail to follow work instruction?

J

johnnybegood

Can anyone share how do you deal with operators who fail to follow work instruction?
 
J

Jeff Frost

I would start with the employee’s direct management and work up the chain from there until resolved. If this is an employee under your supervision I would then follow your HR procedures relating to disciplinary action.

If your company is registered to ISO 9001, AS9100 or TS16949 and a register finds that your employee’s failure to follow the work instruction resulted in nonconformity to quality or product requirements you might end up with a finding. In the case of TS16949 it could result in loss of your certification if requested by the customer.
 
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Ok, this happens to all of us... because we deal with humans. I think there are at least two very important why's to deal with first off:

  • Why did the operator/s fail to follow the work instruction? There is a reason, and you need to know what it is.
  • Why should the instruction be followed? There should be a reason for it and people need to know what it is (If no such reason exists the question has been answered).
Pigheadedness is usually not the reason, and even if it is, there are reasons for pigheadedness as well.

/Claes
 
W

WALLACE

johnnybegood said:
Can anyone share how do you deal with operators who fail to follow work instruction?

If you have a business system in place, you'll be able to measure the work process in question. The personnel who "fail to follow" work instructions, often fail to follow for valid reasons. The valid reasons may be: a work process that is unsafe, doesn't ensure quality, has hidden factory associated with it, over cycles and often there are social conditions associated with personnel performance. You also have to ask the question: was this operator involved in the set up of this work instruction, the work area and all the associated functions that should ensure process performance levels?
Assess, measure and be prepared to reform the process to conform to the operators environmental requirements, such as ergonomics and safety.
Re-training may be a step that can verify personal knowledge of work processes and what's expected. The extreme of this scenario is that, the process in question may be "Delta". In this case, personnel who perform Delta processes are constrained by legislation to perform an acceptable level of conformance to expectations. Again training is the key stone.
This scenario can indeed be very easy or extremely difficult to deal with. you must however measure the process in question, data that contains the work process performance measures are important.
Wallace.
 
D

David Hartman

Twenty years ago I would have recommended caning them, but today (since I am mellowing with age) I would have to agree with Claes and Wallace. Find out why there is a refusal to follow the instruction. Sometimes it's a matter of the instruction being WRONG, and the operator being consciencious enough to not want to put product/service (or production rate) at risk. It never hurts to ask, on the other hand think how foolish you'll feel reprimanding the operator just to find out that there was a legitiment reason for the refusal.
:2cents:
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Outsource their job to somebody who will do it.

Following the instructions of an employer who pays you a salary is not a new concept. Use this philosophy..

"You asked to work for me so therefore please perform your tasks as I ask you to and I will pay you as I promised I would"
 
D

David Hartman

Randy said:
Outsource their job to somebody who will do it.

Following the instructions of an employer who pays you a salary is not a new concept. Use this philosophy..

"You asked to work for me so therefore please perform your tasks as I ask you to and I will pay you as I promised I would"

Randy,

Most of the time I tend to agree with you, but something that we shouldn't over look is the fact that the process may be in error. For an ex-marine we'll say that an order has been given, but it's an "illegal" order.

I ran into an instance several years ago where the author of a process (Manufacturing Engineer w/25 years of experience) had operators assembling a radio by attaching 1 wire on the right side panel, rotating the chassis, attaching 1 wire to the left side panel and rotating the chassis again to attach a second wire to the right side panel (continuing this method until all eight wires (4 per side) were attached.

The operators for years had been attaching all 4 wires to the right side panel, rotating the chassis then attaching the other 4 wires to the left side panel (not following the documented process). This practice was written up by the auditor (me), which resulted in the ME reprimanding the operators and bringing production to a virtual standstill - by enforcing a bad process.

Yes, we have the authority to demand our operators follow every process without question, but is that truly what is desired?
:2cents:
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
I think Randy's answer has a place in this. While I agree (of course) that we should do our best to make sure that processes work as they should, and are operated as they should be, operators need to understand that unless and until the requirements are changed, they're obligated to meet them. As Randy suggested, it's part of what they agreed to when they took the job. This isn't to say that I'm advocating forcing people to do things that are unsafe, and I believe strongly in letting people know why they're expected to do things a certain way, but if it's safe and the operator understands the situation and still insists on being a cowboy, Randy has the right answer, imo.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
ddhartma said:
Randy,

Most of the time I tend to agree with you, but something that we shouldn't over look is the fact that the process may be in error. For an ex-marine we'll say that an order has been given, but it's an "illegal" order.

Yes, we have the authority to demand our operators follow every process without question, but is that truly what is desired?
:2cents:

1st let me clear something up. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine. There are only 2 types those that are currently alive and those that aren't. Once you become a Marine, regardless of changes in career, calling or anything else you're always a Marine. It's a tiltle and honor that even the US Congress or the Supreme Court cannot take away and the Executive Branch wouldn't consider.

We're not dealing with legalities in the scenario provided. If the procedure calls for something to be done backwards and the person has made appropriate communication stating that it is wrong, the employee has done his job. If the organization is too stupid to listen to an employee who identifies a need for correction and doesn't address it the employee is correct in doing the job "wrong". The company can eat "S***".

On the other hand, if we have an employee who is a believer in the "Burger King" philosphy of work "have it your own way" then the company is wrong by not taking corrective action and if necessary corrective action "with prejudice". "Toss his smart azz out the door"

As to the legality of orders, ask this question..."Is it legal to order people to perform tasks that could lead to their possible death?"
 

Al Rosen

Leader
Super Moderator
Randy said:
As to the legality of orders, ask this question..."Is it legal to order people to perform tasks that could lead to their possible death?"
Yes, as long as it takes the other guy out first.:agree1:
 
Top Bottom