Excuse my slow-witted take on this but I read the original post as saying that the engineering department gave the wrong or incorrect drawing to the operator. This operator made to the drawing which is what he/she is paid to do. Initiative is good but setting up processes so it is not needed is better (error proofing). Is that correct?
Sorry but operators can have initiative, which is to be commended when it happens, but you need to make it so you don't rely on it. The operator makes parts to specification (this case drawing). The issue here is engineering gave out the incorrect or wrong drawing not the operator's fault surely???
Either way you have NC parts, all our customers would write a NCR up straight away and we'd go through the full RCA and reporting process (
8D in our case). This then gets everything logged and recorded. Preventative actions made and applied to all other parts that could be affected. If I have read this right, in this case it is something to do with the engineering checking that their drawings are right before issuing them. Some check in place perhaps. I supposed part of containment is to withdraw the drawing, issue the correct one and get the parts made correctly so the customer is only affected as little as possible by this NC.
For my sins I'm heavily involved in the 8D process here and in our case there is a lot of causes that involve documentation, WI, specs, etc. Basically spelling out everything that can go wrong. Operator error rarely washes with our customers, they like a nice, clean systems or process error to be corrected.
Of course I could have read it all wrong but the above is my rather long
