How to explain deliberate sabotage?

[Randy]

I think you can never positively prevent someone who is intent on doing harm from doing harm.

As a retired law enforcement officer I can assure you that you're 100% correct....Something a good majority of people can't get a handle on

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Let’s say you tell “the truth” and reports willful sabotage. What do you do if the customer now asks if you brought criminal charges against the former employee? What if these are defense related products? Or medical device related products? Isn’t that a federal offense? Not sure one wants to go down this rabbit hole.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think you can never positively prevent someone who is intent on doing harm from doing harm.

As a retired law enforcement officer I can assure you that you're 100% correct....Something a good majority of people can't get a handle on

There might be warning signs, however, when people are disgruntled. I had a situation once where an off-shift inspector, who had never worked an off-shift job before, requested a move to first shift. When hired, it was made plain that the job shouldn't be considered a gateway to the first shift, and he should be sure before taking the position that he would be OK with working nights. He was told that he wasn't going to be moved, and started grumbling to others about what a horsebleep place it was, and how he was going to quit as soon as he could find another job. A search for a replacement was begun, and when one was found, the complainer was let go. Why take a chance?

 

[Jim Wynne]

An interesting related thread: Adding Malicious Operator to FMEA? (elsmar.com)

 

[Zero_yield]

I've worked in situations were technicians were found performing their job under the influence of various substances, so I understand where you're coming from. I would stress to say what you know, not what you suspect. You know that a human check failed. That happens - everyone knows human checks aren't perfect. I would take the opportunity to inspect your processes and see how well your process would catch a technician doing the same thing because they're tired, working two+ jobs, new baby at home, broke up with a significant other, etc. The end result may be the same, but you should do your due diligence to understand the nonconformance. You might also get some ways to reduce the possibility of recurrence.

Overall though, I would encourage you to be truthful about the problem, the investigation, and your proposed solutions.

I'm not asking you to answer any of the questions below. I'm just suggesting some questions I would want to answer to share another perspective.

• How frequently do you get similar complaints?
• Is your sample size for inspection large enough?
• Can an electronic inspection be implemented?
• Why were some parts caught and others were not?
• Would implementing a four-eye verification be useful?
• Is there any objective evidence that the technician performed or did not perform the inspection per procedure (printouts, screenshots, log in / log out ERP data, templates used, equipment used, etc.)? If not, is there a way to capture that GXP data in the future?
• Is yield data regularly reviewed on a per-operator basis? If so, is there any kind of "cosmetic calibration" where technicians review rejects and good product to try to reduce variation between technicians?
• Was the technician spouting their master plan to others (in person or on social media)? If so, did anyone report the issue? If anyone reported the issue, did management take them seriously?

 

[Jen Kirley]

I am reminded that work environment in ISO 9001 now includes notes describing how the clause could be applied to people issues. I suppose the assumption is that it's about error versus deliberate mischief, but Randy is right when he keeps pointing out that when someone really wants to misbehave, he/she will find a way to do so. Those of us who harp on process controls are trying to make it harder for that person to succeed.

That's why I included both in my posts. Processes are made of man-material-machine-method and mother nature, and (hu)man is usually the most error prone. That's why the push to improve processes and automate versus inspect.

If it happens once, it can happen again. These days with labor stresses it is important to pay attention and do what we can - though we all understand sometimes we have no choice - to keep from losing a good employee. Although the article is not addressing this exact scenario, The Law of the Hog applies. But again, I am mindful that this employee started out on second shift and then decided she wanted first shift. I don't know why: child care problems? Was an effort made to switch with someone?

I am not affiliated with VitalSmarts (though I wish I was!)

 

[Randy]

There might be warning signs, however, when people are disgruntled.

The person can be as happy as a clam and disgruntled isn't in the equation.

Randy is right when he keeps pointing out that when someone really wants to misbehave, he/she will find a way to do so.

Thanks, and that person doesn't not have to be unhappy, mad, disgruntled, disgusted or any other "dis", they just wanna.

OK quality guru's do your 8D, 5 Why, Ishikawa or whatever for an employee who goes about doing what the OP started because he/she (or 500 other pronouns) is a "paraphile"? (multiple definitions and I'm looking at the ones not related to people)

While at look at "Workplace deviance" and what that entails.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The person can be as happy as a clam and disgruntled isn't in the equation.

I said that there might be warning signs. I think we know that there are lots of possible motivations, ranging from the obvious to the bizarre. In some cases prediction will be impossible, or nearly so. In other cases, there will be warning signs.

 

[Mike S.]

Let’s say you tell “the truth” and reports willful sabotage. What do you do if the customer now asks if you brought criminal charges against the former employee? What if these are defense related products? Or medical device related products? Isn’t that a federal offense? Not sure one wants to go down this rabbit hole.

That's why you maybe CYA and say we can't be sure but it appears most likely that X happened. If you instead make something up that is less embarassing, what if someone tells the customer that you made up the response? That too is a rabbit hole.

I have responded to a customer CAR before in a "only God knows for sure what the root cause is" situation and told them it appears most likely that X happened but we are unable to say for sure.

Just because a CAR is issued doesn't mean that a root cause can always be determined.

 

[Thee Bouyyy]

Just because a CAR is issued doesn't mean that a root cause can always be determined.

However, there is always one root cause for any given problem.