Tactics to work with Design Engineering on CAR

[ProblemChild]

I feel that the design engineering team often got offensive whenever a CAR was issued to them to correct a design-related problem as part of the 8D.

Do you agree that psychologically it will make the situation better if we just simply change the term from "CORRECTIVE" action to something like " improvement plan" or " Design enhancement" whenever we deal with our internal issue in an OEM environment?

Is it just me to feel that many technical professionals are very sensitive to the term " Corrective action"?

 

[yodon]

Interesting question.

I've never worked with design folks who were offended when a change request was made to correct a design issue and you could point to the specifics of why the design failed to meet the requirements. Is it possible the management team is using CARs for punitive measures? If that's the case, you may well have deeper issues.

Are your design folks in on the review or are the CARs just being "thrown over the wall"? This may be another source of the ill feelings. If this is the case, you may be missing an opportunity to improve. What was the earliest in the process that the issue should have been caught? Why were the existing controls (e.g., reviews) not effective in catching the issue? Engaging with the design team on such questions may get better buy-in as well.

Changing the terminology of a correction (a nonconformity has been identified and needs to be corrected) to something else would not be advisable. You need clear delineation between true issues (nonconformities) and enhancements. Examining issues gives you opportunity to improve processes: where could the issue have been caught earlier and why didn't we catch it earlier? (Note: if you are having a lot of true "design enhancements" that may be another indicator that the very early-on processes such as user needs or usability aren't being properly addressed - so even "enhancements" can be a source for process improvement and you don't want this confused with nonconformities).

Interestingly (to me, at least), I read an article once that a manager went the other direction: instead of calling a software issue a "bug" he called is "spoilage." The intent was to get the mindset around providing the best product possible. I don't recall if it was effective but I thought it kind of resonated.

 

[John Broomfield]

I feel that the design engineering team often got offensive whenever a CAR was issued to them to correct a design-related problem as part of the 8D.

Do you agree that psychologically it will make the situation better if we just simply change the term from "CORRECTIVE" action to something like " improvement plan" or " Design enhancement" whenever we deal with our internal issue in an OEM environment?

Is it just me to feel that many technical professionals are very sensitive to the term " Corrective action"?

rudolph,

This may be the first time they are being held to account for meeting the requirements.

No need to argue over terms or to battle with them.

Instead you need to listen to them earn their trust.

Just find out what they are trying to achieve and help them to see how the system (of which they are part) stops them from fulfilling their objectives.

Then you can empathise with them as you help them to identify and remove the impediments to meeting their objectives.

Sometimes the quality guy is seen as the problem but in reality you’re on the same side and they want their design output to meet requirements too.

This “tactic” as you put it has to come from your genuine concern for their success. I would drop the maliputive tactic mindset.

John

 

[psp1234]

John - you are spot on!
People will realize that this is the same reaction under a different name...
Best thing it to understand why design issues are not right in the first time and help design-eng resolve issues that hold them back (more/other training, more resources, better plan, better clarity of spec etc.)

sue