J
JRKH
OK, I know that we are not suppose to use operator error as a root cause, but I'm not sure how else to label it.
Here Goes:
Customer ordered copper parts 20 inches long with 4 punched holes in one end. The print calls for tin plating on approx 3" of each end to the part.
Parts were manufactured with plating only on the end with the holes.
Parts were cleaned and packed, and the job reviewed by the Fabrication Boss per SOP.
Customer Sent Me an NCR to which I must respond. Taking the "5 whys" approach I have:
1) Why Rejected: No tin one end
2) Why: Missed operation
3) Why: Operator did not read drawing correctly
4) Why: Operators often assume tin is only on ends with holes (most common occurance) So when he found the note on the end with the holes he quit looking.
5) Why: In a hurry, or tired, or...............
I would point out that this person is not a "Problem". He is a good operator who simply screwed up.
Any ideas on a good response to this?
James
Here Goes:
Customer ordered copper parts 20 inches long with 4 punched holes in one end. The print calls for tin plating on approx 3" of each end to the part.
Parts were manufactured with plating only on the end with the holes.
Parts were cleaned and packed, and the job reviewed by the Fabrication Boss per SOP.
Customer Sent Me an NCR to which I must respond. Taking the "5 whys" approach I have:
1) Why Rejected: No tin one end
2) Why: Missed operation
3) Why: Operator did not read drawing correctly
4) Why: Operators often assume tin is only on ends with holes (most common occurance) So when he found the note on the end with the holes he quit looking.
5) Why: In a hurry, or tired, or...............
I would point out that this person is not a "Problem". He is a good operator who simply screwed up.
Any ideas on a good response to this?
James