M Greenaway said:
I totally agree with the fella.
The analogy of Joe's cock up due to a relation dying is ridiculous. How on earth would you get to that conclusion from a proper 5 why process from the reported fault ??
Production manager, "Joe, it's good to see you back. We were all very sorry to hear of your loss, is there anything we can do for you?
Joe, "No, I'm doing OK, I'll sure miss that ol' geezer, he was my hero as a kid."
Production manager, "Yeah, that's a tough one, you make sure to let me know if you need another day, or something, OK?"
Joe, "sure thing, PM, I appreciate everything the company has done for me. And, by the way, I heard about the screw-ups with that packaging the day I left. I'm sure sorry about that. I know we had a perfect record, 10 years and no mis-packed boxes. I knew what I was supposed to do, I just kind of zoned out. Ya know? I couldn't believe it when I heard he died, there's no excuse other than I just wasn't thinking about my job."
PM, "It's alright, Joe, we know that you didn't mean to mess up, and your record is great. There was no harm done, everything was accepted, they were just concerned that we were cutting corners by not adding the amount of packing material they requested. It isn't going to cost us a thing now that they know what happened."
Joe, "Thanks, PM, I was real worried when I realized what I'd done, that's a big account and I'd hate to make 'em mad."
OK, so now tell me again why there had to be an in-depth investigation, 5Y or anything else? If you know what caused the problem, it is an isolated incident, the effect is minimal and the guy admits that it was a brain f@%t, what more do you want?
Call me lazy, but that would be good enough for me, as long as there are people involved in the process, there will be mistakes made. Computers don't program themselves, just look at Mickeysoft