Well said. Let us just hope that the man in question is not a pilot in charge of an aircraft full of people or something equally sinister: Checklists are meant to be used, not memorized.
There is no need to blame an inability to cite policies, procedures, objectives and such on ‘mental block’ if the documents in question are at hand.
Re: What is the corrective action for ‘mental block’?
I thought auditors are trained to be auditee friendly. Calmed them down when necessary and lead them away from 'dead-ends' whenever the situation arises. Therefore, mental-blocks should not be an issue unless you meet the interrogative type.
Re: What is the corrective action for ‘mental block’?
Well . . .
At my age, we call those mental hesitations "senior stutters."
All alliteration aside, humans err. The reason quality professionals preach things like documentation, avoiding anecdotal evidence, and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis is to create processes as mistake proof as possible.
If any employee comes up short when asked about a process or procedure, a good Quality Management System has foreseen that event by supplying documentation AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE PROCESS TAKES PLACE!
Bottom line:
Not employee "mental block," - it is "management failure to put sufficient failsafes in place to assue the viability and robustness of a process."
The head of the audited area’s root-cause analysis on auditee’s inability to tell information e.g. policies and procedures, quality objectives, etc. is due to ‘mental block’. It’s hard to say that the auditee violated ISO 9001 clause 5.5 Internal communication. Is mental block can be considered as ‘unawareness’ if audit is concern? Please advice.
Tell the head that auditees cannot have mental blocks because the definition of auditee in ISO 9000:2005 is
3.9.8 auditee (is the)
organization ([FONT=Arial,Helvetica]3.3.1) being audited [/FONT]
I have just had to correct the same misconception in the project supplying our agency with a security audit process.
A corollary of this misconception is that failures are blamed on individuals rather than seen as a failure of the system. The corrective action is on a system and its processes, not a correction of an individual.
If "blame" is the name of the game, then the head is lacking in the Quality principle of Leadership and needs further education.
Bottom line:
Not employee "mental block," - it is "management failure to put sufficient failsafes in place to assure the viability and robustness of a process."
Might want to work on that in the internal audits - if they are done with enough frequency to both detect and verify the condition. Folks that do the "once a year" internal audits will likely take years to work through this. Those that do layered audits have a much better chance.
A corollary of this misconception is that failures are blamed on individuals rather than seen as a failure of the system. The corrective action is on a system and its processes, not a correction of an individual.
Bottom line:
Not employee "mental block," - it is "management failure to put sufficient failsafes in place to assue the viability and robustness of a process."
Shame on you! It's thinking like this that puts the responsibility in the hands of management :mg: and not in the hands of some worker that will be made the scapegoat...as it should be!
Shame on you! It's thinking like this that puts the responsibility in the hands of management :mg: and not in the hands some worker that will be made the scapegoat...as it should be!
Yes, we know that the "quality system" holds the employee free of any responsibility! It is always the system - interpreted as always management's fault. The standard must be interpreted to further support the "we versus them" philosophy that has been the shop floor culture.
We have traveled so far down the road of quality and cultural enlightenment...or have we really gone anywhere?
Yes, we know that the "quality system" holds the employee free of any responsibility! It is always the system - interpreted as always management's fault. The standard must be interpreted to further support the "we versus them" philosophy that has been the shop floor culture.
We have traveled so far down the road of quality and cultural enlightenment...or have we really gone anywhere?
If there is really an employee who is responsible for the issue, and it is not an isolated event (yes , Virginia, there ARE isolated events), then management is responsible. The employee's manager and the HR manager should have corrected their mistake in putting the wrong employee in the wrong place by removing said employee, either to a place where the lack of ability is harmless, or the sidewalk in front of the building, as appropriate. But it is still a management problem.
Re: What is the corrective action for ‘mental block’?
The Quality Policy is not the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance. The only requirement to be able to recite it is a requirement from within. NO standard demands that; only for employees to know what they are responsible for and authorized to do, and how/why that impacts quality of product/service.
My experience (especially personal experience!) is that people make poor databases. We don't ask them to be able to recite anything beyond what the quality policy generally means - and the part they play in upholding it.
We ask them to show us what and where their work instructions are. We ask them to demonstrate/explain what they do. If this does not match the instructions, there's a problem.
Doing much more than this in most cases is just setting people up for failure.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.
The standard must be interpreted to further support the "we versus them" philosophy that has been the shop floor culture. 
