I
inspector 2s
Work instructions clearly state tap to depth, the fitter had tapped 3 of the 4 holes, for some reason he missed one, maybe distracted or something personal could be on his mind, he is also a time served bench fitter with 30 years experience hardly think he needs re training. He has tapped 100s of these the same way with no problems. ?????
So if you or anyone can come up with a better reason, I'm all ears.
Insp 2s
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
For thirty years or more I've been using the excuse,
"Sorry! A cosmic ray or neutrino must have burned out one of my synapses - a billion to one chance of a synapse being burned out again on the same operation. I'm so
!"
ROTFLMAOASTC!
As long as you believe that there is not other answer, you will never find another answer.
When I was vacationing in Britain a few years ago I was lamenting about the problems I was encountering while driving "on the wrong side of the road". The person I was lamenting to suggested that as long as I believed I was driving on the wrong side of the road I would continue to have problems.
That opened my mind. You need to open yours.
I
inspector 2s
I do have an open mind. But on this particular component 3 of the 4 holes were tapped to depth, therefore drawing/procedures/work instructions were followed.
My opinion is that you are probably better off telling a lie as to what happened than being honest, just to give an answer. !!!
:truce: Peace :truce: Peace :truce: peace ...
This thread has been going good so far and has brought ideas at various levels. Again, lets focus on the issue of inspector 2s, by getting into his shoe and under his cap, rather than getting into the personality.
:truce: Peace again ~~~
This thread has been going good so far and has brought ideas at various levels. Again, lets focus on the issue of inspector 2s, by getting into his shoe and under his cap, rather than getting into the personality.
:truce: Peace again ~~~
I've been in the same position as the OP, wherein a customer found a single nonconforming item out of tens of thousands that had been previously produced, and for which no assignable cause could be found, but CA was still demanded. The only way to explain the thing was that someone, at some point, put a nonconforming item in with the conforming ones. A pure case not only of human error (if we dismiss the idea that it was done deliberately, and there was no reason to think that was the case), but of an obvious outlier for which corrective action was neither possible nor sensible.
Ironically, the beseeching of the OP to be open-minded is coming from a position of closed-mindedness, with the closure occurring due to the misbegotten idea that all nonconformities are amenable to, and worthy of, corrective action.
Sometimes customers unwittingly demand creative CA reports, and in those cases you sometimes have to give them what they ask for. They're not asking for corrective action, per se, but rather a response that will allow them to close the issue and get on with making other things worse.
Good point Jim, and Somasheker too.
My remark came off harsher than intended. All I meant is that one needs to make a diligent effort to resolve such things, and that our own frame of mind can hinder that process.
Specifically on Jim's topic. I feel that so much has been made of Deming's saying on this topic that it is always the fault of the system and never the fault of a person is often taken too far. As a result, "human error" is seldom accepted by certification bodies and as a result, customers.
As long as our industry has to deal with this thinking, we will be challenged to find a different answer. I'm not suggesting lying. I'm suggesting getting past the thought that it has to be "human error". Until you do, you will not find an acceptable answer.
This thread has suggested several ways to improve the process, and deeper consideration of them may get you past "human error".
Deming never said that. He said that 85% of quality problems are due to system issues that workers can't control. Human error, which is pervasive and inevitable, is part of the other 15%.
Again, you're suggesting that someone needs to "[get] past the thought that it has to be human error," and no one here has suggested that anything has to be considered human error. Much human error is preventable, but at what cost? Customers too often talk out of both sides of their mouths, on the one side demanding the lowest possible price even after being informed of the potential drawbacks, and then demanding corrective action when what was predicted actually happens.
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
I think we are aware the true situation OP faces is developing a corrective action for a root cause when the customer (and "some" of the Cove writers) refuse to believe an operator "distraction" was the sole cause.
Of course, there ARE solutions involving massive amounts of time and money in re-engineering the process to be more automatic, removing the "human element," as well as simpler, much less expensive error proofing techniques which can reduce, but never completely eliminate the chance of another distraction creating a different nonconformance.
Does everyone agree that, given the data that the error has not happened before [it would have been discovered during assembly when the male threaded part didn't fit], therefore the problem is NOT systemic and therefore would probably never occur again whether new "process changes" are introduced or not?
If yes, how does OP make that point convincingly to his customer?
Having experienced "distractions" in my personal and professional life which caused minor and even major derailments, I recognize the difference between a "pattern" (or "systemic") cause for a distraction and a one-time, impossible-to-prevent distraction. The OP does not have a systemic problem of multiple distractions causing multiple N/C.
Certainly, when I was in the aerospace business back in September of 2001, there was a distraction which totally disrupted our operation. It was a one-time, impossible-for-us-to-prevent distraction. If any customer had dared asked for a CAR because we were late on delivery, I would have cheerfully strangled him on international TV.
Similar threads
