Lessons Learned Identification - Potential Preventive Action Responsibilities

P

patfee

Just looking for some feedback / confirmation on the most appropriate way forward.

After various important project phases, i.e. mobilization, execution, demobilization etc. we (the project department) normally conduct an audit or a lessons learned meeting.

From these audits / lessons learned meetings, there could be some potential preventive actions to be allocated.

In my opinion, the QHSE department should identify, allocate and follow-up on such preventive actions (particularly on the identification part).

The QHSE deps opinion is that identification of preventive actions is done by the project team them selfs. Rest of the process, i.e. allocation and follow-up, is there responsibility.

I base my opinion on the fact that the identification process should be done by “someone” independent also having oversight on other audits / lessons learned.

Which one is the right approach?
Identification by the Project Dep or QHSE Dep?

Many thanks for your thoughts
Rgds
Patrick
 

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
Re: Lessons Learned Identification

My own take is that the team involved should be the key driver behind indentifying the 'lessons learned'. Why? Because they know what went well during the project, what didn't go so well, how they overcame obstacles, etc. Now this may result in actions being allocated to stakeholders outside of the original team and regular follow-ups on the status of actions could be the responsibility of an assigned department.

I look at it this way....

A nonconformance could be issued by Production, assigned to Purchasing, with regular status follow-ups conducted by Quality (i.e., ensuring updates are given, progress is being made, actions are on time, etc.)
 
P

patfee

I see you point, and tend to agree, but I’m still not convinced…. ;-)

Why? I can think of three of reasons
1/ Conflict of Interest
2/ Overview in relation with other projects
3/ Independence

Lets assume there are two project offices separated from each other making the similar mistakes without knowing this from each other. Each project team might judge each mistake as a one off event solved by a corrective action and not requiring any preventive action. In addition they are very much willing not to issue a non-conformity as it will “damage” someone.

Instead, if these things are handled from the qhse (or q) department, they will identify similar mistakes are identified (oversight) and the greater good is the objective (independence / no conflict of interest) even if that puts “someone” in a bad daylight.

But of course project departments will assist the qhse department to conclude / identify non conformities from lessons learned.

Any thoughts on the above?
 

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
The person/area tasked with the responsibility to ensure follow-ups are conducted could also be responsible for trend analysis, working under the presumption that actions are logged in a central file or location.

That trend analysis may be the "independent" factor you are looking for. If another department came in to tell me what lessons were learned on a project that they were not involved in, I might doubt their findings. After all, they weren't living in the project like I was.
 
T

treesei

CAPA is often a multi-functional process. Can the departments be organized and co-contribute with a team leader? Plus, what does the company procedure (this could be in either business procedure or quality procedure) say?
 
Top Bottom