Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

My boss wants me to issue a CAR to myself, though I don't feel I am at fault

E

eightthirty

#1
Parts were purchased from an unapproved supplier (e.g. customer has a listing of approved suppliers though we are the distributor - VMI). My predecessor placed the parts on Quality Hold in December of 2006. As of April of 2006 when I took his position, the parts still had not been dispositioned. I had the responsibility of closing out the issues. No problem! After the fact, it was discovered that not all product from the unapproved supplier was placed on QC Hold. It was sent to the customer and the customer rejected it. The root cause seems to be that all product from the unapproved supplier was not placed in QC Hold. My boss thinks that I should issue the CAR to myself, but quite frankly, I think it should be issued to him. The product should've been dispositioned within 14 days of the QC Hold. 7 months later, he should have been the one to step in and find out why the issue had not been resolved. He IS management.

What do you think?
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Parts were purchased from an unapproved supplier (e.g. customer has a listing of approved suppliers though we are the distributor - VMI). My predecessor placed the parts on Quality Hold in December of 2006. As of April of 2006 when I took his position, the parts still had not been dispositioned. I had the responsibility of closing out the issues. No problem! After the fact, it was discovered that not all product from the unapproved supplier was placed on QC Hold. It was sent to the customer and the customer rejected it. The root cause seems to be that all product from the unapproved supplier was not placed in QC Hold. My boss thinks that I should issue the CAR to myself, but quite frankly, I think it should be issued to him. The product should've been dispositioned within 14 days of the QC Hold. 7 months later, he should have been the one to step in and find out why the issue had not been resolved. He IS management.

What do you think?
Hello eightthirty,

What does your "Control of Nonconforming Product" procedure say?
Who "owns" the process and activities that you described in your post?
Look at provisions for "responsibility and authority."
Investigate in what manner this process failed to meet the requirements.
Then.....deal with it.

Hope this helps.

Stijloor.
 

Jim Wynne

Super Moderator
#3
Parts were purchased from an unapproved supplier (e.g. customer has a listing of approved suppliers though we are the distributor - VMI). My predecessor placed the parts on Quality Hold in December of 2006. As of April of 2006 when I took his position, the parts still had not been dispositioned. I had the responsibility of closing out the issues. No problem! After the fact, it was discovered that not all product from the unapproved supplier was placed on QC Hold. It was sent to the customer and the customer rejected it. The root cause seems to be that all product from the unapproved supplier was not placed in QC Hold. My boss thinks that I should issue the CAR to myself, but quite frankly, I think it should be issued to him. The product should've been dispositioned within 14 days of the QC Hold. 7 months later, he should have been the one to step in and find out why the issue had not been resolved. He IS management.

What do you think?
I think that the simplest path to correcting the problem and preventing its recurrence should be identified, and no one should be blamed for causing it. CA is not a blunt instrument, and should never be used as one.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
I think that the simplest path to correcting the problem and preventing its recurrence should be identified, and no one should be blamed for causing it. CA is not a blunt instrument, and should never be used as one.
Jim is absolutely right in stating that the CA process should never be used in a punitive manner. When CA becomes personal, the process deteriorates into an internal political game....... Been there, (no, not done that), no fun.

Stijloor.
 
B

Britman - 2012

#5
Define the problem, document within your system; review the “cause of problem” and the “cause of escape” – identified the “root cause/s”, instigate “preventative action/s”, verify “preventative action” on future activities – move on to the next issue, handle in a professional manner – you find it’s the processes that result in actions.

Never start a CAR with an assumption of blame; people at all level will start to hide problems, and it’s the company that will be affected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#6
The root cause seems to be that all product from the unapproved supplier was not placed in QC Hold. My boss thinks that I should issue the CAR to myself, but quite frankly, I think it should be issued to him. ...What do you think?
I think that you have to be very careful. Your boss might be trying to cover his/her derriere. While I wholeheartedly agree that the CA process is not supposed to point finger, hunt witches or assign blame, in a few (and hopefully rare) instances, the root cause investigation could lead to a scenario where by someone with the authority and responsibility deliberately bypasses hold points and knowingly ships non-conforming products, without a customer consent or waiver. That is one of the most egregious infractions in the Q world. If that were the result of the root cause investigation, BLAME should be associated with that behavior and disciplinary actions would be in order.
 

Manix

Get Involved!!!
Trusted
#7
I agree with the others in that you should use the CAR as tool to ensure it does not happen again. You may be issued with the CAR but that does not mean you are to blame for the fault. Your system is to blame for not preventing it's occurrence. Therefore your system needs to be fixed. Do you own the process? If so then the CAR is your bag, but you can involve whoever you want in fixing the problem, as long as it justifies the end.

The root cause seems to be that all product from the unapproved supplier was not placed in QC Hold.
IMO, I would say that this is not your "Root" cause, as this is an effect of another cause. If you see what I mean, when fixing that problem, would be to simply say, "Make sure it is all put into QC hold next time". Why was it not all put into QC hold? Is this a training/personnel/human error thing? You should also look at why this stock was ordered in the first place.

If you don't already use "5-Whys" to drill down to the root of the problem you should try it.
 

ScottK

Not out of the crisis
Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
I agree with all the previous posts.

CAR's shouldn't be for assigning blame, but for resolving the issue and making sure it doesn't happen again.

Assign the blame in the root cause analysis.

By answering the CAR you're just the responder, not necessarily at fault. Unless your management is petty and ignorant and rates people by how many CAR's are assigned to them.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Staff member
Admin
#9
Such good responses so far.

A CAR is assigned to a process, not a person. A person's name goes on it only as owner of the process and, as such the person who would be managing the fix.

As Stjloor said, the process owner or person under Responsiblity/Authority for placing the materials on hold should be given the CAR. A secondary/assist is the person responsible for disposition (was there supposed to be a MRB?) and this person can be listed on the CAR as such. This would be the current process owner and not the one in place at that time, because the object is to fix the process in a mindset of avoiding this from happening again.

That is the explanation you can give to whomever will be assigned this CAR. As other posters have said, a CAR should not be confused with a disciplinary action. It's merely a tool to track activities that are involved with changes to correct a system's dysfunction. I want to urge you take care in how this is communicated, as Sidney said, if you are not the process owner.
 
C

chaosweary

#10
Sounds like you are the process owner or one of them. Of course something is fishy if you are acting as an internal auditor and you are dispositioning material...you are not suppose to audit yourself. Just make it clear in the CAR description what happened. Is the root cause of the issue the material not getting dispositioned or is root cause really a poor change management system, moreover, one person leaving a position and one person coming in and stuff not getting done because of the change over? :tg: I love having one big solid tooth, it make peeling apples really easy...
 
Top Bottom