Tl:dr
What 4 reasons are there for operators to be at fault in a complaint? I'm guessing deliberate action to ignore procedures or sabotage are two, put in better wording obviously.
I'd like to put in another root cause related to management supervision but that's shooting myself in both feet doing that. Impolitic to say the least.
Further information if time rich!
Operator error has been discussed in relation to error causes many times on this forum. I don't really want to repeat that if possibly but I do need help on this.
Basically a complaint has had a corrective action approved in higher level discussions with a customer than I was party to but I'm the quality guy to finalise the paperwork in line with this resolution. I know it's not good corrective action procedure but we're a SME, the customer is bigger / more important to us than we are to them and it's not going to work going against this. It's what they want / are happy with. I'm trying to get a positive outcome by making sense out of this.
So I remember a thread on here where a respected member of this forum posted 4 accepted root causes involving humans. I can't find it or those 4 reasons. Can anyone help? I'm expecting one to apply here. Something related to operator not following procedure perhaps. It has been a kind of discipline issue with the operator being removed to a less critical operation. It's not training root cause because the operator understands the process and has been doing it OK for a year. It can't have an inspection afterwards because it's meant to be part of the final inspection operation. We're not a big enough company to operate with multiple levels of final inspections. Spot checks are not guaranteed to prevent this issue.
Basically this is a backwards corrective action. The root cause that's acceptable for the issue being assigned to the decision made by the operator to go against in place procedures. The procedures the operator should have done does prevent the complaint. It's proven a good procedure that's widely in place with similar products.
What 4 reasons are there for operators to be at fault in a complaint? I'm guessing deliberate action to ignore procedures or sabotage are two, put in better wording obviously.
I'd like to put in another root cause related to management supervision but that's shooting myself in both feet doing that. Impolitic to say the least.
Further information if time rich!
Operator error has been discussed in relation to error causes many times on this forum. I don't really want to repeat that if possibly but I do need help on this.
Basically a complaint has had a corrective action approved in higher level discussions with a customer than I was party to but I'm the quality guy to finalise the paperwork in line with this resolution. I know it's not good corrective action procedure but we're a SME, the customer is bigger / more important to us than we are to them and it's not going to work going against this. It's what they want / are happy with. I'm trying to get a positive outcome by making sense out of this.
So I remember a thread on here where a respected member of this forum posted 4 accepted root causes involving humans. I can't find it or those 4 reasons. Can anyone help? I'm expecting one to apply here. Something related to operator not following procedure perhaps. It has been a kind of discipline issue with the operator being removed to a less critical operation. It's not training root cause because the operator understands the process and has been doing it OK for a year. It can't have an inspection afterwards because it's meant to be part of the final inspection operation. We're not a big enough company to operate with multiple levels of final inspections. Spot checks are not guaranteed to prevent this issue.
Basically this is a backwards corrective action. The root cause that's acceptable for the issue being assigned to the decision made by the operator to go against in place procedures. The procedures the operator should have done does prevent the complaint. It's proven a good procedure that's widely in place with similar products.