Whose fault is it? Our quality department gets blamed for anything!

W

WALLACE

#11
I recall a situation at my location that came up regarding management slacking off relating to their expected duties (Yeah staff have SOP's too).
The big picture is that, the supervisors were not performing all of their PC input processes, this caused many shift measurements to be absolutely useless and redundant.
Here's what I suggested:
Define, develop and perform an audit that assesses staff capabilities relating to training etc. Below is a list that I compiled from the task process elements map located at http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7678


Person
1. Competence
1.1 Qualifications
1.2 Demonstrated skills
1.3 Demonstrated ability
1.4 Applied knowledge
2. Training
2.1 Product
2.2 Individual's contribution
2.3 Skills knowledge
2.4 Department / company capabilities
2.5 Management systems
2.6 Retraining
2.7 Future assignments
2.8 Career development
3. Identification
3.1 Unique
3.2 Traceable
4. Motivation
4.1 Internal factors
4.2 External factors
5. Attributes
5.1 Physical
5.2 Personal values

This list isn't prescriptive by any means yet, it's a great guide and benchmark.
I laugh now but, this staff capability audit revealed much regarding motivation and training.
Give it a try, I'm sure you'll get some positive results.
Wallace.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
G

Greg B

#12
nutzz said:
First, thank you very much for you help.

Unfortunately, it is upper management that is pointing the finger. We utilize CA/PA but how many can you issue before it just gets old?

Several examples of “we should know better”

1 Material shipped without being certified even though we issued a bench certification that was distributed to all parties involved.

2 Skids were moved out of the Quality HOLD FOR DISPOSITION which is clearly labeled in big bold letters and a neon orange sign stating the same is put in the traveling folder.
Welcome to my world Dawn,
It is the old....It is a quality problem so it must be the quality departments fault. You should look at the issue and find the 'Root Cause' and then how to overcome the 'Root Cause'. This will inevitably show that it is not the quality department’s problem but the responsibility of the area where the incident occurred (usually). THEY then have to set in motion an action plan to ensure the issue is resolved. My pet hate is that management may still think that it QAs responsibility to ensure the error is fixed when it is normally part of someone else’s process. This is the part you will have to get management on side with. Good luck.
 
L

little__cee

#13
Just curious

Just curious - not trying to stir things up but really trying to learn - what would be an example of a root cause for Example #2?

For instance - let's go along with the idea that the skids were properly marked according to procedure. Yet someone still moved them. I'm guessing that this could be due to one of two scenarios: (1) "I didn't know the procedure" or (2) "I knew but moved them anyways"

So what are some root causes for this?

I have real trouble with what our auditor called "the ultimate root cause" - he likes 5 Why and while I understand it I just have difficulty with practical application of getting beyond "human error".

Again, not trying to derail the thread here but since Greg mentioned finding the root cause and overcoming it it seems relevant.
 
R

Rachel

#14
little__cee said:
I have real trouble with what our auditor called "the ultimate root cause" - he likes 5 Why and while I understand it I just have difficulty with practical application of getting beyond "human error".
Little Cee,

I'm with you on this one - sometimes you really don't have another explanation other than "the guy is a doof".

For option #2, I would say that maybe it's because the materials are not adequately signed. Without knowing the situation, this is the best thing I can come up with. Sure, it's in a designated area - but if you're working in cramped quarters then a designated area alone may not be enough. Sure, the paperwork may have been in a "travelling folder" - but if the folder contents aren't clearly visible to someone sitting on a forklift truck then they can be missed. For this, I would say "current system of segregation does not adequately show status of materials".

JMHO. As always, grain of salt.
Cheers,
-R.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#15
This is not 'ex cathedra' pronouncement, just comment.

Given the situation described:
Several examples of “we should know better”

1 Material shipped without being certified even though we issued a bench certification that was distributed to all parties involved.

2 Skids were moved out of the Quality HOLD FOR DISPOSITION which is clearly labeled in big bold letters and a neon orange sign stating the same is put in the traveling folder.


It seems to me the processes involved can be "mistake proofed" a little better and the politics of dealing with a recalcitrant management can be be made more suave with little extra effort. This serves two purposes
  1. It reduces the number of nonconformances
  2. It avoids the "us versus them" scenario where the Q department plays the role of "policeman."
For example, to avoid material being shipped without being certified, one looks at eliminating blanket certs which can be forgotten or mislaid and adding "goof proof" certs to the documents accompanying each lot. It may seem redundant, but it avoids "thought" on the part of multiple individuals who no longer have to search their memory and records to determine whether a blanket cert applies to a particular shipment.

In the case of quarantined material, one only needs to additionally quarantine the documents which pertain to that shipment to prevent a "well-meaning" soul from scrambling to fulfill an outstanding order with suspect material. If the order is no longer "outstanding" - no one has any incentive to move a skid, carton, or random piece either to ship to a customer or to place in "finished goods" inventory.

The politics of dealing with management is to pick a "quiet time" (not in the heat of a tirade on the topic "how could YOU . . .?") and say:

"Could we take some time to work out how we can "mistake proof" some of our processes to eliminate opportunities to ship products without documents and eliminate opportunities to ship or mix "suspect material" with good material?"

Then you present your carefully plotted modifications to the processes and ask for agreement and authority to implement them.

It isn't quite that easy, I realize. Even after years of experience, I sometimes make a wrong "read" of an individual, which results in throwing gasoline instead of water on a fire. All I can say is, you try your best. If you fail, it's just one more lesson in the school of hard knocks.
 
L

little__cee

#16
Not just me!

I'm glad its not just me that has trouble with root cause.

Our auditor provided an example of getting to the root cause of what seems like human error. He used the example of an employee measuring something incorrectly. After asking all of the correct questions, you find out that this happened on a Tuesday and that the employee in question always drinks mass quantities of alcohol during Monday Night Football with his buddies and his hangover was the true root cause of his measuring error. Okay, fine, now how do we do corrective action on THAT?

I appreciate the need to get to the true root cause - but even with the fake example above isn't that still basically human error ("I was hungover so I made a mistake")???

Thanks for letting me vent! This is one area I continue to have trouble with in our organization.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#17
I guess the point here is that human error IS a root cause. It can be THE ULTIMATE (i.e. actionable) root cause.

The next step is take appropriate corrective action on that cause. Mistake proofing: visual management, 5S, computer lockouts, overviews, etc., training and yes, disciplinary actions in rare but real cases.

The key to succes here is get the organization to accept that:
1. errors & mistakes happen
2. some employees don't want to do the right (documetned) thing (usually because they don't understand what the right thing is adn why it's the right thing and this occurs usually because management is sending a mixed message)
3. There are actions that can be taken that will significant;y reduce and eliminate these mistakes, errors, mis-judgemetns.

Just because it's a mistake, doesn't exempt us from corrective action.
 
R

Rachel

#19
gpainter said:
If you find "human error" as the root then one must mistake proof the process to get rid of the "human error" element.
I have to disagree. To an extent, this is true - but you can only dumb things down so much, and sometimes the almighty buck prohibits us from mistake-proofing to the nth degree. Take, for example, someone who is approving materials - say he is taking measurements and logging them into a computer, and the combined results of these measurements indicates whether the material passes or fails. What happens if this technician mistypes a number - transposes two digits, let's say - and, as a result, non-conforming goods are shipped to the customer? Let's say he proofreads his results and the error doesn't pop out at him? How do you fix that? It's human error, for sure. People make mistakes - so punishing or firing an otherwise excellent worker is probably not the best solution. Invest in equipment that does it all?....takes the measurements *and* logs them into the system? For some companies, that's cost-prohibitive. This could be an in-process step - so let's assume that it's not a dock audit/final inspection.

The example may be weak, but I'm just saying that there is a line that seems to separate the "human error" mistakes from the process errors. Often, the fixes for these human errors are quite costly. Implement a whole new system because someone messes up? In some cases, a great idea - in others, not worth the paper that the system is designed on.

Again, standard two-penny disclaimer.
-R.
 

Scott Catron

True Artisan
Super Moderator
#20
little__cee said:
Just curious - not trying to stir things up but really trying to learn - what would be an example of a root cause for Example #2?
Most likely the root cause of this is an attitude within the organization, percolating from the top down, that fulfilling orders is of the utmost importance, regardless of quality.

You can formulate all the procedures and hold all the training you want. If management treats quality functions as a necessary evil, waiting to be ignored when it's convenient, it's going to be hard.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Marc Y2K - Whose Fault? After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 9
S Whose responsibility is it to issue Corrective Action Requests? Internal Auditing 8
Y How can FDA supervise devices whose manufacturer name is changed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 9
H AIAG CQI-11, 12, 15 and 17 - Whose requirements are these? Customer and Company Specific Requirements 12
Q Whose brain child is 5S? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 10
hogheavenfarm Whose job? What department schedules a PSI (pre shipment inspection)? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
S Whose company achieved their 2008 goals? Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 3
Wes Bucey Whose responsibility for injury? World News 9
CalRich Subcontracted laboratory per 5.10.6 - Whose name goes on the Calibration Certificate General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
A Whose responsibility is Data Analysis - ISO 9001 QMS responsibility? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
T Product / Service Life Cycle Quality - Whose Responsibility to Sort, etc.? Philosophy, Gurus, Innovation and Evolution 1
A Customer Satisfaction - Whose responsibility? Sales Manager? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 16
M Disabling measurement data during fault conditions IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
D SINGLE FAULT CONDITION, short circuit and open circuit of any component (IEC 60601-1 3.1) IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 9
T Single Fault Condition IEC 60601 Clause 8.7.1 shorting Cr/Cl in Patient Applied Part IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
adir88 Tools for Normal and Fault Conditions ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 9
S Returned product due to Customers fault, is it a Non-Conformance? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 7
A Touch current in single fault conditions test and earth leakage current in normal conditions test, are they really different tests? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 8
T Pulse oximeters ISO 80601-2-61, is 0% okay for probe fault? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
G IEC 61010 - Single Fault Condition - Protective Impedance Implementation IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
M What are Single Fault Conditions and how to test - IEC 80601-2-13 Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
E Single Fault Condition Simulation IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
P Question related to Single Fault Conditions IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
G What is the exact meaning of Single Fault condition? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
R Single Fault Condition for Internally Powered Medical Device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
W Medical Device Single fault test-protection against fire IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
M IEC 60601-1 Single fault conditions of electronic PCB components IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
R Single Fault Condition - Motor Test IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 17
R Is foreseeable misuse considered as single fault condition? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 33
G Single Fault Condition for 3-Phase Medical System - IEC 60601 Clause 8.1b IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
Y FDA News bulletin: It's the FDA's fault! FDA at Fault for Poor Quality Devices US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 6
R Should the fault tests pass if temperature goes high in short time? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 15
C FTA (Fault Tree Analysis) Software - Which is better/best Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 1
apestate At-Source DCMA QAR DOD Inspector finds fault with Part Marking Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 5
B Define Fault, Double Fault and Normal Conditions - Preparing a Risk Management File FMEA and Control Plans 1
I Seeking thoughts on using BOTH FTA (Fault Tree Analysis) and FMEA ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 17
P Difference between Fault Tree and Factor Tree Analysis Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 1
I Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) - Application - Preventive, Corrective or Risk Analysis? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 10
E My boss wants me to issue a CAR to myself, though I don't feel I am at fault Nonconformance and Corrective Action 27
Ajit Basrur Risk Analysis using Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) or Hazard Operations Analysis (HAZOP) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
C Is a nonconformity the "fault" of QA auditors? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 33
Marc Fault Tree Analysis - A brief powerpoint ppt pps file General Information Resources 0
S What is a Six Sigma Tree? Fault tree analysis? Six Sigma 14
M PCB (Printed Circuit Board) Root Cause Fault Analysis Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 1
N Guidance - Cost of Good Quality Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
D Quality plan for moving locations ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
was named killer Job Opportunity-Quality Engineer-Tampa Florida Job Openings, Consulting and Employment Opportunities 0
Marc Job Opportunity – Quality Assurance Specialist - Suspense 7 April 2021 Job Openings, Consulting and Employment Opportunities 0
C Requirement to link Quality Manual to ISO 9001 clause numbers? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
normhowe "The Problem with Quality Management: Process orientation, controllability and zero-defect processes as modern myths" Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom