The question is about how to explain the NC to the customer. If the OP decides to tell the truth, it doesn't necessarily involve identifying the alleged saboteur. I think this is being made far more dramatic than it needs to be.
How to explain deliberate sabotage?
- Thread starter Azaarus
- Start date
Randy
Super Moderator
That's part of the fun and also a good deal of the learning process, providing answers along with hashing out differences in ideas and thoughts back and forth .......... Unless discussion and debate has been outlawed here as well as nearly everywhere else. Yeah the answer was given "Tell the truth or Fib" about it, dealers choice on this. And I believe it was also posted "the client need not know everything" other than correction has been implemented.
How about a unique concept?.......Let an OP decide if they've received an adequate response that will enable decision or course of action or whatever, and let participants look further into issues to help develop better logic in understanding causes, consequences, actions, potential side issues or anything else or just sling thoughts around.
Or would very short or even monosyllable responses be best?
Yes, you could do that, but would it really satisfy the potential for recurrence? Were I the customer, I would want to know how/why it happened, how/why it was not detected, and what will be done to prevent a future recurrence. The fact that the employee is no longer working there doesn't really do anything to prevent another employee from doing the same thing.
You are quite right, it doesn't. Id presume that there is already some level of competency assessment in place for a final inspection. Could always do AQL sampling to establish if its effective but in reality I wouldn't let myself get too tied up with something like this. Id treat it as an isolated incident, due to operator competency and no further actions are relevant at this as the operator no longer works for the company. If needed could always monitor accept/reject rates to keep an eye on the process and monitor complaints for said defects.
What does your boss or CEO think about it? If you are embarrassed about pointing to a root cause of an upset employee I think its better to get your boss and the person requesting the 8D on a call and explain it to them. Just sending an 8D to me without an explanation would make me call the supplier anyways so just get in front of it.
Dear Mr/Mrs Customer, We are working on providing information to you about incident XXX. We felt a call is in order to explain fully our findings and what we are doing going forward to prevent this, in addition to the regular paperwork documentation we normally provide.
Dear Mr/Mrs Customer, We are working on providing information to you about incident XXX. We felt a call is in order to explain fully our findings and what we are doing going forward to prevent this, in addition to the regular paperwork documentation we normally provide.
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
As the manufacturer you might presume that? Yes, of coure. However, what is needed to satisfy the customer is the whole point of Quality everything.
I was presuming that the manufacturer in question has AQLs in place and would would be able to look at that to prove the previous and ongoing effectiveness of their inspection in general.
The best quality practices will be able to be overcome by wilful negligence. How do you stop it?
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
I'm late to the party, but I'd like to add the perspective of a "suit" who has been on both side of similar situations (producer and customer) a few times in my career. (Also a confirmed Demingite!)
FIRST: OP "assumes" operator either deliberately made NC parts or she took "naturally occurring" NC parts from her shift production.
(Defense says, "Once my client left Quality dept,. she no longer felt responsibility to do more than a cursory "eyeball" and being new to operating, she missed some subtle differences. Therefore, "human error.")
(I SUSPECT THIS MAY BE THE REASON NO PROSECUTION WAS SOUGHT - I KNOW LAWYERS WHO WOULD LOVE TO SUE FOR "MALICIOUS PERSECUTION AND PROSECUTION.")
SECOND: OP talks about "truth," but all I see is suspicion, no in-depth investigation to even justify "circumstantial evidence."
(HOW IN HECK DOES THE PROCESS ALLOW SUCH NC? DOES OPERATOR ALSO HAVE TO SABOTAGE THE PROCESS TO MAKE NC?)
As the suit buying the parts, my concern is how the NC were produced, not how they were packed and shipped. "You can't inspect Quality into a process."
THIRD: OP writes as if the entire burden is on OP's shoulders. Communication between the suits and the production staff is essential. a wrong move or statement could result in lawsuit or loss of the customer. This is not merely an ethical question, it is a legal and marketing one as well. Reputations are on the line and financial consequences could be huge.
An aside: nice to see some familiar names from the early days of the Cove are still around and contributing knowledge, experience, and opinions.
FIRST: OP "assumes" operator either deliberately made NC parts or she took "naturally occurring" NC parts from her shift production.
(Defense says, "Once my client left Quality dept,. she no longer felt responsibility to do more than a cursory "eyeball" and being new to operating, she missed some subtle differences. Therefore, "human error.")
(I SUSPECT THIS MAY BE THE REASON NO PROSECUTION WAS SOUGHT - I KNOW LAWYERS WHO WOULD LOVE TO SUE FOR "MALICIOUS PERSECUTION AND PROSECUTION.")
SECOND: OP talks about "truth," but all I see is suspicion, no in-depth investigation to even justify "circumstantial evidence."
(HOW IN HECK DOES THE PROCESS ALLOW SUCH NC? DOES OPERATOR ALSO HAVE TO SABOTAGE THE PROCESS TO MAKE NC?)
As the suit buying the parts, my concern is how the NC were produced, not how they were packed and shipped. "You can't inspect Quality into a process."
THIRD: OP writes as if the entire burden is on OP's shoulders. Communication between the suits and the production staff is essential. a wrong move or statement could result in lawsuit or loss of the customer. This is not merely an ethical question, it is a legal and marketing one as well. Reputations are on the line and financial consequences could be huge.
An aside: nice to see some familiar names from the early days of the Cove are still around and contributing knowledge, experience, and opinions.
QA Manager
On Holiday
Similar threads
