Re: You know that I have a different view........
:
Sounds ugly doesn't it? Some managers have been a lot easier than these guys. It is a mixed lot.
When a very difficult process owner wants to put a band-aid on a problem I let him do it and I close the NC as if it was okay, then come back the next year and cite it as being an ineffective corrective action - invariably the issues are not resolved and I find the problem again. This causes the process owner some frustration because he believed I was satisfied; I had "accepted" his corrective action (it was a minimalist approach done to get rid of me).
No, I don't try to hide it when the registrar comes around and yes, I do run the risk of our corrective action program being viewed as ineffective. A couple of months ago we met before the registration audit was to begin and near the end of the meeting, in which I had been very quiet, one of the top managers asked me, point blank, "Will we pass this audit?" I did not say "Yes." I waited a long moment, looking down at the table with my lips pursed and finally said "I'm worried about corrective action." And then I told them why.
It helped, but I don't know for how long. Look, there is only so much we can do. The preferable means is to have a corrective action process in place in which elevation takes the NC out of the hands of the ineffective manager and places it in the hands of the next-up person. In my program that has been more effective than any other single feature of the process. But we have strict rules for elevating and it's done with exacting care. In the past couple of years I seem to have been doing it a lot... but the registrar was actually glad to see it being done, instead of having that part of the process go unused.
The auditor's life is not an easy one, it is a job that takes patience and a long-range viewpoint. Our improvements are often incremental and their effectiveness runs pretty much in parallel with the owners' devotion to doing the right thing.
There's one more thing I forgot to add. We added the intervention of a site Quality Engineer to intervene, to run interference for me in difficult times as he is closer to the process engineering group and can act as a mediator. Recently there was a case in which he and a process manager "negotiated" a process change that I believed was not only wrong, it was making things harder than getting it right. It got to the point where I said to the process owner-manager, "Well. Maybe I just don't understand this book (the MSA Manual)." and I told him that when it came time to approve the changes to his process document I would send it up to the Quality Manager for his approval because it isn't really about what I think. It's what the organization wants, and I audit at their pleasure. He was shocked to hear me say this but went away seemingly satisfied. Some weeks after that he was fired for something else, and the process (and my still-open NCs) were given to a new guy. Yesterday, after the NC laid there long enough to get elevated (I have been sending out weekly notices but he's apparently not opening the emails) I sent the new owner another email pointing out that it was going to get elevated now to his manager. He finally responded with a "Let's talk on Monday" proposal. He's new enough in his position that I can, I believe, impress upon him a recommended fix that the original manager wouldn't do.
:Sounds ugly doesn't it? Some managers have been a lot easier than these guys. It is a mixed lot.
When a very difficult process owner wants to put a band-aid on a problem I let him do it and I close the NC as if it was okay, then come back the next year and cite it as being an ineffective corrective action - invariably the issues are not resolved and I find the problem again. This causes the process owner some frustration because he believed I was satisfied; I had "accepted" his corrective action (it was a minimalist approach done to get rid of me).
No, I don't try to hide it when the registrar comes around and yes, I do run the risk of our corrective action program being viewed as ineffective. A couple of months ago we met before the registration audit was to begin and near the end of the meeting, in which I had been very quiet, one of the top managers asked me, point blank, "Will we pass this audit?" I did not say "Yes." I waited a long moment, looking down at the table with my lips pursed and finally said "I'm worried about corrective action." And then I told them why.
It helped, but I don't know for how long. Look, there is only so much we can do. The preferable means is to have a corrective action process in place in which elevation takes the NC out of the hands of the ineffective manager and places it in the hands of the next-up person. In my program that has been more effective than any other single feature of the process. But we have strict rules for elevating and it's done with exacting care. In the past couple of years I seem to have been doing it a lot... but the registrar was actually glad to see it being done, instead of having that part of the process go unused.
The auditor's life is not an easy one, it is a job that takes patience and a long-range viewpoint. Our improvements are often incremental and their effectiveness runs pretty much in parallel with the owners' devotion to doing the right thing.
Last edited:
Any suggestions? 
