Get at the Core

Abstract:Human error as a root cause of a performance or manufacturing error often does not truly reflect the true root cause of the problem. Thus, formulating a corrective action plan based on providing additional training is often a waste of time and resources. By shifting the focus of an RCA from "human error" to the actual causes of human error, more meaningful changes to the production flow can be made which can minimize the impact of human …

Access this article
Other ways to access this article
Please register to access this article

Social Bookmarking

Digg, delicious, NewsVine, Furl, Google, StumbleUpon, BlogMarks, Facebook



Excellent article and a must read for all QEs/QA Managers/Supervisors. Dont blame the employee. The management must setup the process/system for SUCCESS not let them fail. PREVENTION is the key. PFMEAs and Control Plans are helpful in this endeavor
--sjsoukup, 08-12-2017



--Chris, 08-09-2017


If a process is working well, is robust and dependable in the first place, it won’t matter how an employee feels when they start their shift because the tooling and processes will eliminate most noise and variances so that the output is consistently the same. Management needs to re-invest into its tooling and upgrade. My bet is this is the root-solution.
--S. Weld, 08-09-2017


This article is a good reminder to keep diligent at deeper root cause rather than pushing retraining.
--Catherine Doran, 08-09-2017


Hi Devin,
Often the corrective action to the true root causes of nagging problems that are typically tagged as "human error" requires tooling/equipment/facility upgrades in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars - changes that cannot be made immediately or even at all. Any suggestions on interim mitigations for root causes with solutions that are not easily implemented?

Best,
Amanda Forsythe
--Amanda Forsythe, 08-08-2017


Dear Devin,

Thank you for raising such an important topic! I believe that many quality professionals would recognize similar situations from their past or current experience, related to, let's call it, re-training pitfall (vs digging to the true root cause).

There is a single point that I would ask a clarification to: in place where AQLs are mentioned, shouldn't these be read as 2%, 9% and 1% accordingly (98%, 91% and 99% seem to be too high to be tolerated by any industry)?

Regards,

Alexander Kholodov
--Alexander Kholodov, 08-07-2017


Featured advertisers