Why Do Corrective Actions Fail Over Time?
Insight to non-fool proof solution ( when automated action is not possible )
Weak support system to sustain the corrective action. When corrective actions are implemented, end in mind is continuity & the action to be self-sustaining.
Compliance to adhere, to the new set of action is a must at 1st place. Having a non-robust sustaining mechanism is a sure fail, over a long period of time.
Modification could be made after the gap assessments are made especially on possible risk of non-compliance.
The below scenario is part of a critical process & having a check + balance actions are needed due to “unavailability of automated triggering / system driven initiatives )
Scenario : Oil seal replacement has been revised from 18 months to 15 months due to wear & tear issue coupled with hot temperature.
Existing checklist is revised to indicate change interval & maintenance personal is tasked with the replacement.
3 corrective action proposed
Corrective action option 1 : Maintenance checklist has been revised to reflect the above changes
Corrective action option 2 : Maintenance checklist has been revised to reflect the above changes + issuance counter have a separate checklist that defines the time the change should occur.
Corrective action option 3 : Maintenance checklist has been revised to reflect the above changes + issuance counter have a separate checklist that defines the time the change should occur+ issuance counter triggers mail loop ( to respective PIC/Superiors ) if retrieval / issuance does not take place.
Action in option 1 have a major weakness similar to all general checklist that is being used industry wide. Majority of checklist that are created, focuses on 1 owner, where tasks are completed & verified by 1 person. Verification process may be available on the checklist but does not help to validate. Eg, owner completes checklist & end of task period, supervisors acknowledge the checklists.
Major breakdown may occur if task are
- Not completed but action ticked in checklist
- Supervisor acknowledge without physical affirmation
Action in option 2, revised to have a close loop between task owner & item issuer. 2nd verification by issuer have a record, which indicates when the change should happen. The gap here is that, there is possibility task owner don’t proceed for ordering & issuer waits for the order to take place. Revision on this action can be taken to have a triggering back to task owner.
Action in option 3, completes the verification loop, where for non-conformance, triggering will be made by 2nd party ( material issuer to maintenance superior that a planned change does not occur )
Close loop action are safer, ensures better compliance with check & balance but still requires periodic assessment.
The above approach can still be utilized & modified to suit automated part replacement system as loop holes as below still exist
- Auto triggering done but new part not replaced. Reuse of expired parts due to convenience
- Reset of triggering mechanism available
Given examples above is not a fit all solution, meaning changes or modification may be required to fit nature of problem, corrective action & industry specif.The goal of this article is to emphasize sustainable corrective action to prevent similar occurrences in future.
Rgds, Daniel