Corrective Actions for "Human Error"

The vast majority of NCRs I deal with are due to Human Error. These are minor errors that occur due to data entry errors, miscounting of products, wrong fields chosen in software, etc. These constitute app 10-15 returns from the customer a month on app 3000-3500 shipments.

Any suggestions on how should address these with an auditor? Past audits always focused on training. I do not know how to train to address these issues. Our "training" is definitely lacking but we are a small company with very little turnover. Most of our trainees would need to train the trainers.

 

Good day @SealSpecialist and welcome to the site.

In 26 years I've never listed or accepted "human error" as a root cause (because it's not).

Using, for example, the "5whys", we must ask "why" did (e.g.... did Susie forget to add the label?

Is the label even necessary?
What function is the label fulfilling?
Is there another way to fulfill the same function without a physical label?
Is there a way to automate it?
Is there a means (without adding a worthless task), to have the label scanned during conveyance to ensure it is present?
If we are going to retrain Susie, then what SYSTEMICALLY, will change? The retraining is simply doing again what did not work previously UNLESS the trainings curriculum is changed (ensuring the next "Susie" will also benefit from the improved training approach)


This are simply some examples in the broad and complex world of root cause analysis.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

In the world of QMS there are negative issues that we have to deal with and these are recognized by the standard. If there are risks, 6.1 (actions to address risks/opportunities) is the standard's answer. If there are nonconforming outputs, 8.7 (control of nonconforming outputs) will take care of them. If there are nonconformities, 10.2 (nonconformity and corrective action) should be initiated. From these negative issues, where does "human error" belong? Risk, nonconforming output or nonconformity?

Risks cause nonconforming outputs and nonconformities as clarified by 6.1.1 of ISO/TS 9002:2016 ("The intent of this subclause is to ensure that when planning the quality management system processes, the organization determines its risks and opportunities and plans actions to address them. Its purpose is to prevent nonconformities, including nonconforming outputs..."). Clause 8.5.1g hinted that "human error" is a risk ("Controlled conditions shall include, as applicable: the implementation of actions to prevent human error"). Training is not the only solution to address human error. Here are some samples of error-proofing solutions from different types of organizations:

• Limit switches are installed to detect when part is incorrectly placed before starting the process;
• Design the features of the part that only allow the assembly the correct way;
• Use of robots, instead of human;
• Hotel room switches the power off when key is removed from the key holder;
• Airport luggage cart brakes when the yellow handle is not pressed;
• Account number field boxes ensure writing of complete account number;
• Online registration system that prompts the encoder on omissions on required fields;
• No-contact apprehension on traffic violations;
• Digital payment, instead of cash payment.

 

Everything in our warehouse looks exactly the same. Everything is bagged and tagged the same way. Automating this or at least have a scan in/ scan out step in the process would be ideal. Unfortunately not in the budget right now.

 

In the grand scheme of things these errors cost us hardly anything. It costs me more to document than ship new parts.

 

It's never a human error until all possible training's, methods, processes and technologies are applied; by then, replace the "X" worker with "Y". Corrective action: do the right thing first, hire a "Y" worker.

 

I've read through the comments, and although most of them are 'correct' they still don't really address the issue.

It's easy to say 'error-proof the process' but that is not always feasible (financial constraints, technical limitations, customer requirements).

Redesigning the process to eliminate the potential error has the same constraints.

Training/retraining of the operator is NOT a sufficient answer either - if it is, then your training process is failing, and you have a bigger problem to deal with that you haven't noticed (yet).

I don't have the answer to this question.......and I know that a lot of us deal with it daily.