This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report:
More background to illustrate how I got my "thorough inspector" bad reputation (bad at BCAG), by only doing my job, while other inspectors didn’t do their jobs to "facilitate delivery of the product on time, by altering their inspection processes.":
Ever since my arrival at PSD, my reputation as a thorough inspector was only exacerbated by the way I wrote my Rejection Tags/NCRs. On every tag, I would make sure I would include, what I had been trained in Everett, was the minimum required information, such as the drawing zones or specifications the item was rejected to, along with the revision levels of those drawings or specifications. There seemed to be no such standards at PSD when I started there. Later, with NCM implementation, some unofficial information was put out to guide how inspectors wrote their NCRs, and all of us inspectors at PSD went to a Rejection Tag writing class once that had some good information in it, but the people ignoring that information were rarely spoken to in order improve their performance, as the two worst offenders in poorly written NCRs were the QA Leads themselves, (name) and (name). Everett had had specific, documented guidelines we were supposed to follow to make sure the NCRs included enough information for the engineers and CAU to do their work, along with allowing later inspectors that had to supplement the NCR for additional units, or buy off the rework, to understand what the problem was. I kept following these guidelines at PSD, because PSD had no guidelines. This would result in my "description of discrepancies" to be much more lengthy than those inspectors working to no standards at all. This resulted in mostly good-natured kidding about the "wordiness" of my NCRs from coworkers (some were not good-natured, as from (one of our QA Leads who was one of the two noted above), who disliked my tags, because "it was the Engineer’s job to find all of that information out" and they made his champion worst-written tags at PSD look bad, I guess). I always included the drawing and specification information in my tags, as Everett always required that info for NCRs, and in order to write the NCR in the first place (except for (that QA Lead) and his kind), you had to refer to them anyway in order to confirm the suspected discrepancy was actually discrepant per engineering requirements, so why not give the Engineer the information, saving him the time he would have spent doing duplicate research? But I also got very thankful remarks and high praise for the quality of my tags from a couple of other Divisions’ CAU Investigators, such as one of Auburn’s, who were frustrated in trying to do investigations with the scant information given to them on most PSD NCRs besides mine.
Again, I believe this situation is evidence of the use of the unwritten BCAG Quality System at PSD, where QA requirements, such as well documented defects, are ignored, "in order to facilitate the delivery schedule." I always took the limited extra time it took to write my NCRs with the same integrity every time, regardless of time pressures, as I knew how important NCRs were to the engineers, investigators, and history of what was done to the product. Plus, I knew, that on many of the NCRs I wrote, I would have to write up additional units with the same discrepancy, and then the writing of those tags would be a breeze if I wrote the original tag well, as I only had to alter a few items, such as dimensions, S/Ns (serial numbers), and the revision levels of drawings and specifications if they changed. I often found myself significantly slowed down when I had to copy other inspectors NCRs, and I had to basically re-write them in order to bring them up to my, what I knew were minimum, standards. (Name), CAU Investigator, pointed up the woefully inadequate writing of the NCRs when she emailed inspectors on 10/24/01 (see Exhibit A), complaining that there was insufficient information on them for her to do her job, and pleading for the basic info she needed to be included, saying "the more information the better." I doubt this email did her much good with the inspectors that were entrenched in writing bad NCRs, such as the aforementioned QA Leads. An example of one of my NCRs is (NCR number). A bad example of an NCR is (NCR number), which is far from as bad as they get, as I believe it includes a P/N (part number) and the spelling is not too bad, if I remember right.
Another bad example is NCR (NCR number). I’m not the only one that "doesn’t support the delivery schedule" by writing good descriptions of discrepancies on NCRs. (NCR number), last revision, I believe, written by (name), former PSD inspector, is an example of a well written description of discrepancy. Another well written tag is (NCR number).
The Last Inspector