This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report:
UI/UT parts unit identified: I remember that we had a crew meeting once when name) was the QA Supervisor at PSD, in which this subject came up. This was a meeting after we had heard that PSD was going to remove the requirement from the vendor OPSPs for the vendors to rubber stamp the unit I.D. on the inlets. He said in the meeting that "he didn’t know why the rubber stamps were on the parts," but that they were being deleted. This fits perfectly in with PSD’s QA philosophy that, if we forgot why we do something, or if we haven’t done something that is a requirement for a long time, that we delete the requirement, no matter how important the reason for the requirement was, in order to make the documentation match what we are doing or to cover our asses. Rarely will we ever do the right thing, and just comply with the requirement.
You will run into this unethical philosophy constantly in your investigation. You’ll be told "I see the requirement now that you‘ve put the document right under my nose, but we’ve have been doing it the wrong way for so long now, and nothing has literally blown up so far, so please let us change the documentation to match the way we are doing it, because it is saving us a hell of a lot of money and it fits so perfectly well into our Lean Manufacturing philosophy" (well, they won’t say it in exactly those words, but you get the idea).
Don’t let us do it. Make us comply with the requirement instead. Only let us change the requirement if it is proven the requirement is totally unworkable, or in error. Don’t fall into the trap that has gotten the BCAG Quality System so corrupted. Don’t let us delete the requirement simply because doing so will improve manufacturing flow or cost.
BCAG, as an entity, has demonstrated it can only learn lessons, and change, through pain, mainly through the methodology of financial pain, and the pain of embarrassment, as happened in 1997.
Unfortunately, the pain of that time drove us in the wrong direction, to subjugate Quality to Cost and Schedule, in opposition to our former QCDSM philosophy, which remains as only an effigy of what it once was, much like our Quality System.
While we have had severe problems in our Quality System, that track closely the problems I have described above, prior to 1997 (We’ve had problems at least since 1995), it has never been as bad as it is now.
The Last Inspector