Transforming deficiency reporting to deficiency resolution

Flying Safety, August, 2004 by Greg Bernitt

How many times have you heard that the Deficiency Reporting (DR) process is a waste of time? The responses never seem to address the real issue, nor does the corrective action, if any, seem to prevent recurrence. Or at least that seems to be the common perception from the field or Originator level.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

DR Everything, Let Them Figure It Out

From the DR receiving side, there are opposing views that believe field activities are abusing the DR process. Since a DR submission results in an exchange cost credit, the perception is that DR submissions are only encouraged to help manage unit level organization and maintenance funds. For acquisition programs, it is common for program offices to perceive that test organizations are making unreasonable demands to correct conditions on systems for which there are no requirements.

The truth of the matter is that these perceptions are right ... and wrong. The DR process is sound and viable, but there are problems that require changes to business as usual. To address these concerns, the USAF Deficiency Reporting and Investigating System (DRIS) recently underwent an assessment to review policy, procedures, system processes/tools and training.

Although problems were found in all areas, the first and primary target of opportunity was to clarify the policy, methods and procedures defined in Technical Order 00-35D-54, USAF Deficiency Reporting and Investigating System. The T.O. defines the processes used for deficiency reporting and resolution, which provide the foundation for training and outlines the requirements for system tools. After approximately a year and a half, we are finally prepared to publish the first major revision to deficiency reporting and resolution criteria. The following highlights some of the many changes underway to improve DR credibility and to emphasize DR resolution.

Focus On Operational Safety, Suitability And Effectiveness

It was found that the program has lacked management level attention at all levels to keep the focus of the DR process centered on the resolution of conditions that impact operational safety, operational suitability and/or operational effectiveness (OSS & E). These terms are integral to sound system engineering and the correction or acceptance of risk associated with reported conditions. These terms have been infused in the revised T.O. as the basis of the deficiency reporting process. To learn more about OSS & E, refer to AFI 63-1201.

DRIS and the processes of T.O. 00-35D-54 provide standardized methods, supporting databases, tools and procedures to identify, investigate and resolve deficiencies that impact OSS & E. During Test and Evaluation, deficiency reporting identifies deficiencies or proposed enhancements at a point in development where changes may be made at a significantly reduced cost. Throughout operational deployment and sustainment, these procedures provide a method to formally communicate user/operator concerns to managing activities for analysis and resolution.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The Submission Process

Providing insufficient details of the deficiency being reported is the number one complaint of resolution organizations and has often resulted in reports being closed without the intended consideration.

Valid Reporting Is Key To Timely Resolution

The Originator is responsible to identify and document deficient conditions and ensure potential exhibits and supporting data are secured and available for evaluation. Routine component or system failures or conditions that occur after initial use should not be reported as deficiencies unless there is reasonable cause to suspect errors in workmanship or nonconformance to specifications, or when failures are supported by specific trend criteria.

The DR should typically contain a detailed problem description focused on only one problem and, for software deficiencies, one program. For system integration deficiencies or when deficiencies are linked by multiple failures, reports should be against an end item and reference subordinate reports. When applicable, DRs may provide recommendations for fixing the problem. Originators are strongly encouraged to provide digital files, photos and/or other electronic media to support the reported condition. Examples include digital photos of the reported item showing the extent and location of the deficient condition, and photos that provide proof of manufacture, overhaul/repair, warranty data, condition tags, etc.

Understanding The Deficiency Reporting Mechanisms

A DR is a DR is a DR, right? Yes, this may be true to some extent, but the criteria for reporting and the expected outcomes are different and require improved understanding. There are several types of deficiency reports and labels within these types that need to be understood. The primary types of reports include:

* Product Quality Deficiency Report. This is a report of deficiency that is suspected to be the result of failed quality-related processes such as workmanship, design, processes or procedures during manufacture or overhaul. These type deficiencies are typically failures "out of the box" when or shortly after the item is placed in service.