Transforming deficiency reporting to deficiency resolution

Flying Safety, August, 2004 by Greg Bernitt

$100M In Exhibits Awaiting Investigation

Incorrect and inefficient exhibit handling and processing are key factors in lengthy investigations and reports being closed without resolution. Strict discipline and strong oversight is required to improve this area, and exhibit metrics are being established to measure our performance. The only way to reduce languishing exhibit status is to either increase the capacity for performing exhibit investigations or to reduce the number of investigations performed.

The most cost-effective approach is to ensure that Action Points, with assistance from engineering activities, make a valid determination if exhibit tear-down and analysis is required to validate a reported condition. Since an exhibit investigation commits financial resources and keeps the asset out of the reparable cycle, it is imperative that the decision is supported by objective data. Typically, investigations should be restricted to those situations where:

--New failure modes appear

--Safety of flight defects are suspected

--Workmanship and/or nonconformance issues

--Warranty failures on new or newly reworked items

--Mishap or HAP deficiencies

--Requests by safety investigation authorities

--As required by specific trend analysis conclu-sions

Do not perform an exhibit investigation based solely upon the often boilerplate request from the reporting activity.

Open DR Metrics Established

Several actions have taken place to address timely processing, investigation and resolution. Aside from clarifying specific responsibilities and DR status, timeliness measures and goals have been established. Previously, DR timeliness was measured by how long it took to close a DR. This metric provided a negative incentive to work recent reports over those that took a longer time for resolution and did not reflect the extent of DRs that were awaiting action. This closed metric was recently replaced with an open metric that now reflects DR total workload and associated age. Since incorporation of this measure, OC-ALC in particular has made significant improvements in resolving languishing reports and reducing their average days open for nearly 10,000 reports from over 200 days to approximately 80 days for Category I reports and 120 days for Category II reports.

DR Status Codes Changed To Reflect Resolution

In an evaluation of status codes, it was noted that five separate closing codes existed, none of which clearly indicated correction of the reported condition. The status codes reflected the administration status of the DR, not the resolution action. In review of over 32,000 reports closed in 2002, it was noted that only about 13% could clearly be interpreted as corrected; 47% had insufficient detail to determine if resolution occurred; and 40% (12,800 reports), were closed without consideration for reasons such as exhibit lost or unavailable, insufficient information in report, could not determine responsibility, etc.

As a result, closing status codes will now reflect only one of two conditions, corrected or not corrected. If not corrected, it may only be due to the acceptance of risk associated with the reported condition or due to an invalid report being submitted.