How a rubber parts maker stopped one complaint repeating

This story shows a practical response to asking why until they reached a cause they could fix.

The business

This composite concerns a rubber moulded parts business with about 50 people. Orders, staff updates and physical records come from more than one desk. Each hand-off can add delay if the next person cannot verify the current position. The QC inspector manages the daily quality work. The quality manager is called when a commitment changes or a decision exceeds normal authority.

Records may be spread across drawing, lot number, test report, complaints and inspection sample. This story centres on this recurring task: asking why until they reached a cause they could fix.

What was going wrong

One missing entry exposes a risk: bad parts move to the next stage while the cause remains unverified. The records exist, but they disagree at the point of decision. The team can usually explain the situation after several calls. That explanation is rarely attached to the document that the next shift or the customer sees. In this case, the important missing link is keep repeat rubber-defect samples. It is not enough to know that someone spoke about it.

The second problem is timing. When bad parts move to the next stage while the cause remains unverified, the check happens too late to change the next commitment.

What they changed

The team would start by giving one person responsibility for the inspection and corrective action register. Its first rule is simple: Suspect material stays on hold until authorised quality release. Staff can still make calls and use WhatsApp, but the approved reference and the reply return to that record. One owner keeps the entry current, and another person handles decisions outside the routine limit.

For this particular problem, the operating instructions are concrete:

1. First check: Keep repeat rubber-defect samples. Keep a reference to the source rather than a summary from memory.
2. Next action: Test a process cause, not merely the operator. Add the responsible role and the time the next answer is needed.
3. Decision point: Close action with a fresh inspection. Do not quietly replace an old promise or technical record.

The team can copy this small register. Both entries below are illustrative examples, not records of a real business.

At the end of the review, anything still uncertain stays open. The next person should be able to find the original source, understand which part is confirmed and see who is expected to act. If an approval involves price, safety or compliance, the authorised manager makes that decision.

What a normal morning looks like now

The QC inspector opens the inspection and corrective action register alongside drawing, lot number, test report, complaints and inspection sample. They look first for work promised today and then for items missing an owner or proof. The quality manager does not need the complete history retold. Only the exceptions, their business effect and the requested decisions reach that desk.

A useful meeting ends with the reference, next action and date written down. The team checks the same list later rather than asking each department for a fresh verbal status. Do not replace a rejected batch before checking what other lots may share the same cause.

What did not work at first

A likely first attempt is adding more columns or asking everybody to update another report. People then spend time copying entries from their own registers. A second attempt is to mark cases closed after a reassuring phone call. Neither establishes whether the underlying goods, amount or instruction has been checked.

The simpler practice keeps the original reference and records only what has changed. A disputed entry remains disputed. If the team cannot find evidence, it names the person who can, and sets a time for the next check.

What is still not solved

A register cannot remove a material shortage, a customer's disagreement or a long outside lead time. It can expose the risk early enough for a person to decide. This story does not claim an achieved saving, improved margin or shorter delivery time. The useful outcome to measure would be fewer unowned exceptions and a clear record of decisions.

If you want to try this

1. Open Root cause 5 whys and choose one live case matching this story. Identify the exact trigger and finish condition.
2. Copy the fields from Corrective action tracker. Enter the source, one responsible person, the next check and its date. Use actual records, not the example figures here.
3. At the next review, compare the register with the physical or financial evidence. If the same gap returns, revisit Same complaint repeats and change the control at that point.

Read next

• Same complaint repeats
• Root cause 5 whys
• Corrective action tracker