gGAP-v6 (GL.1.1) Documenting a Continual Improvement Plan: A Great Far…
페이지 정보
본문
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
An incident at a certain company: Foreign matter was found in about 30% of the finished products made from semi-finished products...
The same smell can be felt at KAZU I in Shiretoko, and at 43.6 million yen and online casinos. It is the result of some kind of mistake, but to what extent will the cause be revealed and will it ultimately lead to prevention of recurrence, or will the causal relationship be horizontally expanded?
The former is sometimes criticized as a guinea pig administration, but there seems to be a proposal to "review the audit and inspection system and strengthen surprise and remote monitoring" based on several points of reflection.
The same goes for the summary that seems to understand, saying that we should learn from failure, but does not actually know what to do. In the first place, was the procedure itself verified to be valid, or what would have happened if the procedure had been followed? The answer should be one of the following (the procedure was preventable or not, or it could have been prevented or could not have been prevented), and if you just bring up a new method and avoid criticism that you have done nothing without providing that answer, the problem will not be solved.
The same goes for the story at the beginning. Although there is a procedure to evaluate the compatibility of the container and the content liquid (at 40℃ for several months) and determine the compatibility and period, they ignored it based on the atmosphere and created several semi-finished products thinking that they would probably be fine, and did not evaluate them because there was not enough time until they were to make the products about a year later, and ended up with products that were contaminated with foreign matter. If it can be evaluated that this would not have happened if they had reviewed and followed the original procedures properly, then rather than coming up with new procedures, it would be better to continue to make sure that daily activities are following the established procedures, and there is no need to invest new resources for this.
An incident at a certain company: Foreign matter was found in about 30% of the finished products made from semi-finished products...
The same smell can be felt at KAZU I in Shiretoko, and at 43.6 million yen and online casinos. It is the result of some kind of mistake, but to what extent will the cause be revealed and will it ultimately lead to prevention of recurrence, or will the causal relationship be horizontally expanded?
The former is sometimes criticized as a guinea pig administration, but there seems to be a proposal to "review the audit and inspection system and strengthen surprise and remote monitoring" based on several points of reflection.
The same goes for the summary that seems to understand, saying that we should learn from failure, but does not actually know what to do. In the first place, was the procedure itself verified to be valid, or what would have happened if the procedure had been followed? The answer should be one of the following (the procedure was preventable or not, or it could have been prevented or could not have been prevented), and if you just bring up a new method and avoid criticism that you have done nothing without providing that answer, the problem will not be solved.
The same goes for the story at the beginning. Although there is a procedure to evaluate the compatibility of the container and the content liquid (at 40℃ for several months) and determine the compatibility and period, they ignored it based on the atmosphere and created several semi-finished products thinking that they would probably be fine, and did not evaluate them because there was not enough time until they were to make the products about a year later, and ended up with products that were contaminated with foreign matter. If it can be evaluated that this would not have happened if they had reviewed and followed the original procedures properly, then rather than coming up with new procedures, it would be better to continue to make sure that daily activities are following the established procedures, and there is no need to invest new resources for this.
- 이전글Need to Step Up Your Insurance Adjuster Roof Markings? You could Learn This First 24.11.11
- 다음글인디오게임 바이브슬롯game {{텔레zxzx1225}} 파워샷홀덤 24.11.11
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
