{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Corrective Action Is the Only Acceptable Excuse

Recurrence of service failures makes it difficult to envision most airlines’ certification to ISO 9001

William A. Levinson
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 16:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

Last May I wrote in “Airline Companies Are Driving Customers Away” that the U.S. Military Academy allows cadets only four responses to questions as to whether a specific duty or responsibility was carried out: “Yes, sir,” “No, sir,” “I don’t understand, sir,” and “No excuse, sir.” Col. Larry Donnithorne’s The West Point Way of Leadership (Currency Doubleday, 1993) elaborates that, if an officer has to write letters to the families of soldiers who were killed in action, there is literally no excuse even if the officer did everything right. Common sense doubtlessly influences the assessment of demerits for failures that are outside the cadet’s control, but the catechism, “Yes, sir,” “No, sir,” “I don't understand, sir,” and “No excuse, sir” instills a sense of unconditional responsibility in the aspiring officer.

ADVERTISEMENT

A reader replied to this article as follows:

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by patnclaire on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 12:40

Fa Me Ka

I believe the correct term is Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA) not "A failure, mode, effects, analysis (FMEA) severity rating..." So many other traditions at The Point have been force-modified, maybe it is time for these responses to be overhauled. In the spirit of your article, how about adding "It's under way, Sir", or "Still in progress, Sir?" Of course such responses beg the question of "What is the question?"

  • Reply

Submitted by Quality Digest on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:09

In reply to Fa Me Ka by patnclaire

Good catch

Good catch PATNCLAIRE. We have fixed that error.

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us