Getting a call from Manjot Grewal can make some people at the Lab nervous. Manjot, as Program Manager for Issues Management, calls to get information when things don’t go as planned.
“Issues management is often perceived as a sensitive topic, as identifying and analyzing issues can be mistakenly associated with assigning blame. The Lab’s issues management program is rooted in principles of continuous improvement, not fault-finding. It is all about process improvement.”
Manjot comes to the Lab with a background in process improvements. He worked as a mechanical and manufacturing engineer in the automotive industry, working on design, testing, quality assurance, and manufacturing. One of his employers had quality and compliance issues that drove the company from a profit of $590 million to a loss of $400 million in only two years.
“To turn things around, I worked with different teams, such as engineering, procurement, quality service, and compliance, to make sure that our warranty cost went down and our customer satisfaction level went up. So that’s how I pivoted from my core mechanical and manufacturing engineering role into issues management, and that’s what I’m doing at the Lab.”
How do institutional risk and issues management differ?
Sometimes, they are used interchangeably, but risk and issues are two different areas. A risk refers to a potential problem that may occur in the future, while an issue is something that has already occurred. We have two different programs at the Lab for risks and issues.
Issue is a formally defined term in the Lab’s Issues Management Policy and Manual. An example of a recent issue is a Lab programmatic installation at an off-site location with electrical non-compliances. We did an Apparent Cause Analysis to know why several non-compliances happened, and based on that, the Lab finalized a list of corrective actions to ensure that they don’t happen again. We identify, analyze, and mitigate issues, and then evaluate to ensure that the corrective actions are working effectively. Those are the four stages of the Issues Management Program cycle.
What is an Apparent Cause Analysis, and how is it done?
Apparent Cause Analysis is a basic analytical approach to identifying evident causes of an incident or finding by gathering and evaluating the facts pertaining to the occurrence. We interview people. They could be from the Lab, contractors, or others who were involved. We review the associated documentation. Based on these gathered facts, we determine why the issues happened. It is usually a team effort. It is a relatively straightforward and less resource-consuming issue analysis approach than Root Cause Analysis.
Do you think that your background in engineering helps when you’re dealing with researchers who perhaps don’t want you to be there to be looking at their work?
I think my background in engineering, especially my engineering research and development work, helps. In the past, I set up experiments and conducted extensive lab and field testing, so I can relate to the labs where our researchers work. These experiences have enabled me to navigate the critical trade-offs between regulatory compliance, safety, quality, product performance, and getting the research done. Whenever I’m approaching any issue at the Lab, especially where researchers are involved, I am very much aware of the challenges they face in getting the research done. I always try to understand their perspective on why they might have ended up with an issue. We are purely process improvement-focused. There is no fault-finding.
How does issues management tie into the Lab’s stewardship values?
Issue management’s objectives are essentially to identify and mitigate issues. They can be related to safety, compliance, performance, or finance. By systematically capturing, analyzing, and addressing issues, we create a stronger, more resilient Laboratory.
I think that’s very closely related to our stewardship responsibilities because the goal of the issues management program reinforces our commitment to be responsible stewards of the resources being provided to us and the people who enable our mission.
What are the main takeaways you want people to understand about issues management?
I want the Lab community to know that our Issues Management Program is not based on fault-finding. It’s a continuous learning and improvement process. That distinction is critical, and it’s also where we often encounter resistance to applying the program more broadly. The second key takeaway is that I want the Lab community to be forthcoming in identifying issues. Bring up issues with your management. I’ve seen there is sometimes a tendency to hide issues and take care of them locally. But your issue may also be an issue for others as well. Bring them to the attention of the Issues Management Program so that we can characterize them and apply appropriate analysis methodologies to them, like root cause analysis, apparent cause analysis, and come up with some SMART corrective actions to address those issues so that they don’t become bigger problems to tackle in the future.
Resources
