Joe_K
Not sure that's the right link for the quote, this one definitely has it:
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...may-be-needed/
And yes, it is the very definition of a quality issue in my book. It isn't really a design issue if the designers had specified that this software should have been used, any more than it is a design issue if a part is not made to specified tolerance. This sort of thing
may be a design issue (failure to design for production) if, say, tolerances are too tight to be produced with the machinery available or the operator skills available etc.
but "
was not being used" doesn't indicate that, rather it indicates failure to follow specified process. This is why having loads of "tried and tested processes" (see MAX threads) is no defence (or at least not a complete one) - processes and procedures are no good if they are not
followed. Like, say, designing and specifying a component to be made to certain tolerances on a CNC machine, then not bothering with the CNC and just machining it by hand - not that anyone would ever do that in aircraft manufacturing of course.
The
really big question is
why the software / process "
was not being used" - someone just forgot (at least eight times?), or someone wasn't trained properly, or someone was told (or pressured) not to use it in order to speed up production...