Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101 [1 Attachment]

Expand Messages
  • Arsenault, Gerry
    UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ Bill, Your timing is impeccable! Great stuff and in your usual concise Plain English ! Thanks very much for this issue. G. From:
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ

       

      Bill,

      Your timing is impeccable!

       

      Great stuff and in your usual concise “Plain English”!

       

      Thanks very much for this issue.

      G.

       

      From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
      Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:11 PM
      Subject: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101 [1 Attachment]

       

       

      [Attachment(s) from DR WILLIAM CORCORAN included below]

      This month we revisit basic safety thinking by opening a dialogue on safety principles.

      When you finish reading the attachment please press the reply button and let me know what's wrong and what's missing.

      Feel free to pass this along to people who might have a need for it or might have a comment on it.

       

      Take care,
       
      Bill Corcoran
      Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through thoughtful inquiry.
      Motto: If you want safety, peace, or justice, then work for competency, integrity, and transparency.
      Method: Mastering Investigative Technology
       
      W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
      Nuclear Safety Review Concepts Corporation
      21 Broadleaf Circle
      Windsor, CT 06095-1634
      860-285-8779

       

      Subscribe to "The Firebird Forum"  TheFirebirdForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Join the group advancing the practice of root cause analysis/ evaluation  Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

      ****Internet Email Confidentiality Footer****

       

      Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of NSRC Corp. shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

       




      CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

      This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
      is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
      Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, 
      dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information 
      may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.  

      AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

      Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de 
      l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits 
      d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, 
      divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations 
      non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée 
      envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.
    • Salot, William
      Bill C, Do you think the statement under PRINCIPLE 4, Every chain has its weakest link, one special type of limiting weakness , could be misconstrued as being
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        Bill C,

         

        Do you think the statement under PRINCIPLE 4, “Every chain has its weakest link, one special type of limiting weakness”, could be misconstrued as being in conflict with PRINCIPLE 16, “SAFETY CONSEQUENCES NEVER HAVE A SINGLE "ROOT CAUSE"?

         

        It seems to me a single-minded stakeholder could equate “limiting weakness” to “root cause”, one per chain, and then stop corrective action after addressing one chain because that is sufficient to satisfy the objective of preventing recurrence.

         

        Bill Salot

         


        From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
        Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:11 PM
        Subject: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101 [1 Attachment]

         

         

        This month we revisit basic safety thinking by opening a dialogue on safety principles.

        When you finish reading the attachment please press the reply button and let me know what's wrong and what's missing.

        Feel free to pass this along to people who might have a need for it or might have a comment on it.

         

        Take care,
         
        Bill Corcoran

      • DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
        Bill Salot, Thanks ever so much for the reply. It is always good to hear from you and engage in your process. I certainly agree that the possibility exists for
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill Salot,

          Thanks ever so much for the reply. It is always good to hear from you and engage in your process.

          I certainly agree that the possibility exists for the misconstruction you mentioned.

          Another possibility is that readers might start looking for "a limiting root cause."

          What do you think?

          Do you have any other comments or suggestions?
           
          Take care,
           
          Bill Corcoran
          Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through thoughtful inquiry.
          Motto: If you want safety, peace, or justice, then work for competency, integrity, and transparency.
          Method: Mastering Investigative Technology
           
          W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
          Nuclear Safety Review Concepts Corporation
          21 Broadleaf Circle
          Windsor, CT 06095-1634
          860-285-8779

          Subscribe to "The Firebird Forum"  TheFirebirdForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          Join the group advancing the practice of root cause analysis/ evaluation  Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
           
          ****Internet Email Confidentiality Footer****
           
          Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of NSRC Corp. shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.



          From: "Salot, William" <william.salot@...>
          To: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 10:22:42 AM
          Subject: RE: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101

           

          Bill C,

           

          Do you think the statement under PRINCIPLE 4, “Every chain has its weakest link, one special type of limiting weakness”, could be misconstrued as being in conflict with PRINCIPLE 16, “SAFETY CONSEQUENCES NEVER HAVE A SINGLE "ROOT CAUSE"?

           

          It seems to me a single-minded stakeholder could equate “limiting weakness” to “root cause”, one per chain, and then stop corrective action after addressing one chain because that is sufficient to satisfy the objective of preventing recurrence.

           

          Bill Salot

           


          From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
          Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:11 PM
          Subject: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101 [1 Attachment]

           

           

          This month we revisit basic safety thinking by opening a dialogue on safety principles.

          When you finish reading the attachment please press the reply button and let me know what's wrong and what's missing.

          Feel free to pass this along to people who might have a need for it or might have a comment on it.

           

          Take care,
           
          Bill Corcoran

        • Arsenault, Gerry
          UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ Bill, What is your definition of a limiting root cause? G. From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ

             

            Bill,

            What is your definition of a limiting root cause?

            G.

             

            From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
            Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:39 PM
            To: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101

             

             

            Bill Salot,

            Thanks ever so much for the reply. It is always good to hear from you and engage in your process.

            I certainly agree that the possibility exists for the misconstruction you mentioned.

            Another possibility is that readers might start looking for "a limiting root cause."

            What do you think?

            Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

             

            Take care,
             
            Bill Corcoran
            Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through thoughtful inquiry.
            Motto: If you want safety, peace, or justice, then work for competency, integrity, and transparency.
            Method: Mastering Investigative Technology
             
            W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
            Nuclear Safety Review Concepts Corporation
            21 Broadleaf Circle
            Windsor, CT 06095-1634
            860-285-8779

             

            Subscribe to "The Firebird Forum"  TheFirebirdForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Join the group advancing the practice of root cause analysis/ evaluation  Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

             

            ****Internet Email Confidentiality Footer****

             

            Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of NSRC Corp. shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

             

             


            From: "Salot, William" <william.salot@...>
            To: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 10:22:42 AM
            Subject: RE: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101

             

            Bill C,

             

            Do you think the statement under PRINCIPLE 4, “Every chain has its weakest link, one special type of limiting weakness”, could be misconstrued as being in conflict with PRINCIPLE 16, “SAFETY CONSEQUENCES NEVER HAVE A SINGLE "ROOT CAUSE"?

             

            It seems to me a single-minded stakeholder could equate “limiting weakness” to “root cause”, one per chain, and then stop corrective action after addressing one chain because that is sufficient to satisfy the objective of preventing recurrence.

             

            Bill Salot

             


            From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
            Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:11 PM
            Subject: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101 [1 Attachment]

             

             

            This month we revisit basic safety thinking by opening a dialogue on safety principles.

            When you finish reading the attachment please press the reply button and let me know what's wrong and what's missing.

            Feel free to pass this along to people who might have a need for it or might have a comment on it.

             

            Take care,
             
            Bill Corcoran




            CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

            This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
            is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
            Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, 
            dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information 
            may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.  

            AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

            Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de 
            l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits 
            d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, 
            divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations 
            non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée 
            envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.
          • Salot, William
            Bill C, I think that single root cause we keep hearing about is simply the first limiting root cause. I forwarded your article to our safety leader who I am
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              Bill C,

               

              I think that single root cause we keep hearing about is simply the first limiting root cause.

               

              I forwarded your article to our safety leader who I am sure will be impressed enough to ask the question: “Who is this guy Corcoran?”

               

              Bill Salot

               


              From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
              Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:39 PM
              To: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101

               

               

              Bill Salot,

              Thanks ever so much for the reply. It is always good to hear from you and engage in your process.

              I certainly agree that the possibility exists for the misconstruction you mentioned.

              Another possibility is that readers might start looking for "a limiting root cause."

              What do you think?

              Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

               

              Take care,
               
              Bill Corcoran

               


              From: "Salot, William" <william.salot@...>
              To: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 10:22:42 AM
              Subject: RE: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101

               

              Bill C,

               

              Do you think the statement under PRINCIPLE 4, “Every chain has its weakest link, one special type of limiting weakness”, could be misconstrued as being in conflict with PRINCIPLE 16, “SAFETY CONSEQUENCES NEVER HAVE A SINGLE "ROOT CAUSE"?

               

              It seems to me a single-minded stakeholder could equate “limiting weakness” to “root cause”, one per chain, and then stop corrective action after addressing one chain because that is sufficient to satisfy the objective of preventing recurrence.

               

              Bill Salot

               


              From: Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DR WILLIAM CORCORAN
              Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:11 PM
              Subject: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] The Firebird Forum, Vol. 13, No. 10--Safety 101 [1 Attachment]

               

               

              This month we revisit basic safety thinking by opening a dialogue on safety principles.

              When you finish reading the attachment please press the reply button and let me know what's wrong and what's missing.

              Feel free to pass this along to people who might have a need for it or might have a comment on it.

               

              Take care,
               
              Bill Corcoran

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.