Sometimes, after drivers returned from a job their cars were checked over for faults, so as to ensure that their next journey would be as trouble-free as possible. Often no problem was found; sometimes a minor fault was turned up; occasionally an unsuspected and rather serious issue came to light. The technicians who carried out these inspections did them at random times and the drivers never knew when their vehicles would be checked. Moreover, the technicians then issued a report that was typed out and sent to the driver, often weeks late. If this slip of paper went astray there was no back up mechanism for informing the driver of the outcome. And this outcome may have been the uncovering of a serious problem which, if not fixed urgently, could lead to a disaster further down the line.
The drivers had repeatedly petitioned Paul to at least introduce a system whereby they would be notified if an inspection had been carried out on their vehicle but he had always refused saying that it was their reponsibility to check.
"But how can we, Paul?" they cried, "if we don't even know that a check has been carried out?"
But Paul remained obstinate.
"Sometimes people request a check for our vehicles and we don't even know about it but we're still held responsible for the result."
But Paul remained obstinate.
"Sometimes a report might arrive and we are on leave for a two or three weeks. Who is supposed to act on it then?"
But Paul remained obstinate.
"Surely if one of the technicians finds a serious fault they are morally bound to do something about it - not just issue a paper report and forget about it."
But Paul remained obstinate.
So one of the drivers suggested a simple system whereby a technician, when finding a serious fault, simply sent a very brief email to one of the drivers' team administrators - a desk that was covered 52 weeks a year.
"We can't do that," said Paul. The technicians agreed with him.
"But why not?" persisted the drivers. "It would solve the problem at a stroke."
"Because it is the responsibility of the driver to look up the report," explained Paul. The drivers felt that they were going round in circles with someone who did not really grasp the issue.
Paul held a focus group meeting. None of the drivers was invited. Then he announced his marvellous plan.
"We will employ someone to whom all abnormal reports from the technicians go and they will then ring the responsible driver."
"But Paul," they cried. "We've already explained to you that is not going to work because sometimes they will be ringing a driver who has no connection with the report and sometime we will be on leave. Do you then want a serious fault like a leaking fuel pipe to wait until we get back from holiday? Not to mention that your plan costs money and ours is cost neutral. Why can't we use our plan? We've canvassed all the other drivers and they feel the same way as they are all concerned that the current system is unsafe."
Paul became exasperated. "All right - we'll hold a meeting to discuss the various options. Next Monday at 2pm? Come and present a concept paper on how your plan might work."
The driver who was proposing this plan said: "I have a driving job at that time that I cannot cancel - after all, customers come first. Can we hold it later that afternoon?"
Later that day he received an email from Paul. "We'll go ahead with the meeting a 2pm and feedback the results to you."
"But what's the point of having the meeting if I'm not there to explain things to you?" The driver was in despair.
But answer came there none.
