Introduction
In the first post of this series, we laid the foundation for building strong problem statements—clarifying how well-defined problems drive smarter, faster lab solutions. Now, we turn our focus to a persistent challenge in quality systems: the failure to properly define nonconforming work in the lab before diving into root cause analysis or corrective actions.
Defining problems is the cornerstone of scientific work — it’s practically second nature. But when the disruption in the lab aren’t part of the experiment’s design, and instead comes from within our systems, our clarity often falters. In this post, we examine why many teams struggle to define nonconforming work in the lab effectively, and problem triage helps us understand the significance of an issue, And that under stranding shapes the quality of the response.
What we’re talking about here isn’t the core science — it’s what ISO/IEC 17025:2017 calls Nonconforming Work. These are the unexpected headaches, slowdowns, and detours that jeapordize outcomes and demand resolution before progress can resume.
Why We Struggle to Define the Real Problem
Labs often move quickly — because they have to. The fast pace doesn’t leave much room for reflection, and without reflection, clarity suffers.
Here are some of the common traps:
- Underestimating Impact
In fast-paced environments, the instinct is to react. Teams leap into resolution mode without first pausing to answer the question: Is this wrinkle minor– or masking a bigger issue? - Misjudging Severity
When problems seem small, they’re often treated with patchwork solutions. The real trouble? Those “quick fixes” usually only resolve symptoms. - Applying One-Size-Fits-All Responses
Responding to every issue with maximum intensity leads to fatigue. Not every problem needs a full corrective action plan, and relentless pressure erodes both moreal and effectiveness.
The Role of Problem Triage
The question isn’t “How do we fix this?” — it’s “What’s kind of problem is this?”
Effective teams triage nonconforming work. The assess severity, scope, and impact before jumping into solutions. The difference lies in proportional responses.
Consider this analogy:
A child sneaks a gunball on a shopping trip. You don’t call in law enforcement. You create a teachable moment – maybe they return the candy, maybe they pay for it with their allowance. You guide, not escalate.
Gumball thefts don’t require an Interpol investigation. Neither does every lab issue.
When you encounter nonconforming work in your lab, take a moment to triage, ask these 3 questions:
- Is this simple or systematic?
- Does it require correction, improvement, or just awareness?
- What’s the most appropriate level of response?
When Things go Wrong
Poor triage doesn’t just waste time, it amplifies risks:
- Teams chase symptoms instead of real causes
- Resources get misallocated
- Morale suffers
- Quality outcomes become compromized
Additional Resources
To explore the standards, methods, and mindset behind effective problem triage and nonconforming work, here are some recommended resources:
- ISO/IEC 17025 Overview – Details on handling nonconforming work within laboratory accreditation frameworks.
- CAPA Guidance from ASQ – Best practices for designing corrective and preventive actions that support sustained improvements.
- Risk-Based Thinking in Labs – How to prioritize responses based on severity and impact.
- Root Cause Analysis Tools – Proven tools and approaches for uncovering systemic .issues.
- Corrective Action Fatigue In Labs – Recognizing and managing fatigue that may dilute the effectiveness of quality initiatives.
Take a Moment to Breathe
I encourage you to take a moment to reflect on recent attempts to respond to a nonconformance: When has “overdoing it” muddled an otherwise simple problem?
We’re working on finding clarity so your team can respond effectively. Start with the right questions, and good outcomes will folllw!
One Response
I love that you started with reminding us that the question isn’t “How do we fix this?” — it’s “What kind of problem is this?” This is the first question we should ask in our Root Cause Analysis! I am going to use this, and I promise to give you credit for it, Rebecca!