A dispatch manager expects at least 98 out of every 100 orders to pass their first quality check. Last week, 97 passed. Before calling the team together, what would you want to know about the order that took them below target?
Haviland’s Tailwind trial includes two fictional dispatch reports that turn on this question. Both stop at the impact check. They give the manager different work to do next.
When you know the impact was small
In the little-impact example, the extra recheck took two minutes. The log shows that no dispatch was delayed. The manager has something concrete to weigh against the time a wider investigation would take.
A proportionate response could be to keep an eye on the next batch. Agree who will look and what would prompt another conversation. Rechecks starting to delay the afternoon collection would be a good reason to reopen this particular question.
When the impact is still unknown
In the unknown-impact example, 91 of 100 orders passed on the first attempt. The log records the nine that needed rework. It says nothing about how long that took, what it cost or whether a customer had to wait.
Pick one of those nine orders. Ask the person who corrected it when the problem was found and what happened next. Compare its planned and actual dispatch times. If it travelled on the original truck, there may still have been extra work at the bench. If it missed the truck, find out what that meant for the customer. Now you have a consequence you can check on the other eight orders.
Bring one gap to the next management meeting
Write down the agreed standard, the result for the same period and the consequence you can verify. Leave a space for what you still need to find out. “Nine orders needed rework” is a sound first entry. “The team needs retraining” takes evidence about what went wrong and why.
If the consequence warrants investigation, the next discussion can turn to how the work is done. In Tailwind’s full quality-target example, the manager asks for accuracy while the bonus rewards dispatch speed. That gives the team a specific explanation to examine before choosing a remedy.
You can try a fictional case in the Tailwind performance assessment and change the answers to see how they affect the report.