dear Pros,

I don't know if your guys have ever met the following situations: when you received a request of Correction Action from your customer, maybe the management ask you to briefly describe the problems in order to protect the reputation of the company, or maybe the management ask you to use "well-expressed" words to describe the problem (the description of the problem is not exactly happening in the company, there is a lillte trick on wording). So my questions are:

- how should we deal with it?
- as an employee and also as a quality engineer, should we stick to the fact of the problem or should we use "well-expressed" words to describe the problem?
- should we describe the problem in detailed or briefly?

thanks,

Jim Wei

What is the problem?

What caused the problem?

How are you going to correct the problem?

How will you prevent the same problem from happening again?

Now, just fill in the blanks. Of course you're going to get a whole bunch of other suggestions to go along with this like "how did you verify the correection", "who is responsible " and the like, but this is the basic stuff and most anything else is fluff.

dear Pros,

I don't know if your guys have ever met the following situations: when you received a request of Correction Action from your customer, maybe the management ask you to briefly describe the problems in order to protect the reputation of the company, or maybe the management ask you to use "well-expressed" words to describe the problem (the description of the problem is not exactly happening in the company, there is a lillte trick on wording). So my questions are:

- how should we deal with it?
- as an employee and also as a quality engineer, should we stick to the fact of the problem or should we use "well-expressed" words to describe the problem?
- should we describe the problem in detailed or briefly?

thanks,

Jim Wei

It's hard to give a good answer without knowing more about the problem, but using euphemisms rarely helps, and might even hurt, if the problem is being too thoroughly masked. Your management shouldn't be concerned about explicitly defining problems affecting the company's reputation; if the customer is asking for corrective action, the reputation might already have taken a hit, and the only way to fix that is to address the problem head-on and show the customer that you're sincere in trying to find a lasting solution.

Thanks. I will try to give an example in 2 weeks.

Good luck, and welcome to the Cove:bigwave:

For further help without waiting try the "SEARCH" tool above. Just follow the guidance and you'll be surprised with what comes up.

It's hard to give a good answer without knowing more about the problem, but using euphemisms rarely helps, and might even hurt, if the problem is being too thoroughly masked. Your management shouldn't be concerned about explicitly defining problems affecting the company's reputation; if the customer is asking for corrective action, the reputation might already have taken a hit, and the only way to fix that is to address the problem head-on and show the customer that you're sincere in trying to find a lasting solution.

You are really experienced.
Thanks.

dear Pros,

So my questions are:

- how should we deal with it?
- as an employee and also as a quality engineer, should we stick to the fact of the problem or should we use "well-expressed" words to describe the problem?
- should we describe the problem in detailed or briefly?

thanks,

Jim Wei


1. Be honest, anything else will get you into a bind.

2. Stick to the facts, everything else is fluff, Bull&hit and irrelevant. Use common easily understood language.

3. Do whatever it takes to make the boat float. KISS!

Randy, After 10 years of writing those darned things I think your number 1 should be stapled to our foreheads so we NEVER forget. Great advice.

I appreciate it. Normally my solutions tend to be on the simple side without all the garbage.

"How do I get into the building?"

My answer...Put you head down and beat a hole in the wall. Simple, but occasionally painful

BTW.....Welcome to the Cove:bigwave:

dear Pros,

I don't know if your guys have ever met the following situations: when you received a request of Correction Action from your customer, maybe the management ask you to briefly describe the problems in order to protect the reputation of the company, or maybe the management ask you to use "well-expressed" words to describe the problem (the description of the problem is not exactly happening in the company, there is a lillte trick on wording). So my questions are:

- how should we deal with it?
- as an employee and also as a quality engineer, should we stick to the fact of the problem or should we use "well-expressed" words to describe the problem?
- should we describe the problem in detailed or briefly?

thanks,

Jim Wei
Hello Jim,
All expressions must be well-expressed. Otherwise, customer does not feel that you are professional at lie sorry... lean management.. :)
I understand your thoughts but all corrective actions are given for customer satisfaction and they only want to see the solution and how you close the findings. Anndddd when you finish this homework, your great mission starts. You must implement all INTERNAL corrective actions and have it made in your plant.

Good luck,
Mehmet D.

Hi Jim:

I am not sure if I am going to answer your question but I am going to focus on the format.

Problem Statement:
Here is where you describe the failure mode and the associated effect on the customer/s.

Interim Action:
Here you explain the action or actions taken to implement containment of the problem. The customer is going to have interest in a solution that prevents the defect/non-conformance from reaching its premises again. You may or may not have the root cause at this point but the bottom line is that one needs to protect the customers with at least some kind detection paradigm.

Root Cause Analysis:
In this section is where you identify the root case. Some customers require explaining the specific data driven approach that was used.

Permanent Solution:
This is where you incorporate an effective change to a process or processes in order to avoid the shipping of non-conforming products. This can be one solution or several solutions. It is imperative that you collect data before and after the change is made, this will allow you to estimate the degree of effectiveness of the solution/s.

Good luck,

Note: Never Lie to a customer. They need to have an idea of the root cause and some assurance that your solution will take care of the root cause or at least provide an adequate level of containment.

Under each response section on our CAR form there is a direction to be specific. For example:

Problem: (Be specific)
Cause: (Be specific
Containment Plan: (Be specific)
Permanent Corrective Action Plan: (Be specific)
Verification:...
Prevention:...

Being specific and direct helps get the point across and since corrective actions are auditable by both registration bodies and customers it helps prevent embarassment and gets the job done at the same time.
We always avoid placing individual blame on personnel as well when documenting a nonconformity.
I hope this helps.

Look above and see if what I told you would happen in my 1st response is in fact happening.

What is the problem?

What caused the problem?

How are you going to correct the problem?

How will you prevent the same problem from happening again?


40 / 11 ways of saying the same thing.

This thread kept coming back in my mind. One of the things I look for is the reason their quality assurance department missed the defect. So many people go to production processes and list a root cause from there. I'm not interested in production as much as I am quality assurance. I hope this makes sense.

This thread kept coming back in my mind. One of the things I look for is the reason their quality assurance department missed the defect. So many people go to production processes and list a root cause from there. I'm not interested in production as much as I am quality assurance. I hope this makes sense.

I understand your concern but Quality can't police 100% of the product or services going through. Production tends to get blamed because something is wrong with the process that allowed it to get through in the first place. That process alot of the time will be acting in Production. Now Quality may be part of THAT process problem but the idea is to nail down the process problem and not worry where the blame should be cast.

Sometimes the problem is as simple as the Engineering dept. didn't do their homework and we didn't know that the customer required such and such so no one knew to question it. Could Production have fixed it? Sure. Could Quality have stopped it from escaping? Absolutely. If everyone had had all of the correct information. Find the process problem and look at the big picture to correct it. :agree1:

To the OP:
Keep it brief and to the point. I understand that your management probably does not want to actually admit that ANYTHING has gone wrong anywhere in your company. Unfortunately, your customer already has proof that this is the case. Soooo, the reality is that you must walk the fine line between simply stating the facts of the failure and your corrective action and stating them in way that is acceptable to your management.

Brazilla, I have to chew on this for a while. I will be back. :D Thanks for getting my grey matter going.

This thread kept coming back in my mind. One of the things I look for is the reason their quality assurance department missed the defect.

Because the QA department is populated by humans, and humans sometimes make mistakes. Or, it might be that no mistake was made, and an outlier of some kind escaped the grasp of a perfectly rational sampling plan. Why would you not be more concerned with what caused the problem in the first place?

So many people go to production processes and list a root cause from there. I'm not interested in production as much as I am quality assurance. I hope this makes sense.

It's understandable, but it doesn't make sense. :D No matter how good your suppliers' inspection efforts are, you're going to pay for every defective product, one way or another. One way to avoid having the cost of scrap and rework built into quotes is to make sure that your suppliers keep scrap and rework to a minimum. Measuring supplier performance via PPM on your dock is asking for trouble.

Thanks for all your suggestion.

Here is the real story:

-Description of Problem:
The customer has provided specific instructions that a certificate of compliance is required to accompany each shipment. However the organization has failed to provide the related documents to accompany each shipment since Feb.15, 2007.

After receiving the instructions from the customer, the Sales Representative in the Sales Department of the organization passed them to Customer Services Department. However Customer Services Department misunderstood the contents of the “specific instructions” and asked the Sales Representative to verify the marking and packaging instructions. Customer Services Department waited about one month for the verification of the marking and packaging instructions from the Sales Representative.

-Root cause:
1/ Poor communication between the Sales Department and the Customer Service Department.
2/ Follow-up skills shall be educated among the employees.

-Correction action:
1/ Re-define and emphasis the responsibly of Sales Representative in the Sales Department: they are directly contacting with the customer and should check implementation of the customer’s requirements within schedule.
2/ The Sales Department and the Customer Service Department should double-check the working contents/information to improve communication
3/ Review any potential issues monthly in the meeting between the Sales and Customer Service


Please comments. Thanks,

Jim

-Correction action:
1/ Re-define and emphasis the responsibly of Sales Representative in the Sales Department: they are directly contacting with the customer and should check implementation of the customer’s requirements within schedule. Seems to me that you want the sales rep to be the "cop on the block". In my estimation, it won't work. It is not sustainable. Sales reps (for the most part) lack the knowledge and expertise to ensure that customer requirements are delivered.

When I read the description of the situation, it seems to me that your organization suffers from the most typical disorder in the World: "Lack of communication". While you are trying to address the communication issue, a process approach should make sure that the communication flows and the appropriate people receive the information about the customer requirements and are kept accountable to make sure that they are being complied with. To me, the sales reps would not be the appropriate people to ensure this. Just my opinion.

You could also dig deeper for a root cause. I think you stopped half way into the root cause drill down. Good luck.

Because the QA department is populated by humans, and humans sometimes make mistakes. Or, it might be that no mistake was made, and an outlier of some kind escaped the grasp of a perfectly rational sampling plan. Why would you not be more concerned with what caused the problem in the first place?

I guess it's because I wasn't trained to think along those lines. I am coming around though. When I was drafted into QA a few years back they were using nothing but end item inspection. There theory was that as long as it didn't get to the customer, it was OK. I now have 1st article and in process inspection in place. I rely somewhat on SPC for the higher volume production, but mosty rely on sample plan inspections.


It's understandable, but it doesn't make sense. :D No matter how good your suppliers' inspection efforts are, you're going to pay for every defective product, one way or another. One way to avoid having the cost of scrap and rework built into quotes is to make sure that your suppliers keep scrap and rework to a minimum. Measuring supplier performance via PPM on your dock is asking for trouble.

Since I buy nothing but wire and sheet stock I have virtually no incoming rejects. What I'm refering to here is answers I have received from my customers regarding CARs I have filled out. One actually told me, "Don't tell me about your production problems, I want to know what your going to do to fix your inspection problems!" My reply was that I will be glad to requote his job figuring in zero defects.

Here's an answer with some of the "fluff" that Randy was talking about... We work with Boeing, so everything is 5 part root cause corrective action here. I don't know about your situation, but I use this checklist to help answer CARs. I'd like to be able to give credit, but I'm not sure where this came from. It may be a bit more than what you need but hopefully it helps.