hi All,

i'm in the process of re structuring our corrective action request form. the outline is as below :

1) non conformance
2) root cause
3) immediate action / correction
4) corrective action
5) permanent corrective action

is the outline above sufficient? some says we need to include preventive action. but from my point of view, preventive action is studied and analysed before any nonconformance occur. therefore preventive should not exist in this report. please share your opinion. thank you.

Rgds,
Murugan:)

That's pretty much it.

For an extensive discusion on CA vs. PA see Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA) (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=687).

I am on your side,for some corrective action request form, it's unnecessary to add PA.

I think it's entirely your call about including Preventive Action.

IMO, many times the need for preventive action is revealed through the finding of a problem. You did not know there was a problem situation; otherwise you would have prevented it before it occurred.

The CAR as you outlined could propel the need to determine preventive action (if necessary).

I am on your side,for some corrective action request form, it's unnecessary to add PA.

Murugan! Don't listen to this piece of advice, not one bit

fireonce, you are so wrong that I don't know where to start. This has been debated hundreds of times here and elsewhere. Read the following and figure out what it means....

8.5.2 Corrective action
The organization shall take action to eliminate the cause of nonconformities in order to prevent recurrence.

To prevent recurrence is to initiate Preventive Action (PA). There are no if's, and's or but's here. Not one.

What you are proposing will do nothing except let the problem occur again from the same cause.

Dear Mr Murugan
I read your querry. Adding of PA in your CAR is a must. I have not understoos the additional thing you have added as permanent CA. Unless you have not thought of difference between correction & CA.You also need to add space fro identifying Root Cause of the NC.
Major B V Naik

I dont quite get Randy's response, however it sounds like it is coming from the pedantic world of what the ISO9001 requirements are.

Lets talk common sense again, when something goes wrong you want to find out why (root cause) and then take any actions you deem necessary (with financial/legal consideration) to stop yourselves making the same mistake again. If your form covers this, and your process is conducted properly, you will have a healthy QMS. As to what you call these elements of the form it is entirely up to you.

As the original poster suggests, preventive action, as defined by ISO9001, cannot be done following a reported non-conformance, as this is reactive (hence corrective) rather than pro-active (preventive).

As the original poster suggests, preventive action, as defined by ISO9001, cannot be done following a reported non-conformance, as this is reactive (hence corrective) rather than pro-active (preventive).


PA's are neat because they can be both re-active and pro-active depending upon the initiator.

In the event of NC the method to prevent recurrence is to devlope and intiate a PA....re-active

To keep a NC or deviation from happening you develope and intiate PA...pro-active..
PA's can be stand alone....pro-active or part of a CA...re-active.

What's to not understand? I'm just a dumb old Grunt and I get it.

In the event of NC the method to prevent recurrence is to devlope and intiate a PA....re-activeToo bad that ISO 9000 calls that a corrective action.....:cool:

Too bad that ISO 9000 calls that a corrective action.....:cool:

On of the unfortunate aspects of the standard is that it doesn't allow for double-entry bookkeeping* in this regard. PA is PA, and CA is CA, and never the twain shall meet. This results in the other-worldly "fact" that actions taken to prevent keep something from happening are not preventive, based solely on what provoked the action. The only thing more disquieting is the fact that so many people seem to think this is perfectly logical and necessary.

*Important fact: "bookkeeping and "bookkeeper" are the only words in English with three consecutive sets of double letters.

I'm not sure what permanent corrective action means. We have as the last action what we call "effectiveness check." That mean we review the correction to make sure the root cause has been rooted out.

On of the unfortunate aspects of the standard is that it doesn't allow for double-entry bookkeeping* in this regard. PA is PA, and CA is CA, and never the twain shall meet. This results in the other-worldly "fact" that actions taken to prevent keep something from happening are not preventive, based solely on what provoked the action. The only thing more disquieting is the fact that so many people seem to think this is perfectly logical and necessary.
The thread that Marc posted is the definitive discussion on CA/PA:
Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA) - A Definitive Discussion (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=687)

If we did it all "right the first time", we would never have this (heated) discussion. Or am I way off base?

If we did it all "right the first time", we would never have this (heated) discussion. Or am I way off base?What heated discussion? This is luke warm at best.:tg:

I (almost) always get it right first and every time. People that don't agree with my ideas are the ones that need rework and repair....:lol:

What heated discussion? This is luke warm at best.:tg:

I (almost) always get it right first and every time. People that don't agree with my ideas are the ones that need rework and repair....:lol:

Sidney, I was referring to this thread....

The thread that Marc posted is the definitive discussion on CA/PA:
Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA) - A Definitive Discussion