How do you implement your corrective action system? Specifically, what medium are you using?

1) Do you exclusively use a paper form and your tracking system consists of monintoring the paper form?

2) Do you use a paper form yet track the corrective action via software?

3) Do you exclusively use software to issue and track corrective actions? (No paper.)

Why am I asking this? Because I am trying to sample what the quality industry is using more of these days. From this I am trying to improve my failing system.

Thank you for your input!

We use a paper format to document the corrective action details, authority signatures, etc. Then we index the CA/PA with core information in a spreadsheet. The electronic data gives you a quick reference list, while the paper documents contain all the gory details.

We use a paper form, which is then recorded electronically and tracked via computer. The paper is issued at the beginning and is returned to end the action.

I had stated a mix paper and database system. The program was off the shelf and is build around an Access program. I liked it because I could see all issues started. Then a soft or hard copy was issue to the department or supplier for completion and return.
I was tracking numbers per department and supplier with trends of part numbers, causes, and such.
I can not see a fully electric system working 100% since not everybody deals with computers for all there work or prefers hard copies to write on.

We use spreadsheet based system only. I would discourage a paper-based system unless your Corrective action team leaders do not have computer access. In my experience, bits of paper are harder to control and manage. A simple spreadsheet/database is worth the extra upfront work.

I strictly use an Access database, no paper copies. I like it because it makes it easy to track ones that are past due. I also have the database post the corrective actions as a message in an email news folder.

FYI........I wouldn't say it is a database that makes a system successful or unsuccessful. A system I used in the past failed because I had a rule that every nonconformance required a corrective action. I quickly had hundreds of open corrective actions that would usually get closed around audit time with weak responses. Now I simply state that a corrective action can be written against a significant or repeated event. I keep them to a manageable number and focus on making sure the problem descriptions are fact-based with data to back them up.

Hope this helps.

How do you implement your corrective action system? Specifically, what medium are you using?

1) Do you exclusively use a paper form and your tracking system consists of monintoring the paper form?

2) Do you use a paper form yet track the corrective action via software?

3) Do you exclusively use software to issue and track corrective actions? (No paper.)

Why am I asking this? Because I am trying to sample what the quality industry is using more of these days. From this I am trying to improve my failing system.

Thank you for your input!

What do you see as failing in your present system?

How many "corrective action requests" does your system get in a week/month/year?

Are some of them "repeaters?" If some are repeaters, is this because the original corrective action implemented fell out of use or did it not get implemented organization-wide?

How many of these CARs are in-house? how many for suppliers? how many discovered in-house? how many discovered/originated by customers?

Before looking at a new system, I think you really need to establish the root cause for failure (or YOUR perception of "failure") in your present system.

I've often seen folks under the impression a new software program for inputting and tracking the CARs in their operation would solve ALL the problems when, in fact, the problems had nothing to do with the paperwork (or computerwork) of identifying and tracking CARs, but of the culture in resolving a nonconforming event so it NEVER recurred and, further, that knowledge learned from resolving one CAR was applied as a preventive in other, similar operations.

Maybe I was lucky, or maybe I had a super-excellent operation, but when I was making over 100 different products a year and quantities on an individual product ranging from 100 to 1,000,000 pieces per year, I can't recall a year when we had more than 5 CAR investigations, regardless of whether the suspected nonconformance was by supplier or us and whether we initiated the investigation or the request was generated by a customer. Even then, likely as not, the nonconformance was not really a product nonconformance, but a misunderstanding of the specific requirements which should have been handled in the Contract Review process.

The sole difference may have been that EVERYONE in our organization took a CAR as a personal affront and we moved heaven and earth to resolve it as a team and never, ever, pointed a finger of blame. We treated each CAR as either an opportunity for us to learn or for us to educate (our staff, our suppliers, our customers.)

Paper or electronic: either system will work if there is a good process established, proper training and ownership (responsibilities clearly defined), and good discipline.

Properly designed electronic or database driven systems have numerous advantages over paper or paper/excel tracking.

-They provide instant answers (reports, graphs, trends, etc.)
-Many different people can access the information via the computer network)
-Data entry / updates can be distributed among more people.
-They save time and should recover their cost if they are priced appropriately
-The database can become an indexed repository for associated paper documents once they have been scanned and saved as electronic files
-They preserve the business rules (rules are hard to enforce in excel)
-They protect data
-Improves Customer satisfaction by affording more rapid responses and professional reports

Yes, I am highly biased toward database solutions since I work for a company that designs affordable solutions (see the link in my profile).

P.S. Why don't you create a POLL (it would be interesting to see the actual % of people using 1) Paper only 2) Paper + Excel 3) Excel only 4) Custom DB 5) Commercial DB)?

How do you implement your corrective action system? Specifically, what medium are you using?


I've seen some systems where Edgar Cayce or Jeane Dixon could have been helpful as medium's.:lol:

I've seen some systems where Edgar Cayce or Jeane Dixon could have been helpful as medium's.:lol:

Randy,

For our International Covers:

Edgar Cayce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce)
Jean Dixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Dixon)

Stijloor.

I've seen some systems where Edgar Cayce or Jeane Dixon could have been helpful as medium's.:lol:
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Wes,

Where do I start? Guess I'll just dive in head first......

What do you see as failing in your present system?
I see it as a stagnant system, where due to the small size of the company, things are "corrected" on the fly versus taking the time to write up the problem and properly analyze it. It's a system where employees don't understand what a root cause is and CARs are written to have something to show the registrar. It's a system that is awkard to use when I try to input our customers request for CA into it. It is also awkard to use to issue CARs to our vendors. But then again, it is the Quality Manager's quality system, the Quality Manager's CAR system and the Quality Manager's problem

How many "corrective action requests" does your system get in a week/month/year?
Going from today back a year, 3. From the number of problems I see, it seems like there should be more. (Your next question: So why aren't you issuing more then if you see so many problems? My answer: Seeing responses lacking in addressing root cause. Replies addressing only the small, short-term problem. Receiving snappy, flippant responses from my boss on CARs.) Also PARs are few and far between, an afterthought. Less than a handleful of those over the last 7 years.

Are some of them "repeaters?" If some are repeaters, is this because the original corrective action implemented fell out of use or did it not get implemented organization-wide?
Repeaters? No. Do I see the problems repeat after CARs are closed. Yes.

How many of these CARs are in-house? how many for suppliers? how many discovered in-house? how many discovered/originated by customers?
Upon review, they seem to be evenly balanced across the above catagories. The only exception being, as stated previously, customer CARs have their own forms and the tracking system doesn't lend itself for tracking outside/customer CARs. (It does seem like we have been getting more customer CARs lately though.)

Before looking at a new system, I think you really need to establish the root cause for failure (or YOUR perception of "failure") in your present system.

I've often seen folks under the impression a new software program for inputting and tracking the CARs in their operation would solve ALL the problems when, in fact, the problems had nothing to do with the paperwork (or computerwork) of identifying and tracking CARs, but of the culture in resolving a nonconforming event so it NEVER recurred and, further, that knowledge learned from resolving one CAR was applied as a preventive in other, similar operations.
Highly agreed with! :agree1: Despite what the best salesman can say, there is no magic, silver bullet that can instantly fix any system in a wink of an eye.

Maybe I was lucky, or maybe I had a super-excellent operation, but when I was making over 100 different products a year and quantities on an individual product ranging from 100 to 1,000,000 pieces per year, I can't recall a year when we had more than 5 CAR investigations, regardless of whether the suspected nonconformance was by supplier or us and whether we initiated the investigation or the request was generated by a customer. Even then, likely as not, the nonconformance was not really a product nonconformance, but a misunderstanding of the specific requirements which should have been handled in the Contract Review process.

The sole difference may have been that EVERYONE in our organization took a CAR as a personal affront and we moved heaven and earth to resolve it as a team and never, ever, pointed a finger of blame. We treated each CAR as either an opportunity for us to learn or for us to educate (our staff, our suppliers, our customers.)

Please, please, please don't take this wrong way but don't use the low number of CARs as a prediction of a sucessful system. It could be like mine where people just aren't using the CAR system. Your situation sounded at lot different from mine however. You probably had both luck and a good organization that actually saw the benefit of the system.

:soap:
Personally, as you can probably read into my post here and others I have made here at the Cove, I am one frustrated Quality Manager. My "hobby" here is pulling out my hair and working on an ulcer. I also realize two other big concepts: 1) For every company that has a clue, knows what they are doing, and why they are doing it (sounds like your example Wes), there are more companies out here that aren't in this position and likely will never be. 2) I'm not the only one in this position and that's why the Cove is like a hot bowl of chicken soup on a cold winter's day.

After the previous babble, my poll answer fits into "None of the above". I am using a paper system which gets routed for response but it is a custom CPAR tracking system which was supplied to my by a consultant when my company was using their services to attain ISO 9002 (way back when...).

Personally, as you can probably read into my post here and others I have made here at the Cove, I am one frustrated Quality Manager. My "hobby" here is pulling out my hair and working on an ulcer. .... For every company that has a clue, knows what they are doing, and why they are doing it (sounds like your example Wes), there are more companies out here that aren't in this position and likely will never be. .... I'm not the only one in this position and that's why the Cove is like a hot bowl of chicken soup on a cold winter's day.

Couldn't agree more or have said it better...

Remember..like a line from a cheap sci-fi movie, ...:agree:..We are not alone...

I have one better to having a "paper" system.

I spent the time to train them on basis root cause analysis, completion of corrective actions, why corrective actions are issued, etc.

Rinse and repeat when doesn't work.

Have owner give me hell because corrective actions are not being completed on time (at all?).

Owner: "You should be following up with them"
Me: "I do...1st time verbally, 2nd time verbally & e-mail, 3rd time 2nd e-mail reminder, 4th time you are copied on e-mail"
Owner: "then we need to make it easier"
Me: "um....can't make it easier....it is pretty basic already...they need to determine why system didn't work properly and determine effective action....I do the follow-up to see if it was effective"
Owner: "Do they know how to find root cause and actions?"
Me: "Yes....I even offer to assist in root cause analysis...they say they are fine"
Owner: "Well...we don't want to overwork them...."
I leave the meeting as I realize I won't get anywhere....

Yes....I am looking for the bowl of chicken soup!

Yes....I am looking for the bowl of chicken soup!

Now I have to go check amazon.com. Is there a book called "Chicken Soup for the Quality Manager"?? :D

After the previous babble, my poll answer fits into "None of the above". I am using a paper system which gets routed for response but it is a custom CPAR tracking system which was supplied to my by a consultant when my company was using their services to attain ISO 9002 (way back when...).


Hi RCW,

I set-up the poll in this thread and it will allow you to vote in more than one category.

Hi RCW,

I set-up the poll in this thread and it will allow you to vote in more than one category.


Thank you! I was getting ready to issue a corrective action on that one. :biglaugh:

Thank you! I was getting ready to issue a corrective action on that one. :biglaugh:

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

At a previous employer, we went through an evolution from paper to spreadsheet to database to website. The final process, in this large manufacturer, captures the issue, provides an outline for root cause analysis, has a review/approval hierarchy for the analysis and emails task reminders to the responsible parties. The real power of the system is the management awareness and buyin from the approvals and the follow-thru from the task emails. We used the data to trend types of problems, overdue tasks, etc for continuous improvement. Because we had detailed data in one place, we could really focus on process improvements by spoting trends.
The data and reporting was available (read only) to everyone so they could search for issues and be proactive taking the information to other related processes. Paper tends to just sit in the drawer and doesn't support collective learning.

At a previous employer, we went through an evolution from paper to spreadsheet to database to website. The final process, in this large manufacturer, captures the issue, provides an outline for root cause analysis, has a review/approval hierarchy for the analysis and emails task reminders to the responsible parties. The real power of the system is the management awareness and buyin from the approvals and the follow-thru from the task emails. We used the data to trend types of problems, overdue tasks, etc for continuous improvement. Because we had detailed data in one place, we could really focus on process improvements by spoting trends.
The data and reporting was available (read only) to everyone so they could search for issues and be proactive taking the information to other related processes. Paper tends to just sit in the drawer and doesn't support collective learning.Yes! The most important part of a CAR program is learning from history and applying those lessons in FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis) so the organization can mistake proof similar processes to PREVENT nonconformance BEFORE it occurs.

The easier and more "routine" it is to search old records and retrieve them to aid in the FMEA, the more effective the CAR program becomes by [we hope] reducing the number of nonconformances from ANY source. The primary benefit of electronic records is being able to use search engines to mine the database for meaningful clues to solving present or future processes based on the spade work done by predecessors.

Side note: It also argues that the CA reports are more useful if they are systematic and full of detail.

My answer: electronic db only.

Problem: 'embarrassment' at admitting that something happened untoward. Plus, difficult to see the benefit (long term) of spending time documenting an issue that does not earn money directly.

Condition: small outfit (5 people) and minimal experience/flexibility with computer systems.

My suggestion/solution: use a small db I built in FileMaker. It takes in the available info when the issue arises, allows pass-off to a manager or not as needed. Carries information over, as needed, to request to a supplier, apology to customer, AND files it for later review. Minimal input by anyone.

We still have trouble keeping it current, on the events _I_ think it should have, such as incorrect items received that are 'fixed' easily.

Issue for larger outfit: no place for initials, or 'chop.' [Do we really need this? Maybe] db could be made to lock in each item, as entered; present one doesn't need it.

:topic:
Welcome to the Cove, Jay! Thank you very much for the informative first post. We look forward to seeing more of your input and help.

Problem: desire to record suppliers errors, in a very weakly computerized office.

Situation: small distributor, 13 people, only computer involved the accounting, bids & ordering activities. Very weak computer skills anywhere (IMHO). Flaw book was hard copy, 1 line per event. Review performed occasionally, by visual scan. Prime action person tended to respond to single events.

This crew would not accept any computer solution that wasn't linked to the accounting package, and I was not adept enough to link anything, nor was I about to mess with it, at all. The system probably could have added enough to track order errors, with herculean effort. Other errors would have still fallen by the wayside.

Solution: Made up a hard copy form, with entry information. (see previous post - the form was nearly identical.) Key # taken from the record book. At least this would assure that the critical info was available.

The only reason I got this far was that the first case that occurred, I was told that nothing would happen, but I said to send the correction request form anyway, and guess what! - it was fixed immediately without question.

Frankly, I doubt that it was followed long. Again, why do the extra work, with no visible improvement? The value in a corrective action scheme comes later, when trends start to appear and preventive action reviews learn to avoid repeat cases.

Jay

My conclusion from this & previous post: Use a _small_ db. import a customer & suppler list to it, make entry as simple as possible and still get the data (drop down list of possible employee names for entry); use the same data for corrective action requests, etc. as possible.

1) thanks for writing out the questions about 'what is failing' etc., so I don't need to :)


What do you see as failing in your present system?

[snip]

The sole difference may have been that EVERYONE in our organization took a CAR as a personal affront and we moved heaven and earth to resolve it as a team and never, ever, pointed a finger of blame. We treated each CAR as either an opportunity for us to learn or for us to educate (our staff, our suppliers, our customers.)

There is the big thing, in my view. A nonconformance/corrective action is viewed as affront/undesirable to _the company_. Plus, you (plural) wanted to improve the operation. Thus, each corrective action was seen as valuable in discovering an improvement potential.

Question for the rest of us: How did you build & maintain that view?

Jay

Wes Bucey[/b]]
The sole difference may have been that EVERYONE in our organization took a CAR as a personal affront and we moved heaven and earth to resolve it as a team and never, ever, pointed a finger of blame. We treated each CAR as either an opportunity for us to learn or for us to educate (our staff, our suppliers, our customers.)


There is the big thing, in my view. A nonconformance/corrective action is viewed as affront/undesirable to _the company_. Plus, you (plural) wanted to improve the operation. Thus, each corrective action was seen as valuable in discovering an improvement potential.

Question for the rest of us: How did you build & maintain that view?

Jay
Here is a post from 2-1/2 years ago that goes a long way toward answering that query (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=105469&postcount=18)An efficient shop As I promised earlier and got sidetracked:
When I ran a high tech contract machining shop, we made a corporate decision and gutted our entire building, sold off all the machines, and designed from scratch what we wanted.

Facilities:
We put power lines in the floor where we planned to place machine "cells" and in trays in the ceiling where we could drop down new wires in the future as occasion might demand. We put in all new, low power, high lumen lighting and air conditioning. New concrete floor was laid to hold ANY load, finished with a practically impervious epoxy finish.

We had pertinent inspection equipment at every cell. Specialized equipment like CMM and optical comparators were kept in a soundproofed, climate controlled lab along with our special scales and weight and dimension standards for calibrating instruments. Every operator was trained in using all equipment (if we could trust him with a half-million dollar machine tool, we could sure trust him with a $20,000 CMM)

We built a soundproof office and conference area with phones, computers, copiers, printers, plotters, tv, vcr, DVD, PowerPoint projector, private desk for each machine operator.

Vending machine area and break room had "kitchenette" facilities. Bathrooms for each gender were like country club locker rooms (private toilets, showers, dressing rooms, lockers, etc.)

New computer-controlled machines were brought in, arranged in "cells" run by one operator. Operator could program at machine or at his desk.

Operation:
Operators were all on MRB (material review board) in addition to Quality Manager, Finance/Purchasing, Marketing. MRB meetings were held in their conference rooms. If customers or suppliers were invited to MRB, they met there, too.

All training (in-house, machine tool suppliers, outside experts, cutting tool suppliers, heat treaters, platers, etc.) could be conducted on-site. Customers were encouraged to come and meet with operators running their jobs.

We had no quality inspectors (we did have quality trainers and guys who acted as "court of last resort" when a question would arise.) Operators did own first article inspections, based on control plan/inspection plan agreed with customer as part of contract review. Another operator would perform a redundant first article inspection with different inspection instruments. Marked sample with BOTH inspection reports was sent to customer for confirmation before production began.

In-process inspection, SPC, etc. was performed by operator in real time. If nonconformance was discovered, production would halt - all operators would collaborate on finding and curing cause, only calling in outside help if solution eluded them. Inspection records, charts, etc. went right to computer where they were available in real time to in-house folk and customers.

Operators had autonomy to bring in experts from our suppliers of material, capital equipment, and expendable tooling to stay up to date on industry innovation. Sometimes, we shut the whole shop down and chartered a bus to take us to the International Machine Tool Show to spend the day.

If an operator wanted to see a customer's operation and how his product was used, we made it happen. Similarly for a supplier's operation.

Bottom line:
We treated our operators as true partners. We made sure our suppliers and customers understood the power and authority we gave them. In ten years, they never disappointed us. I hope we never disappointed them.

Yes! That is the kind of thing I was hoping you would pull up. Now, what are the generalities, the basics, principles & applications, of what you did there?

I'd suggest that treating the employees as intelligent people is a big part -- "respect" as in everyone is 'worthy.'

The employes were deeply enmeshed in the decisions of the operation - on the MRB and the like.

A lot of similarities with Grapevine Canyon Ranch, and Milliken (see Robinson & Schroeder, "Ideas Are Free!!)

Jay

Nothing so abstruse or intellectual. I merely treated EVERYBODY (employees, managers, customers, suppliers, regulators, neighbors, competitors) the same way I wanted to be treated - with respect. Some call it the "Golden Rule." Odd how the simple things really do work, isn't it?

Can anyone provide a copy of an Access database for this purpose?

The only Access database I have used is from the Harrington Group.
http://www.harrington-group.com/products/corrective-action/
I have used it for years and it has worked well as a central database for C/PAR, SCAR, Nonconformity, and Customer issues.
Their are others out there, but you have to look.
Hope this helps /:)

Can anyone provide a copy of an Access database for this purpose?

I've posted one here:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=219004#post219004

I leave the meeting as I realize I won't get anywhere....

Yes....I am looking for the bowl of chicken soup!

I sympathize with you. I think I spend most of my quality life feeling like this...

We had just been recently certified to ISO 9001. Yesterday. Instead of the conventional CPAR paper form or a database, we're using the MS Outlook to request actions on identified nonconformities. The auditors were satisfied to see that all the required items such as description of nc, cause of nc, action to be taken, target date, verification of CA are documented and compiled on the entire thread of the emailed CPARs.

To ensure tracking, requests and subsequent replies must be contained in same subject/thread and copies (cc) are sent to QMR. Once the whole loop is completed from request to verification, the QMR flags the last emailed message and compile them on a separate folder. The QMR then forwards the copies of the completed CPARs to the President as an input to management review.

It worked for us. :bigwave:

tony s

We had just been recently certified to ISO 9001. Yesterday.

Tony,

Congratulations! :applause: :applause:

Stijloor.

Hi Tony,
Congratulations.:applause:
Your database is great. Hope I can established the Corrective and Preventive Action Report in Access Database Format.
Raffy

Hi Tony,
Congratulations.:applause:
Your database is great. Hope I can established the Corrective and Preventive Action Report in Access Database Format.
Raffy

welcome p're,

You can do it or has already done it better. I've checked your profile and found that you have background in programming.:bigwave:

tony s

Hi Tony
Thank you so much.
Best regards,
Raffy

We use both paper and excel. For tracking the complaint, email follow up is much useful. On discussion , specialy on shop floor papers are more useful. Once we had CCHARP - data base to monitor customer complaints, which was scraped due to high complexity involved in uploading data. For analysis, excel was very useful.
Wishes, Ramvaidhya

How do you implement your corrective action system? Specifically, what medium are you using?


There are some sample databases and associated Reports, charts, etc. demonstrating how Corrective/Preventive Actions are managed electronically, at this thread:

Corrective Action Databases in Microsoft Access: http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=24060

The firm I work at now uses a custom homebrew database. It reeks. I have found a commercial database to be far more effective, as it can link to other areas, and the reporting is far more flexible. That is, if you get a good commercial database, and few are. The key is my company hired me to maintain quality systems, not to be a programmer and debugger. If you can stay focused on the task at hand - quality rather than programming - you may be a more effective asset to the company.

I know, I know - all those programming classes going to waste. Sorry. I have some COBOL and FORTRAN books in the basement, too....along with the Commodore 64 instruction manual. :cool:

Hi Bobdoering...

:yes: For the most part, I tend to agree with you. :yes:

Most Quality Managers need to focus on what they were hired for...and not spend time fumbling with databases. Actually it's a shame that Quality Managers the world over have been saddled with the responsibility of ISO certification/Quality System Manager/Management Rep...etc. The fact that this practice persists is a strong indication that Senior Management has failed to understand what ISO is all about and where the ownership should lie....sorry, I digress.

Back to databases...No doubt there is a plethora of good commercial databases out there which are much better than the home-brewed variety, but many companies really can't afford the basic software, or more importantly the required licensing that goes along with them that would permit them to use the software on a company-wide basis (oh, and did I mention the cost of training and technical support???). Even the software companies that offer monthly fees to an online services/shareware are no more affordable...they just spread the financial pain out over a longer period.

Fortunately, with Microsoft Access, you don't have to know computer language to create a useful and cost-effective database. If IT Dept.s were more supportive, they could whip up a database (to manage CA/PA) in no time...effectively and efficiently.

I've seen incredible commercial databases with modules that link to every conceivable function in the company (and very often, unfortunately, are not fully debugged). The sad truth is, that there are few companies that utilize even 50% of most program capabilities, but they still have to fork over 100% of the invoice price...it's like using an elephant gun to shoot a squirrel...and about the time they finish paying for the 1st software version, a new release comes out...cha-ching...cha-ching...

Having said that, if Quality Managers have the luxury of a budget that allows for canned software, I'm sure it would be their first choice. I don't think it was an option for those who concocted their own.:magic:

Patricia

I can't believe in this day in age if your working in a modern country why anyone would be still using paper...

Hi Bobdoering...

:yes: For the most part, I tend to agree with you. :yes:

Most Quality Managers need to focus on what they were hired for...and not spend time fumbling with databases. Actually it's a shame that Quality Managers the world over have been saddled with the responsibility of ISO certification/Quality System Manager/Management Rep...etc. The fact that this practice persists is a strong indication that Senior Management has failed to understand what ISO is all about and where the ownership should lie....sorry, I digress.

Back to databases...No doubt there is a plethora of good commercial databases out there which are much better than the home-brewed variety, but many companies really can't afford the basic software, or more importantly the required licensing that goes along with them that would permit them to use the software on a company-wide basis (oh, and did I mention the cost of training and technical support???). Even the software companies that offer monthly fees to an online services/shareware are no more affordable...they just spread the financial pain out over a longer period.

Fortunately, with Microsoft Access, you don't have to know computer language to create a useful and cost-effective database. If IT Dept.s were more supportive, they could whip up a database (to manage CA/PA) in no time...effectively and efficiently.

I've seen incredible commercial databases with modules that link to every conceivable function in the company (and very often, unfortunately, are not fully debugged). The sad truth is, that there are few companies that utilize even 50% of most program capabilities, but they still have to fork over 100% of the invoice price...it's like using an elephant gun to shoot a squirrel...and about the time they finish paying for the 1st software version, a new release comes out...cha-ching...cha-ching...

Having said that, if Quality Managers have the luxury of a budget that allows for canned software, I'm sure it would be their first choice. I don't think it was an option for those who concocted their own.:magic:

Patricia

:applause:

I use a database I picked up here at the cove several years ago. I believe Claes was the creator and I just modified it to fit my needs. It works great for me.