I am working on our Quality Manual docs and have reached issues relating to corrective actions.
Throughout our company, CAR has two meanings - corrective action REQUEST, vs corrective action REPORT.

Now I am a bit confused about how to relate to all of this. ISO talks about requests, but we have reports and our QA Dir. said that CAR is a REPORT (not a request).

Here, a request is entered on a REPORT FORM. The Form thus is a permanent record of that corrective action- what the problem was, root cause, short term and long term goals - and if the CA is even accepted as valid (with a place to enter the reason denied, if not accepted as valid).

So now, the documentation talks about REQUESTS all the time... but it seems to me the REQUEST is more than that... since they have a reason to take this course of action before the form is ever filled out.

What is it that I have missed? Is the employee completing a CA REPORT Form (since that is the name of the form) to REQUEST a Corrective Action (CA)?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this -
Dvora

I am working on our Quality Manual docs and have reached issues relating to corrective actions.
Throughout our company, CAR has two meanings - corrective action REQUEST, vs corrective action REPORT.

Now I am a bit confused about how to relate to all of this. ISO talks about requests, but we have reports and our QA Dir. said that CAR is a REPORT (not a request).

Here, a request is entered on a REPORT FORM. The Form thus is a permanent record of that corrective action- what the problem was, root cause, short term and long term goals - and if the CA is even accepted as valid (with a place to enter the reason denied, if not accepted as valid).

So now, the documentation talks about REQUESTS all the time... but it seems to me the REQUEST is more than that... since they have a reason to take this course of action before the form is ever filled out.

What is it that I have missed? Is the employee completing a CA REPORT Form (since that is the name of the form) to REQUEST a Corrective Action (CA)?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this -
Dvora

It really is a matter on how the organization wants to define it. My personal feelings is they are one in the same.

I would ask the QA Director why they feel there is a difference and see how they want to define them.

I am working on our Quality Manual docs and have reached issues relating to corrective actions.
Throughout our company, CAR has two meanings - corrective action REQUEST, vs corrective action REPORT.

Now I am a bit confused about how to relate to all of this. ISO talks about requests, but we have reports and our QA Dir. said that CAR is a REPORT (not a request).

Here, a request is entered on a REPORT FORM. The Form thus is a permanent record of that corrective action- what the problem was, root cause, short term and long term goals - and if the CA is even accepted as valid (with a place to enter the reason denied, if not accepted as valid).

So now, the documentation talks about REQUESTS all the time... but it seems to me the REQUEST is more than that... since they have a reason to take this course of action before the form is ever filled out.

What is it that I have missed? Is the employee completing a CA REPORT Form (since that is the name of the form) to REQUEST a Corrective Action (CA)?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this -
Dvora

When you initiate and process the CA, it is a 'request', when you record results of action taken, it is Corrective Action Report'.

Hope this clears the cloud.

Umang :D

It would, except the REQUEST is an integral part of the REPORT.

We cannot have TWO CARs, one a request, and one a report.

I am trying to get around this by saying that a request for a CA is initiated on the CA Report Form (hereinafter CAR Form)....

The report, at least for us, is a living document. It is completed throughout the CA process. The final output is the completed Report form to file, and to customers (where applicable).

Dvora

Then change to -

Corrective Action Plan / Proposal (CAP) and

Corrective Action Report (CAR) :D

Hey - that would work! Thanks!

You can call it a ralph if everyone understands what it is for. A recording of the problem is a request for corrective action. After that, you must investigate the problem to see if it is even valid, and to find the root cause. After that, you must take action appropriate to the risk and effects. So, whatever you call it, fine, pretend you are Nike, and "just do it".

Hey - that would work! Thanks!

Good to note that :)

Also, just talk with a colleague...

You wear a CAP but the CAR drives it... could work for taining as well....

It would, except the REQUEST is an integral part of the REPORT.

We cannot have TWO CARs, one a request, and one a report.

I am trying to get around this by saying that a request for a CA is initiated on the CA Report Form (hereinafter CAR Form)....

The report, at least for us, is a living document. It is completed throughout the CA process. The final output is the completed Report form to file, and to customers (where applicable).

Dvora

Does your process allow for requesting corrective action without issuing a formal report form (for minor system noncompliances, or single incidents of a minor noncompliance, etc.)? If so, I would not tie your documented process down to requiring a request be made on a formal report form. Attempt to differentiate between the request for corrective action and the Corrective Action Report form (perhaps by not referring to the request as a Corrective Action Request, but by referring to it as a "request for corrective action").

Just my :2cents:

Yes and no. Anyone can formally request a CA on the CAR... since it would then become an official record, I would guess someone would think twice before completing a CAR... but maybe not? For now, we are talking about the request for a CA .... as opposed to the Report which is completed throughout the process...

Yes and no. Anyone can formally request a CA on the CAR... since it would then become an official record, I would guess someone would think twice before completing a CAR... but maybe not? For now, we are talking about the request for a CA .... as opposed to the Report which is completed throughout the process...

Now you got the bull by the horns.

Umang

I am trying to get around this by saying that a request for a CA is initiated on the CA Report Form (hereinafter CAR Form)....
That's exactly what I would say.

Yes and no. Anyone can formally request a CA on the CAR... since it would then become an official record, I would guess someone would think twice before completing a CAR... but maybe not? For now, we are talking about the request for a CA .... as opposed to the Report which is completed throughout the process...
The (ISO 9001 and related) standards don't require you to take corrective action every time a problem is identified. They require that you evaluate the need for action. If a request is made, and the company determines that there is no need for action, then the "report" could document why the decision was made to not take action.

Exactly - and our report will do that, and become a part of the permanent record...

As a technical writer, I get bogged down with the technicalities of the language... at the end of the day - as long as we clearly meet the requirements, and the auditors can find everything EASILY, they should be happy...

I just want the instructions to our people to be as clear and unambiguous as possible so that the process can be observed with a minimum of pain.

Exactly - and our report will do that, and become a part of the permanent record...

As a technical writer, I get bogged down with the technicalities of the language... at the end of the day - as long as we clearly meet the requirements, and the auditors can find everything EASILY, they should be happy...

I just want the instructions to our people to be as clear and unambiguous as possible so that the process can be observed with a minimum of pain.

I'll jump in here before Randy says this (he's so predictable): Don't worry about making the auditor happy! Do what makes your people happy and your system and processes effective. ;)

You can call it a ralph if everyone understands what it is for. A recording of the problem is a request for corrective action. After that, you must investigate the problem to see if it is even valid, and to find the root cause. After that, you must take action appropriate to the risk and effects. So, whatever you call it, fine, pretend you are Nike, and "just do it".

I'll jump in here before Randy says this (he's so predictable): Don't worry about making the auditor happy! Do what makes your people happy and your system and processes effective. ;)

These posts raise an important point. Don't get hung up in terminology!

As a technical writer, you grasp this point I'm sure: find out who is your audience and write to, and for, them. Use language they use and understand.

Howste has already given one hint about your audience: it ain't the auditor. It also isn't the manager of QA, in my opinion, nor is it the exec VP of Operations, should your company have one. Your audience is the ladies and gents who have to live by the system every day. Find out what they call problem solving and adapt their terms.

I agree - up to a point.
Sometimes to adopt terms is to perpetuate an error. If you have factories that are world wide, you want terminology that meets the needs of all employees in the organization. The QA person I'm working with, and I, have discussed this at length. Fortunately, everyone knows that change is on the way. This gives us a prime opportunity to say what we mean and mean what we say... Instead of the current situation of having documents that say something, and the next question is.. "what do you mean?"

I can see a justification for saying its a request... but the again, the request itself is a part of the permanent report... Thus, I like the suggestion given to use CAP for the "proposal" vs a request. We are currently talking about making a terminology list, that gives terms, abbreviations, definitions, and where appropriate, the terms the new words replace. (But that is a different topic).

I agree - up to a point.
Sometimes to adopt terms is to perpetuate an error. If you have factories that are world wide, you want terminology that meets the needs of all employees in the organization.

Exactly, that is why you need to set this up to be understood by all your employees, no matter where they are.


I can see a justification for saying its a request... but the again, the request itself is a part of the permanent report...

To tell you the truth, I've not really considered a report to be a permenent...there is a difference between a report and a record. A report could be a record, if we chose to control it as a record (if it was something or in some format that could be saved i.e. not verbal) but every report we give does not automatically become a record.

All reports that we generate here become a part of a permanent record according to our record retention policy. Some for only a few years, some for more... depends on what...