This is my first post. I was relieved to discover this forum. I have enjoyed reading all the posts.
Corrective Action: We are a fineblanking company with QS9000 reg since 1998. I am the new QE tasked with maintaining the QS. My audits have revealed corrective actions limited to Customer returns, Suppliers, and IA's, but no internal corrective actions at all. The CA's that do exist appear superficial in response to identified problems and there is no evidence of even a base knowledge of root cause analysis. This much is correctable through training and development (minor grimace), but Im afraid that due to what I'll call a lazy auditor from our registrar, there seems to be a lack of willingness internally to seek improvement in our CA process. No consequence = no change. Has anyone had experience in overcoming this type of challenge and if so, please share, I am all ears (eyes).
Thanks
Steve

Steve - Welcome to the mix.. would be curiouis as to "how" you found Marc's site?

I too am interested in finding "better ways" to use and upgrade the corrective action system we have.. you are not alone in what you are finding...

IMHO Best suggestion would be train-train-train -(I don't know where in this big world you are but you may wish to contact Marc to check out training services)...but that will only help to solve the issue IF/WHEN the cor-act system is understood - bought to focus & (driven for lack of a better word) by upper level management involvement.

Regards
Jim



[This message has been edited by Jim Biz (edited 12 July 2000).]

The first step is to get a veteran employee from the floor in charge of corrective actions. They've been there, they know what's going on and not getting reported to management. They need to be organized and remain in friendly contact with all supervisors. Yes, you need to stop the rejections. After you get your corrective action system running, you'll know more and catch stuff early. This will improve customer relations also.

Daniel J. Rupright
Quality Cost Analyst
Defiance Metal Products Of Ohio

Originally posted by Jim Biz:

Steve - Welcome to the mix.. would be curiouis as to "how" you found Marc's site?

IMHO Best suggestion would be train-train-train
Regards
Jim

Thanks Jim.
I found the site from doing a HotBot search on the term "QS 9000". The "Cayman" term sparked my curiosity as I live fairly close to the Caymans and I plan to dive there soon.

I have to agree with the "train..." concept. I am working on a training focus for the mgmt above me as I will need their support to carry my plans and goals to completion.
Its interesting that a company can really achieve QS9000 registration with a documented system alone. If I were a third-party auditor, I would not approve my company because we are surface only with QS. I aim to do whats necessary to drive depth into this system but as I mentioned, I need horsepower from above so I think training for those residing above is step one.
Any thoughts on that perspective wiould really be welcome and interesting to me.

Steve

NOTE: Edited for html formatting.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 12 July 2000).]

We actually received a N/C for not having internal corrective action at one time. So you're probably on the right track. What do you make?

Actually have been to Lauderdale several times...family ties that have since moved.
Loved it.

Originally posted by Jim Biz:

...you may wish to contact Marc to check out training servicesHot damn! A real live 'plug'! Thanks!

See the 8-D file in the pdf_files directory for some thoughts on coredctive actions. Think Root Cause.

laura said: "We actually received a N/C for not having internal corrective action at one time.". Huh? Please explain.

Marc, I was referencing the 1st post..late at nite, should have elaborated.

Back at previous full time employer before I ventured into the wonderful world of consulting, we had "internal rejects" from assembly areas back to fabrication areas. There were no documented corrective actions (5phase, 5-why, whatever...) on them. Actually as management rep, I was pretty p-----d off, because we had been after this particular department to start issuing CA's. Other departments were, and our procedures required it. Of course the 2 departments involved did the "not my fault" salute...."you didn't ask for an official CA" and "we shouldn't have to if its in a procedure" yada, yada yada...I just got to say "I told you so"

Anyway, the QS clauses referenced were 14.3 of the QSA..."Does the supplier use a disciplined problem solving method to address internal or external N/C's?"

So I think the original post is on the right track. A registrar, can look for CA's on internal problems, and write a NC if they don't exist.

Does that help?

H

Hum interesting because the company where I'm now uses the word Corrective Action alot. every internal screw up is solved with a corrective action which basically means giving some one a phone call to fix it.

So no written down confirmations or 8D's or anything. I'll propably solve this by changing all excesive CA's to just A.

You people think I can get away with that?

It is kinda out of the topic but any way.

Martijn

We ended up solving it by documenting "formal CA" in Pareto order.
The assembly areas prioritized....top 5 problems got addressed with formal problem solving. These were reviewed at CI meetings and once one was closed out, another one was added.

Thanks I was thinking of a similar solution and Formal CA sounds perfect to me. So for non-formal CA's there were no records right?

Now that's over on to the fun part (PPAP procedures it looks like a mess at the moment so let's try to cast some light in the darkness).

Well, that gets more interesting. Since the N/C Material Element requires disposition, there was a reject tag log with a sign off of disposition. Scrap, rework, returned to supplier etc. Guess its not really corrective action, but the first step to identifying a problem. You could probably reason that if some part numbers show up often in the log, that they would end up with a "formal C/A"

We actually received a N/C for not having internal corrective action at one time. So you're probably on the right track. What do you make?

Actually have been to Lauderdale several times...family ties that have since moved.
Loved it.

We are a fineblanking company (precision metal stampings). Its a very stable process by design for the most part. Size dimensions are held within .0003, and the part geometries such as flatness are comparable to decent machining.

Next month is our 5th surveillance audit and we now have a different auditor coming as the old one quit. Our new auditor's pet peeve is non-conforming material and corrective actions. I may have a bucket of "I told ya so's" after August. Im certain he will ask and find no internal's and we will take a hit. Not what I want but if it wakes anyone up, I'll take it.

As for Fort Lauderdale, Ive been here since 3/99 from San Francisco/San Jose. I have found paradise on earth!

See the 8-D file in the pdf_files directory for some thoughts on coredctive actions. Think Root Cause.

We use the 8D exclusively for all CA's now. I couldnt see using different forms to accomplish the objective. I like the 8D format better than any I have seen elsewhere.

<eyes clinched shut>
Root Cause! Root Cause! Root Cause!
There!
I feel better!
Seriously, its a misunderstood term and critical element of our process, but its getting the much deserved attention through training at my place. A little guidance can go far.

http://www.16949.com/ubb/frown.gif We have a lot of CA's but no one seems to be very enthousiastic to solve the CA's they're responsible for. It's just like in almost every company I think. The excuse will be the same too, they are all too busy to spend some time for the Quality department. That's frustrating,working together with people who are thinking that Quality department is the responsible one for Quality.
http://www.16949.com/ubb/smile.gif Our new CEO is aware of this problem and he is regular confrontating the members of the MT with all the CA's they are responsible for. That helps. A plan is to train at least one person per department for internal auditing. The advantage is (we hope)that more people will be interested in and confrontated with Quality. We hope to get a kind of promotion team by this way. We believe if everyone understands the benefits of Quality solving CA's will be a natural part of everybodies job.
The target is within one year to hear from every employee that Quality is a part of their job. It's a real challange but the only way to survive as company. The requirements of the automotive industry are becoming tougher and tougher.

I must say I agree with most of you on most subjects.

8D's for all CA's to improve consistancy, works good. basically every CA is handeled in the same way anyway no matter whether the CA is internal or external. You always follow the same principle.

And appointing a problem owner to every CA work very well also. I think a CA should not be automatically tied to Quality. It's understandable for customer complaints but for inter- department related CA's I don't see the point for QA to be involved in that.

In my oppinion the auditor issues a internal CA, and monitors the correct follow up without being bothered with doing the CA himself.

In most smaller companies this results in a QA manager, who spends half his time on solving internal CA's at the same time also gets stuck with initiating and doing the follow-up of customer complaints, which does not leave much time for managing the Quality department which is also included in his job description. And than they want to be QS certified.

Its great for business though.

steve, maybe all is solved now! if not then the answer to this one is not easy. getting people to change their ways can be very difficult, what does help is if you can establish a sense of urgency. One way to do this is to take some examples of where CA have not been attended to in a satisfactory manner and attempt to put some cost to this or describe lost opportunity. the thing is that if things remain as they are you'll actually end up going backwards. establishing a sense of urgency can sometimes be the catalyst for change because it motivates someone to adopt the proper way forward. these may be the soft issues but be assured they are also the hard ones.it's also crucial that ceo can be seen by all to be bought in to the absolute need of doing things right.
good luck in your pursuits.

Hello gez.jordan

I follow your approach. When explaining why CA's are not necessary i nearly always use the development wheel of design, inspect, assemble, test and redesign, and explain that if this is not followed the wheel is broken.
I then go on to innocently describe potential problems that could occur if this is not done, using of course problems that i have heard have occurred in the company in the past.
...if you dont issue a Engineering Change Release then Stores dont know to rework the parts in stock and the wrong driveshaft may end up on a car and eventually break....knowing full well that this happenede 2 years ago and cost the company dearly.

Whenever i am in a company now i have a developed a sharpened sense for mentally storing up previous disasters and using them to reinforce points i want to make later.


------------------
Andy B