Hi Y’all,

Here’s the situation. We have purchased a nice Corrective Action Program that we are using to enter all reported problems. The Report Form is completed by the “Reportee” and given to me for entry in the CA database. Because we are basically in the “startup” mode as far as getting our processes identified, I expected a significant amount of “problems” to be reported.

What has happened may be normal, that’s why I’m posting this topic. The amount of problems reported since January of this year has reached 180. 100 of them have occurred since June. Here’s the “Problem” with the problems:
Our Distribution center is comprised of three (3) Inside Sales Persons. They receive all orders and process them through a series of steps that make their way to Shipping and Receiving. Errors such as incorrect part numbers, incorrect B.O.M.’s, not checking availability before promising the Customer Delivery and other types of “missed” processes. The shipping foreman writes up a report on any that Inside Sales does wrong.

Now the Customer calls and complains that he had a missed shipment, or it was late, or it had the wrong parts, etc..Sales determines, because they usually get the call, that Shipping made a mistake. They now issue a report. We have a “Battle of the Reports” going on. You write one on me, I write two on you. Everybody says that the reporting system is flawed because it’s become personal. I say, ‘Where are they getting the ammunition to carry on this war?” 65% of the problem’s point of detection were by the Customer. The rest are inter department points of detection. My concern is the weight given to some problems. For example: Sales omits the “Ship By Date” on the pick slip. Shipping reports it. Another: Customer comes in for his order. Shipping hasn’t received the picking slip. Shipping reports it. Little things, but the Customer is delayed.

All reports are distributed to the appropriate department for completion of the Corrective Action and Preventive Action Sections. Their responses are a whole different subject.

Should I continue to require all problems, no matter how small (even small problems can be imagined to have an effect on delivery and Customer Satisfaction if you keep on “supposing”. What’s small?

My intentions are that this reporting is a training exercise on problem reporting with the result being that the process(s) will be fine-tuned eventually. Management has asked for all the data and is prepared to drop the hammer. Has any body had this experience? Is there criteria you use to determine if CA/PA is required?

I have told all the people involved that I will expunge (Keep hard copies) from the database when we reduce the amount of reports, which indicates that the system is working. After all, the reporting is new to them. I consider it as training, new business, new people, new processes, etc.. When we arrive at the CA/PA processes in our scheduled assault on complying with ISO9001:2000, we will make it official with correct CAPA responses.
It’s long winded, but, I wanted you to get the flavor.
energy


[This message has been edited by energy (edited 23 August 2001).]

I went through the exact same thing. I called it CAR wars. (we call them CARs here). At the beginning it does become a war if one is assigned against you, you assign two more.
I developed our Corrective Action system so that only Manager's could be assigned a CAR. They of course could have the responsible person within their department do the investigation and so on, but the actual Champion had to be a Manager. That put a stop to it. When Manager's started to receive 10-15 CARs a day, they took notice and it also made people a little more careful about the CARs they were issuing. I also do a weekly chart of CARs per department here that gets published to Senior Management, that helps get them closed in a a timely manner also.
Good Luck with your new system....

Energy,

This is not to be taken as smart aleck remark,

Some companies use the corrective action system do document everything from a customer complaint to a runny nose. In a previous life it was decided that anything that went wrong had to go through a formal corrective action process, In the long run we had more corrective actions than people could reasonably address.

What we did was to define which "problems" were true corrective actions (those which directly affected the customer) and those that could be handle under a preventive action or a continuous improvement.

Maybe it all comes down to customer satisfaction balanced against internal resources, Too many people believe that any problem must go through the corrective action process, one has to also consider effectiveness and applicability.

Hope rambling didn't hurt more than help!

ASD...

It looks like a bit of process improvement is needed in sales and shipping as well as the CA process. But maybe more important in this instance is application of 'TEAMWORK'.

Our criteria is split into 3 caetgories Supplier, Internal and external. From what you are describing it's mostly 'internal' issues that are affecting the customer, so I'll only go into that:
Request for Corrective Action may be initiated as a result of nonconformities relating to process and product, audit findings, improvement teams, management review meetings, or review of standard quality records.

Even with this broad to date we have only 12 CA written this calender year. Of course I gripe that the system is underutilized (in some instances) but overall the low # are due to process maturity and teamwork.

Sales:
Does sales have anyone reviewing SO before it goes to shipping?
Where are they getting information from to promise customers product?
Consider software that links sales/production or inventory control/shipping.

Shipping:
Again...is there a review to see if parts packed = parts ordered? Our product shipping by it's nature requires involvment of several people and each is required to verify SO part# & Qty to actual.

Rather than 'report' missing information - STOP the handling and kick it back.

Shipping could track 'receipt of SO data' so if questions arise later they have evidence to refer to.

Hope this helps a bit.
Save a few trees!
Eileen

Energy:

Been there - Seen that - Multiple writeups fo noncoms on single 5 cent items (manager wars - I'll write on on you - you write 2 on me - etc.) EVENTUALLY NO-ONE writes anything due to being pushed for follow-up action they feel is non value added.

What we did

- split our "nonconformance reporting" and Corrective action reporting in two sections

Everyone can (and does) report noncoms - the reports are presented to an Incedent Review Board - who then decides IF/WHEN a formal CA should be issued - the board tracks progress of the investigation and "Oversees the implementation".

?? what program are you using to report all of this - we have tried a couple & found that a simple two spreadsheet system does the trick - one for noncom reporting (presented to the board to determine formal Trends and Repeat/risk info) and another to track progress on the CA investigation information.

Regards
Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim Biz (edited 23 August 2001).]

energy

I hear ya brother! That was what it was like here, when I first started.

Here's the deal:

Anybody can issue an NCR for any little 'ol thing they please. However, I often haul their little asses into quality board meetings to have them "plead their cases". That certainly cut down on the number of NCR's. If I start seeing a trend on NCR's I issue a CAR, which goes through management. That doesn't go over well.

I think I would personally always issue an NCR for customer issues. The thought here is that if a problem made it through the whole system without being noticed, that's really bad!!!! Better fix it.

Fire Girl

Just a 'me-too.'

Like Jim Biz, we have a group for each product line that looks at the incoming reports and determines which ones actually need CA as opposed to those that are insignificant or already being dealt with.

Before these groups, every single report demanded CA and the system (such as it was) ground to a halt. Sounds like you need a similar filter.

And Eileen's references to reviews (a la 4.3) are important.

Alf

Thanks all. I agree with all the posts. Do the errors impact the customer? As I stated, 70% or more were detected by the customer. Of the internal reporting, would they impact the customer if gone undetected? 99% would be my guess. If nothing else, people are beginning to look more closely at their outputs. E.Wall, we need all those things you mention. Cross checking, more thorough reviews of Customer requirements, B.O.M.'s, etc.
Jim Biz, the program is called CA5/Corporate Corrective Action sold by Harrington Group out of Orlando. Actually, it's subtitle is Issue Management System. Great little program.
Al D., yup they are reporting everything, regardless. My problem is that "everything" at this point of the game can effect the Customer if not detected, and the majority are reported by the Customer. Not good. We offer free freight, credit to smooth things over and have not lost any Customers that I have been made aware of. Believe me, in this business, the lost of a single Customer due to snafus would be a major event. Anybody else that I didn't mention, thank you for the input. Tally Ho!
energy

Good morning all!

I have seen the CAR Wars before. It isn't a pretty sight at all. I don't know if experience will help you but...

After living in the battle zone for awhile and seeing CARs stack up like crazy, I went to the managers of the two departments (sales and shipping in my case also). I set up some meetings that had both sales and shipping personnel, I would suggest 3 of each as a max. Each group got an allotment of time to address the problems that they were having and how the other group could help.

Shipping might say that "they loaded the material per the instructions on the sales order, but the customer refused the truck because it was not loaded correctly." "Could the sales department initiate a review of all shipping instructions to make sure that they are current?"

Basically, what happened is that when sales reviewed the requirements with our customers, they found that there had been a lot of changes in 15 years that were not amended. Shipping also reviewed the new and improved versions of the instructions and found that a lot of instructions fell into categories. What we ended up doing was re-writing portions of our computer system to create some fields such as max shipping weight, color codes, packaging requirements etc. This took the place of everything being typed into a memo field and cleaned up a whole lot of problems.

It took most of a year to go through the entire process, but in the long run we ended up with two groups of people that became allies instead of enemies, a new respect for what others do and also, and probably most important in my mind, all of these people have a greater respect for the intelligence and willingness to work as a team of all the people involved.

Sorry, I made a short story long again..best of luck, always try to turn a problem into an improvement opportunity and never think that the average hourly worker doesn't have any good ideas.

Hi Everybody,
Gee, it's great to be back. What a spiffy looking site, and it was done in much less than forty days. Bet it wasn't free, either!:)
Back to the topic. I notified all the parties in the CAR WARS that since we are in the start up mode, we will catagorize the 185 problem reports by department, type of problem, etc.. and issue a final report to Management. We will then purge the data base and start over, officially. This was considered practice and the suggested Corrective Actions and, mainly Preventive Actions, fall far short of what could be considered effective. Like " we shipped the customer the correct part with free freight and he's happy now." Yea right. That's going to go over big with an auditor. Or, " I met with the customer last night and we went over their recent complaints about us. He understands and is generally satisfied with our service. There is no problem." Yea right. Everyone knows that they have a second chance. We reduce the number of problem reports because we got better. Yea right. All reports will be reviewed for good CA/PA or they will be kicked back or up to Senior Management where they will get high visibility. Of course, the printed copies prior to purging the database will remain in my secret compartment somewhere within reach, for reference. We all have our "don't go there" places, right?
Marc, Great job!!

energy

Originally posted by energy

Like " we shipped the customer the correct part with free freight and he's happy now." Yea right.
We consider this the 'Short Term Corrective Action' then the recipients must still report what the Root Cause was and what 'Long Term Correcitve Action Plan' {LTCAP} they will implement to ensure the problem doesn't reoccur.

Our RCAs are rated (by the QA Manager) which identifies what the required response time is depending on the quality impact. Low = 4 weeks, Medium = 3 weeks, High = 2 weeks. The 'Short Term CAP' must be done immediately. The root cause must be identified along with the LTCAP X-weeks from issue (also must identify when the LTCAP will be implemented - some things are quick no-brainers...but other will take time to work out the details. This informaiton is reviewed and either accepted/rejected by the originator, then the originator is to follow-up on the RCA X-weeks from receiving the RC and LTCAP.

Originator must verify that the implemented plan is effective (no recurrances), if all is well - he can recommend close-out (Which only the QA Manager or designee can do) ; if there are still problems more work has to be done.

Well, I didnt' mean to be so long-winded...:rolleyes:

E. Wall,
All the things you have said, I agree with. Especially root cause.
The report has a space for root cause. Nobody fills it out. Why?, and we have filled up a thread with this very subject, they say it's HUMAN ERROR!! I have to try to craft a root cause for them, because if they made a mistake, they don't know why they made the mistake. So, for now I will continue to use "Employee error" as the root cause, contrary to advice from others in the Cove, because there is not enough time in the day for me to figure out what went wrong. Every person contacted in regards to the incident, to the man/woman, say the same thing. He made a mistake. Nice job on the site changes, huh? I'm really getting used to it.

Energy

If a relatively small number made a mistake, then 'human error' may be a reasonable assumption. However, if ALL have left it blank it indicates a 'system' failure (IMHO) and the true root cause would be 1) Training/Communication Requirements and 2) Mgmt Enforcement!

I keep finding new things I can do with the new cove...

Take care & hope you have some fun (or relaxing) holiday plans.

Eileen

E. Wall
You nailed it. It's the two reasons you suggest. In the meantime I keep practicing my craft. Like swimming up Niagara Falls. Have a good holiday weekend. No posts until the 5th of September.

energy

I have to add this. The entire 185 Problem Reports involve the same 4 people. Three Inside Sales Reps and the Shipping Supervisor. CAR WARS Rule!

Energy,

I will keep this simple and short...

We use an Access database set up for anyone to enter a "Problem Report". All problems big and small get entered there, however, it is primarily for bad material (e.g. computer card) on the production floor that can wait for a month or so. The person entering the PR emails anyone who can help them to resolve. (Hey John, I have two more bad cards to fix when you get a chance..) Friendly ground if you will.

I monitor the PR database for trends and nasty problems and issue a CAR if necessary. If I find something where I want to haul their butts onto the carpet (para-quoting Fire-Girl), I issue a CAR. The CAR is the big stick, because they have five working days to respond, and ten days after that to positively fix it. Copies of all CAR's are sent to top mgt. in my monthly report - and everyone knows it.

This kills off the "war" aspect, and allows everyone to work together, with mgt. & QA watching in the background. Our unwritten motto: Fix it or we will fix it for you, and you might not like it!

:cool:

Info gathered during our recent Management Review meeting was that we should not accept operator error as a cause until/unless "all other possible causes" are analyized.

Our exec's maintain that it is "just the same" as recording an accident as not-avoidable.

Regards
Jim

> Our exec's maintain that it is "just the same" as
> recording an accident as not-avoidable.

I agree. Good post.

I'm a new member and have to say that this is the best forum that I've come across in my web searching!

I'm putting a QMS into place in a 4 year old company. This is my first foray into this, although I was knee-deep into ISO with my previous position with a registrar. Note that I was only knee-deep and please forgive my freshman ignorance!

I'm trying to craft a nonconformance reporting, corrective action, process for our company. The comments in this discussion have been very useful. What I would like to know is : what if someone doesn't take corrective action during the time that is allotted? What do you do? How do you make someone take the corrective action? How do I address this in my procedure?

Lucinda,

Try not to fall into the role of being the "policeman" for quality. Make sure that top management supports you and the quality system. Provided you have that support, one method that I've found effective is to review any past due corrective actions with top management prior to the Management Review. Your job should be to report to top management on the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement. Let top management decide whether it warrants a consultation with the person. State this in your Management Review process and your procedure for Corrective Action. Make sure everyone knows that this is the process. Send out a monthly Corrective Action Status Report and I'll bet that they will at least clear up the past due corrective actions before they have to be confronted by top management.

I hope this helps.
Hank Fowler
:)

We copy all CAR's to top management, attached to the back of the QA monthly report. They are also mentioned in the monthly report, and any actions that have occurred from them. Keep top managment "in-the-loop" for all good/bad/ugly CAR's and responses. Employees soon realize that stuffing the CAR under the carpet does not work, and neither do inappropriate responses.

The top management's attitude and reponse to the CAR's is a strong indication of their committment to your quality system, and can be used (gently!) to remind them that they need to remain consistent.

Thus with a system like that you have a double-edged sword, employees respond properly, and management responds properly - since all responses are "Quality Records".

Now for wading through the myraid of personalities and politics to allow the system to work, tact, tact, and more TACT!

One of the most difficult things in dealing with corrective actions (CARs, SCARS, ICARS, whatever) is to deal with the causes without being judgmental. In internal auditing, we teach that auditors must be unbiased and objective. Dealing with corrective actions should be the same way. In too many cases the corrective action process is more of a “who’s at fault” than a “what when wrong”. Once we get to who’s at fault, the process stops (but not until after the guilty are appropriately punished). This leads to the concept of “You write one on me, I write two on you.” that Energy began with.

The organization should not necessarily care “who”, unless the “what” is intentional. Following a valid, disciplined problem solving method, using a variety of folks can help focus on the “what”. Everyone must agree that the focus is on improvement, not blame.

My two cents

Dave B

Thank you for all your comments!

ISO is being somewhat forced down everyone's throats, and as a new employee hired specifically to put it into place I am not always seen in a positive light. While the majority of people are eager to get things "cleaned up", it is the upper level of management that is resistant to change and has the attitude that "this is the way we've always done it and we are right". Since they are the ones who have to make the corrective actions happen, I can only hope that they will do it. We are a small company with an upper level and a lower level and not really much in the middle.

I am having to create some of the most basic processes from scratch and while I can interpret the standard quite well, I don't have the practical experience of how these processes work.
:confused:

Would anyone mind if I explained how I envision our corrective action process and then giving me your feedback?

To all,

We ran into the problem and I requested to the V.P. that all C/A run through me as the M.R. In doing this I asked for his backing in the following:

It was my choice to designate the request as :

A) A real corrective action that needed immediate response so customers were not effected.

B) If not A, I would run them as part as the internal audit process.

C) Routed it through a continuous improvement project.

D) Routed it through a preventive action process.

Within weeks and many "challenging" meetings, the requests dropped dramatically. People began to realize not to pass the buck, but to fix a problem if they found one. In fact we used it in a graph as a corrective action that led to increased productivity reported during management review.

Instead of having a book full of corrective actions we had a good file on continuous improvement and preventive action.

May not work for all, but it is a thought.;)

Originally posted by Lucinda


Would anyone mind if I explained how I envision our corrective action process and then giving me your feedback?

Lucinda,

First off...welcome to the Cove. Marc has set-up a wonderful meeting place for exchanging ideas, and a place to ask for guidance, interpretation and feedback. We would be happy to put in our 2 cents worth on just about any subject (LOL).

Seriously, post your description of your system, or how you envision it to work and we will give you our ideas and thoughts.

CarolX

Originally posted by Lucinda

Would anyone mind if I explained how I envision our corrective action process and then giving me your feedback?

Lucinda,

Bring it on. You will see many different interpretations and receive lots of good advice. Just adapt what you see to your own needs. Or, maybe it will be O.K. as you envision it. This is a great sounding board.;) :smokin:

A bit of explanation about my company may help: we do custom design and assembly of specialized tooling. We contract the actual machining of the pieces of the tools to outside parties and assemble them in-house to send to our clients. We also provide services that utilize highly specialized (and abused) pieces of equipment, and specialized personnel to operate the equipment.

So on the one hand, we have a physical product , and on the other we have a service product.

We need a way to issue Corrective Action Requests to suppliers and generate Corrective Action Requests internally, as well as have a method of reporting any problems so that a pattern can develop that may indicate a nonconformance. (which I know is typical of all companies). And we need to account for equipment failure (or individual part failure) that may indicate that we aren't using the correct part, or maybe something is screwed up at the supplier end, or maybe..maybe...

So, what I envision is a Problem Report that is generic enough to be used by all personnel in reporting a problem within their department, whether it is a part failure or a customer complaint, or that the resources they're provided aren't suitable (like not having a software program that they really should have, or headphones that do not function as needed).

Then the Responsible Manager would review the Problem Report and take appropriate ( in his/her opinion) action. If an investigation is warranted to discover the root of the problem, then they would tackle it. Only if it is determined that there has been a nonconformance ( ex. the proper headphones had been ordered by purchasing but the receiving dept. didn't verify the order before sending it out to the crew to be used, as required in our procedure), would a CAR be raised. Only the responsible manager would be able to raise a CAR.

For internal audits, CARs would be raised as usual upon evidence of a nonconformance.

A customer complaint (defined in our customer satisfaction procedure) automatically generates a CAR (almost by definition of what a complaint is). All feedback, whether graded as "feedback" or "complaint" is logged and monitored by our commercial department.

Problem reports would be logged and monitored by the departments so that trends can be spotted. I imagine a database for this. If a problem report triggers a CAR, the CAR number would be entered.

CARs are sent through the QA dept. (only little ole me at present), and I would log them and monitor the actions taken, etc. Possibly grade them like mentioned in this forum previously for the amount of time for response? I would send the CAR through to the responsible dept and ask for them to complete the bottom portion with their immediate corrective action and return to me. And then they have a certain amount of time to do root cause analysis and suggest their long term fix. Long term fix suggestion needs to be approved by the originator of the CAR before implementation.

I am guessing that the originator of the CAR should do the closing after they are satisfied that the long term action has been taken and is effective. Internal audit will review all corrective actions not closed.

That is the skeleton of it. Which doesn't look like rocket science, but it is in the details that I'm lost. All the back and forth on this looks like a nightmare and I don't know the best way to handle the communication. And realize that this company has never handled a CAR and don't know what to do to investigate or how to satisfy themselves that the corrective action is effective. I have to be able to communicate in ....a work instruction essentially...what they need to do step by step. There is serious training involved, not only for me, by for them also, and I have to be able to communicate it. So in addition to my Corrective Action procedure I'm thinking there will be Work Instructions or Guidance Documents or something. (which? what to call them? what is the difference?)

And I know that we will end up with more than one way to report problems here. More than one form. In order to adequately describe a piece of equipment failure so that we know the conditions and circumstances, we need certain pieces of information that aren't pertinent to a customer complaint. I imagine other departments will have a myriad of reasons why they need a special form also. The problem report would most likely be used by office staff to communicate little problems or imagined problems.

I am visualizing a process that takes big steps, but within each step there are all the little things that go unsaid and I don't know what they are. What am I missing?:confused:

Lucinda,

As I read your post, I get the feeling that you are worrying about too many things at once. Customer complaints, nonconformances (Suppliers and Internal), Audit Findings, CAR's of all sorts. Relax...Report them all on the same form. So as not to push a Software Program on this site, I have used a program that you can customize with your own "fields" to suit your needs. Once you start playing with it, it's kind of fun. You can run Pareto Charts for trends, Aging Reports and several other types of reports. All your data can be queried by the catagories YOU decide to use. It's totally up to you to decide the fields you want to monitor. Weekly, Monthly, Department Responsible, Class of defects. One half the report is for Corrective Action reporting that can be hand written by the responsible party. Start issuing these problem reports and see how it plays out. If you want to pursue it, send me a private or e-mail message for the name of the Company. I have mentioned the program on this site a couple of times, but I don't want to Champion it. You can also preview it and use it for 30 days-free. Actual cost is about $300. But, in my past life, it was tracking some 1700 N/C's for 4 years, with no end in sight. The weight of the world is not on your shoulders alone, it just feels like it. One day at a time!:smokin:

Originally posted by energy

So as not to push a Software Program on this siteAnyone using a software program is welcome to discuss it including the software company name. All I ask is that one give some details / facts if they're going to 'rate' it so to speak. If you do like it a lot (and it appears you do...), tell us what it is and why you like it.

Lucinda,

I think your vision is correct. For example:

> Then the Responsible Manager would review the Problem
> Report and take appropriate ( in his/her opinion) action.
> If an investigation is warranted to discover the root of
> the problem, then they would tackle it. Only if it is
> determined that there has been a nonconformance ( ex. the
> proper headphones had been ordered by purchasing but the
> receiving dept. didn't verify the order before sending it
> out to the crew to be used, as required in our procedure),
> would a CAR be raised. Only the responsible manager would
> be able to raise a CAR.

I have seen this used. The 'responsible manager' is the 'gate' to the CA and NC systems.

> That is the skeleton of it. Which doesn't look like rocket
> science, but it is in the details that I'm lost. All the
> back and forth on this looks like a nightmare and I don't
> know the best way to handle the communication. And realize
> that this company has never handled a CAR and don't know
> what to do to investigate or how to satisfy themselves
> that the corrective action is effective. I have to be able
> to communicate in ....a work instruction
> essentially...what they need to do step by step. There is
> serious training involved, not only for me, by for them
> also, and I have to be able to communicate it. So in
> addition to my Corrective Action procedure I'm thinking
> there will be Work Instructions or Guidance Documents or
> something. (which? what to call them? what is the
> difference?)

Everything looks OK. Just flow chart it out. Don't get tied up in knots over issues such as what to call a document. And expect a learning experience in implementing the system - for everyone. Nothing new is ever easy.

But do ensure you have an escallation mechanism in your procedure so that once a NC is in the system there is way that if a response and completion of the corrective action does not take place it makes its way to management review for presentation for solution.

It sounds like your company has some rapid evolution in its future. Depending upon upper management, it may be a very rough road. They should probably consider a consultant. Right, energy?

Originally posted by Marc
Lucinda,
Depending upon upper management, it may be a very rough road. They should probably consider a consultant. Right, energy?

Sure:rolleyes: Houston isn't that far from OHIO:thedeal:

Lucinda,

With Marc's permission, here are some of the highlights of the program we use to track ALL issues. The program is called C/A 5 Coporate Action System (Issue management System). It is from the Harrington group in Orlando, FLA. I used it extensively in a former life. Here are some features:
There are 11 customizable information blocks. 5 tab captions that are customizable. 18 user fields that can be customized and "validated" for querying purposes and creating reports, with graphs. (Pareto). For example, one block can be for part numbers. Query that part number and see any report written against that part. The other user field options besides "validated" are text, numeric, date, unused. Personally, I can't use all of them. There is not enough information required to use them, here. The program allows you to create mutiple databases for reporting and tracking other issues that are important to your company. For example, I also have a separate database that just tracks just customer complaints by catagory. You can e-mail reports through your company Intranet and also send them via the Internet. You can have mutiple users, with you as the "Super User" (Editing Rights). I have not used it here because you need multiple user licenses. If your company wanted to let others do some data entry, they could exercise that option or use your work station. Finally, you can preview it free for 30 days and use it. Thanks Marc.

Energy:

Great minds work in similar pathways :smokin:

We have used the same programming here - and found nothing to fault "the programming" for...
It does what it says it does

Our "USE" difficulity turned out to be - it did not make a good "fit" in our particular "cultural environment"...

Our upper level folks found that the Paretos, reports & such that we use in "spreadsheet format" did what they wanted them to do... (turned out that only one license was intended to be purchased & I already had a record set-up in excel. Without "over explaining" - I found that I was simply inputting the same info we had either on paper - or in excel into another (duplicating) programming format.

My take on it was - that IF it is not to be used by "multiple users"
(as was the case here) the time saving improvement (value) - was not high enough to spend the extra time on it.

I know this will all come with time, but I'm not exactly basking in loving indulgence in this position. And while I would love to call in a consultant, that would be shot down in a heartbeat. Budget doesn't allow, they hired me to do this job (what? I can't handle it?), etc.

They are expecting me to be the expert and I have to project the image of confidence and expertise in order to meet with success. I can only make them change their bad habits by convincing them that the new way that I have mapped out makes sense and will eventually make life easier. This is a veeeery male dominated industry and women coming in trying to tell them what to do is not high on their list. (I'm referred to as the QMS girl)

So yes, I am trying to cover all the bases in putting together a corrective action procedure. I can't afford alot of trial and error. You should see the initial reactions to my document control attempts! whine whine whine. and complaining that all is not perfect. They aren't cutting me any slack.

Sorry for unloading and feeling sorry for myself. Actually this is a very exciting time for me. This is building a system from ground-up and can be any way I envision it, with no one but myself to blame if it fails. Pulling people together across three countries to standardize our processes, and taking best practice from the three. And I am immensely proud that this company felt that I was up to the task, even with no practical experience.

Oh, and I guess I never told you that what they are doing right now is sending in every broken nut or wire or filter or worn out pump motor from the field to our office and calling them nonconformances. Doesn't matter that the part is due for replacement after X hours anyway, or that the equipment was being abused when the thing broke. Or that they have to ship it from half way across the world, incurring shipping costs. By golly, they fill out a nonconformance report and there is a nonconformance log that it goes into. When I expressed a bit of amazement over this and tried to explain what a nonconformance is and why we want to be careful about how that term is used, there was a serious lack of understanding and not a little belligerence at the idea of changing.

See my challenge??:)

This procedure needs to be well-defined!! And presented such that they see the reasoning behind it.

Lucinda,

A couple of thoughts. First, although I am a guy, I have witnessed the struggles of the “QMS girl”. In one case in particular, a clerk was hired to do nothing but type the new procedures for ISO 9000. She was quickly promoted to the Document Controller (no paid overtime). When the Management Rep left, she was moved into that position, although she was still paid as a clerk. The day after the registration certificate showed up, she updated her resume and left for a much better paying job.

The second thought is I have seen corrective actions listing the customer as the “root cause”. In one case a late shipment was caused by a “credit hold”. The customer mandated an 8-D. The root cause on the 8-D basically said that if the customer would pay the bill on time, the late shipments would stop. Don’t be afraid to put in your procedures that the customer can be “blamed”.

I know this conflicts with my earlier post that said corrective actions should not blame individuals, but when it is the customer, I am quick to point out their involvement.

Dave B (the other Dave)

Sorry for unloading and feeling sorry for myself.

No need to be sorry for unloading here - MANY of us are - or have been - in the same working environment a certain amount of "RANT" is understandable from time to time.

Marc has graciously allowed us to accept most any context short of outright profanity..

Appears you have a fairly clear idea of what needs to be done for noncom / CA reporting.... I would only offer an end around approach (so to speak) that may work in this situation.

My opinion only

{Option 1}
If you can't get a FULL cooperative backing "from the guys at the top" get a "Partial" approval - pick the most important aspects of your plan and "implement on the basis of a trial - timeframe"

(example) let's try this & if it dosen't work comfortabley for us in 30-60 days then we can address the portions of it that are not to our expectations.

{Option 2} - present your vision of what you know needs to be done - if they disapprove then get specifics - OR have them change - or reformulate the plan

I do agree with Marc - an outside consultant could move things along at an increased pace and smooth out the rough spots depending on your planned timeline. (consultants tend to have the advantage of the "do it yesterday or else" position with Upper management types - PLUS the "this is how it worked elsewhere expierience/advantage that an "internal" hiree does not have.

Hang in there!!

I have many times gone to the top dog and told them they were the ones screwing up the project. I'm not paid to lie. I'm paid to see a project through successfully.

"I can only make them change their bad habits by convincing them that the new way that I have mapped out makes sense and will eventually make life easier."

Lucinda, You cannot change another persons bad habits, you can only change your own.
Yours is not a unique position. Whether your brand new to the quality profession or have 30 years experience and starting a new job, makes little difference. People do not like to be told what to do, especially some of the high-strung managers we have to work with.
It's like Deming said, "I can tell you what needs to be done, but I can't tell you how to do your job."
Suggestion; get a team together , give each member a copy of the ISO or QS manual, read the section on corrective action and then ask everyone "How do we get there from here"
If that doesn't work then "the game is over" and it's time to move on to bigger and better (maybe) things.
;)

Marc: our consultant used the following approach.
(To a very "opinionated" top dog)

you are Paying me too much to NOT listen to me and the people you have hired.

This is a "do-it or fail situation

The Plan upholds the standards & is what your resister requires.
Either listen to "us now" or to them later.

I have quit a couple of clients because - as I told them: You don't listen to me. You will fail. You will blame me. Let's leave it at that. Good Bye!

I must admit I never told one they were paying me too much :eek: But that's 'cause I'm worth every penny! :thedeal:

If only it were so easy.

No one has the "time" for this. Whatever I bring to anyone regarding QMS is seen as an "interruption". They "oblige" me by giving me 15 minutes here or there.

We are very understaffed and everyone is doing the job of two (if not more). Hire more people? Wish that it was that easy. This is a specialized business. The world pool of qualified people is not all that big and companies in this industry grow by siphoning employees off of the competitors. And my company is growing dramatically and rapidly and we can't hardly catch our breath dealing with it.

So, IF the people I need to talk with are even in the office, it is very likely they are in an important meeting or on a phone call or they are just about to leave or go to an important meeting or take an important phone call. Have a meeting? Surely you jest.:biglaugh: I've tried that. Even had them book the time into their dayplanners waaaay in advance. Did absolutely no good.
So then I complained that there was no priority being assigned to this. There will always be something else for everyone to do,so at some point the QMS development has to take priority to something. Nope, will not happen. Not even a consultant can change this circumstance I'm afraid.

I've already been told that they wish I would just put this stuff together and hand it to them. They don't want to sit around a table and discuss it. And I know that they really CAN't sit around a table to discuss it.

Today I managed to get 7 office staff and one VP into the meeting on our new document control system. Woo hoo. I am doing the same spiel tomorrow and am supposed to get 17 people in the room. We'll see.

Nope, I'm on my own here and swimming upstream. Good news is that I still have a full year to get us certifiable (although I am there already!), and am dead on in my implementation schedule.
:cool:

Lucinda,
I love you like a brother, uh uh maybe a sister! In the words of another William "Me thinks that dost protest too much". True, you're a women in the workplace. For us that have been in the business for a very long time, gender is not the issue. Your problems are typical. It's not that you don't have the "equipment" that we have. It's more like you don't have management's support. Sexism is real in the workplace, but you could be anybody with the task before you. Forget the QMS Girl thing. Just start kicking some as-. You're right, and if you yell loud enough they have to listen. Don't look for instant results. I have over thirty tears, I mean years, in the business. Doesn't matter. People who don't share our views make evey day a challenge. Just when you think you have it in your grasp....some dickhead questions how and why things are being done. Get used to it. You're in a tough field. And, you are in the right web site to get the information to deal with it. Just don't be abused!:biglaugh: My comments are protected by my inability to communicate effectively. Keep posting, GIRL!:eek: :smokin:

We assign CAPs (corrective action plan) to the steward of the element for QMS problems and for Product problems to the area supervisor.

I have to echo what Hank and Track already covered. We too have an 'escalation clause' which puts ultimate responsibility on Mgmt to enforce the system. I issue weekly the 'open RCA log' to all staff including top mgmt then address 'problem-children' at the next mgmt review meeting. This has helped since our auditor could track the notificaiton and lack-of-involvement he called the Plant manager on it during an audit. Now we have more effective and timely RCA system.

PS: Welcome Aboard! :bigwave:

Lucinda, Just like the rest of us, once you have vented,ranted raved on and done whatever else it takes to get it out of your system, it's time to get back at it and get the job done.
Regardless of what happens in the implementation process, when you get that certificate in the mail (and you will) it changes everything. It gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling to know that you have helped accomplish (guide) a successful process.
Someone said that getting certified is easy, keeping it was the hard part. However ypu looat it , it's a never ending process made up of good timee and bad times.
Sexism in the work place! sure there is. It will always be there. Too eliminate it completely wpould be great, but then again would you like the alternatives?

Jim,

I know that the program is a combination of Word and Excel. For a computer illiterate like me, it's so user friendly. Question: Can you "query" in Excel, or do use the sorting feature to locate a particular component or problem? For example, I want to see who the biggest complainer is out of all our customers. I query "Customer Complaint" from the N/C catagory field. Up pops all the Customers who have made a complaint. Then I go to report and I can get a Pareto Chart, nice colors, showing who the biggest whiner is. Behind it is a report with all the history, data pertaining to the graph. It takes about 2 minutes to sort and print a report on anything you set up as "Validated" text. Our corporate environment is such that I look like a real smart guy operating this database. We have some sharp people here who could probably duplicate what this program does. But, I got it for $300 during a Harrington's web site promotion thing. Normally it goes for $500. Cheap enough if nobody has to create something. They give me the program and I do all the work. What a deal? I had used it for 18 months on a previous job, so I knew what it did. I begged and demonstrated (Free Demo) it to the "suit". He said, you want it? Buy it! One of the few times I got something I really wanted :)) :smokin:

Lucinda,

(this is one HOT thread!)

Good ranting everyone. Bring on the rant, get it out of your system, gain the confidence, and get to work. :)

A few suggestions:

Go to my company website and get the 4.14 policy. We use PR's and CAR's, exactly as you are envisioning.

Start with funnelling the input into your corrective system, using problem reports. People love to complain about problems.

EMPOWER the area managers/supervisors to take initial action. (this is very important)

How will the PR's get communicated to you? Email? Hard paper? Drop box?

Keep the PR's simple with lots of check boxes, and it is only 1/2 page long. (people hate lots of writing...)

Next work on getting the information processed and out via CAR's or emails for real action. Lots of good ideas posted previously.

Provide a written report and progress to the top dog. Keep it positive, and keep them in the loop. For a new system, I would suggest every two weeks. Then when you get out-gunned on the floor, you have back-up.

Move the mountain, one shovelfull at a time!

:cool:

I believe that if you have to have an escalation clause and have actually used it, it hints at a lack of mgm. commitment.

Good Point, however the intent was to have the top management backing/blessing for all progress, so that forward moving implementation progress that encounters 'resistance' can be removed by a polite indication that the top dog/management expects this.... to happen. ('resistance' is a term used in war... kinda fits here... heh...heh...)

This is somewhat different to indicating let's see what the top dog wants us to do.

In other words, present the plan to top management and refer the 'resistance' to top management, which is far better than you and the 'resistance' running to top managment to sort it out. :mad: ... then you have more explaining to do.

This removes the argument - you already have the top management blessing to proceed according to plan. This puts meaning into the old term resistance is futile.

Can't argue with that! :smokin:

Remember that QA is part of management. Use it to your full advantage.

:bigwave:

energy: my friend - YES you can "query" and sort for items of interest

There is a "Sort" function giving you option to sort for "Three criteria" say my spreadsheet says colum A "customer" colum B Part number Colum C Cost of nonconformance complaint

One can in one sort = filter out the "BAD guys" - but charting the information after the sort results -- sometimes though it requires a secondary sort to filter out the info I want to focus on.

And then there is always a "FIND" on the menu - if one needs to go to a specific part number - there are always options there to - find "by colum"? - by row? - find using formulas/ text entries / values?

:cool: You guys are the greatest. Thank you for all the support and advice. I'm sure I'll muddle through this eventually, but no lie I almost quit today.:(

But I did take a look at your company's website Trakman and it was very helpful! There's nothing like seeing a real example to get the thought processes going.

Trackman,

Do you work for G.M.?

No, I do not work for G.M. This company has many people very 'set' in their ways - including the President. (a brilliant engineer) Interestingly, it is the President that is pushing the QA system, but he is the first to circumvent it to 'get things done'. So often he signs a quality policy, then the very next day purposely does something that completely ignores it. (grrrr)

I have a snotgram (a.k.a. nasty letter…) from a customer that claims new software had a monstrous bug that gave them a big headache, since it was not fully tested. Yes, the president was the culprit here! Many other examples as well.

So I stick with documenting all major QA breaches, including all major Presidents' slip-ups. Shaky ground indeed, but if I overlook some things, then QA is perceived as 'ineffective'.

You can lead an engineer (horse) to a QA system (river), but you can't make him (drink it) follow it!