My company has been ISO 9000/QS9000 registered for 5 years. Since we are transitioning to ISO 9K2K I have been taking a good hard look at our Corrective Action program. Our procedure is heavily product oriented right now and we need to move to a process oriented CA program that enconpasses all processes here and not just on the shop floor. Anyone have a CA procedure that does so and willing to share?
:bonk:

Russ

I am attaching my corrective and preventive action procedures. They aren't great, but they're mine. You can check them out for yourself, anyway.

I use NCR's for everyday problems, bad parts on shop floor, shipping issues, customer complaints. I generate CPAR's (Corrective & Preventive Action Requests) for major customer complaints, internal audit findings and at managements request. So take a look and tell me what you think. There is another procedure that goes with this one but we'll wait and see....

Good Luck


*I can't seem to post 2 attachments at the same time. I can e-mail you the rest if you like...

Here's mine. It's fairly restrictive and texty, but we haven't had such a system before so it needs to be this way in the beginning. I'm sure we will modify it with use.

Jim Wade said:

But if it's only a certificate you care about - ignore this. Most registrars don't seem to care about whether or not we meet this important requirement :(

rgds Jim

Fire you are not alone in the difficult world of implementing a good CAPA program, it looks as if you need to beef up your procedure a bit. Take a look at the one Lucinda posted it is a very very good.

On a side note, I think the above reposnse posted by Mr. Wade is uncalled for. Maybe I am reading to much into it and if I am I apologize. Rather than assuming the only thing you care about is the certificate, why not give an example of what he feels is a good CAPA procedure/program. :mad:

but Lucindas definition of corrective action as an action to prevent occurrence is in direct conflict with ISO9001 definitions.

Thanks for the ideas. I have posted our current procedure below. Anyone see a problem here?
:rolleyes:

Russ,

I think the procedure looks good as long as it adequately describes your process. It's just a matter of personal preference, but I would change the title SCOPE to PURPOSE and APPLICATION to SCOPE. To me your scope sounds like the purpose of the procedure. IMHO, I don't think you would lose anything by removing the word "idiot-proof" from 4.11. As I said, these suggestions are just my personal preference and opinion.

Best Regards,
Hank Fowler
:)

ISO GUY said:

On a side note, I think the above reposnse posted by Mr. Wade is uncalled for. Maybe I am reading to much into it and if I am I apologize. Rather than assuming the only thing you care about is the certificate, why not give an example of what he feels is a good CAPA procedure/program. :mad:

ISO Guy,

If you read Jim's posts, he often refers to this. I, personally, like it. We are absolutely in it for the badge. It's a marketing tool and does nothing to enhance our business. JMHO. In theory, it's supposed to smooth things out. In the water business, it just muddies our processes.:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

For those who posted C/A procedures thanks ! After seeing the examples, I will be able to make mine more user friendly.

ABOUT THE CERTIFICATE: Unfortunately, Energy is right, IMHO. The intent of the standard I believe is sound, in a lot of areas, but let's face it. How many times in the past several years have you heard anything good about QS / ISO in or outside of your facility ? Moreover, how many times does compliance lose, unanimously, to shipment of product. How many times are intended value added systems meetings postponed or lost forever, as there are much more important tasks at hand ? It's ridiculed, scorned and approaching a travesty. A virtual laughing stock, especially in my travels outside of automotive. I even have to believe that as a Marketing Tool it will diminish long before I retire. What a waste that we have abused this potential good tool and actually put our customers at risk more often than enhancing their satisfaction. " I don't want to get off on a rant here......." Good day to all ------and we shall press on.

(never responsible for spelling errors)


:bonk: :bigwave:

Jim

Not wanting to drag this thread back to the dull debate about preventive and corrective action, but preventing occurrence is by definition Preventive Action, prevention of recurrence is Corrective Action.

I know its hair splitting, and have no trouble with the practical definition given, just saying its not strictly ISO (which is no bad thing you understand).

Lucindas definition is more a combined Corrective and Preventive type actions.

Jim Wade

I am a bit insulted. I would have been in sooner to complain but I couldn't get in because I had login issues. :)

If you had read my post, you would have noticed that I did mention that this was not the entire procedure- I couldn't figure out how to post multiple attachments.

I most certainly am in this more than for just the certificate. I work hard to keep this system going.

Just wanted that to be known..... I'll let it go now....

FG
:(

Beyond debating how I defined corrective action (which Jim is correct in stating is a combination of correction and corrective action) , ...what else do you think about the procedure? Beyond the fact that the written procedure is perhaps overdone compared to others that I've seen,...what about the way I've described the system working? Does it look usable? Sensible?

Jim, we do allow for the eventuality that once the root cause is identified we may decide that it is too costly to fix or that the fix is simply overkill considering the liklihood of the event happening again. In that case, the QAP might read " monitor these types of events over period of 12 months and revisit taking long term corrective action at that time" or something to that effect. On the process chart for CA (which is not the same as the procedure flowchart that is in the document I posted) I've put a block that describes this type of action. So while a correction will definitely always take place, the longterm CA that addresses the root cause may be a watered-down version or postponed, or may even be none at all depending on the nonconformance.

Fire Girl said:

So take a look and tell me what you think.

FG,

A bit insulted? I'd be flattered that Jim blessed your documents. He's a tought nut to crack. :vfunny: As for the certificate thing, he's singing my song! I'd would buy if I could!:bonk:
Put out any good fires, lately?:bigwave: :ko: :smokin:

Lucinda I liked your procedure so much that I am "stealing" parts of it to add to our CAPA procedure. As far as being over done I wouldn't say that at all. The more information you give people the less of a chance there will be for them to screw things up! If you don't tell them exactly how to do it, when to do it, how to respond, (**** you even have to remind them to breath once in a while:vfunny:), they will always have some excuse as to why they didn't do it right. So IMHO you can never over do a procedure.

Energy, I am sorry to hear you say that, "I'd buy if I could".

Have you called Perry Johnson, TUV or UL???:vfunny:

ISO GUY said:

Energy, I am sorry to hear you say that, "I'd buy if I could".

Have you called Perry Johnson, TUV or UL???:vfunny:

ISO Guy,

It was only a reference to short cutting all the hard work involved. It wasn't an "Registration wanted" ad!:vfunny: Besides, I know that you are out there, watching and evaluating. :biglaugh: I'm sure the Registrar I have chosen isn't for sale. Laugh a little. I get enough lectures on my lack of reverence for the Standard and it's promoters. :ko: :smokin:

Oh No! I just saw that you had a smiley after your post.:truce:

Energy, I think I know what you are saying now. I must say your avitar fits you to a T.

:bonk:

Phooey - I don't find any of this boring. In fact, I find it highly significant that even in a room full of people such as yourself who obviously know what they are doing (even if they can't spell it), there seems to be considerable room for interpretation. I am really enjoying reading all the samples on this topic and encourage more people to post more of the same. It's a real eye-opener to see how many different ways there are to attack the same problem...