I have been tasked with drafting a policy for determining when to not issue a Corrective action request and when to voids/cancel existing ones. :p

Any sugestions on or guidelines to follow?:bigwave:

bb,
Breeze through this thread and you may get some ideas. Particularly in respect to "commensurate with the risks encountered".

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3188&highlight=I+wrote+the+procedure+and+goofed

Never, ever, ever discourage someone from initiating a documented action request - EVER.

4 case scenarios:
1. The only way to determine if a request, or the subsequent fixes are justified is to do an investigation and assessment. This is most easily accomplished if someone has recorded the event for you. The justification (or otherwise) can be money, risk, likelihood, impact, etc based.

2. Internal audits. NCRs can have a negative impact on the audit program (when raised from internal audits obviously), so I get the int auditors to write out an action request for each NCR and send the audit report and all attachments to me for review and publishing. After all, I have to register the action request/s too. I can then investigate and assess the identified nonconformance and validate it. If valid, I register the Action Request and record serial number/s on the audit report. If not valid, I talk it through with the auditor, and if we're both happy, I give it the flick. This is essentially the same as '1' above, however it avoids the potential animosity towards the audit program.

NB: The QM should be the normal arbitrator in determining the validity of Action requests

3. It, and anything remotely like it, will never happen again, ever - EVER.

4. Joe has just raised his fifteenth Action Request for the week, and his boss comes to you ranting about this bloody system. Together examine the requests and determine whether they have merit, or whether they are symptomatic of something else that is wrong. You may have to talk to Joe, without his boss, to get to the truth. Either way, the requests have help idenify a problem or trend.

Hi Aussie Bloke,

I can tell you're pretty passionate about this one! I don't mean to rile you more, but I gotta admit, I get really nervous whenever I see/hear someone say "never, ever, ever, ever" do _________ (fill in the blank). It seems to me there might be a few unusual circumstances where it might be better to handle a CAR without documentation. I think a few recent threads touched on examples but I don't have the time right now to find 'em.

It's just my opinion, but I think you should never, ever, ever, ever say "never, ever, ever, ever".:smokin:

Mike S. said:

Hi Aussie Bloke,

I can tell you're pretty passionate about this one! I don't mean to rile you more, but I gotta admit, I get really nervous whenever I see/hear someone say "never, ever, ever, ever" do _________ (fill in the blank). It seems to me there might be a few unusual circumstances where it might be better to handle a CAR without documentation. I think a few recent threads touched on examples but I don't have the time right now to find 'em.

It's just my opinion, but I think you should never, ever, ever, ever say "never, ever, ever, ever".:smokin:

Mike S.

That was my reaction, too, but I didn't want to get into a swingabout:vfunny: I just had an occasion when a Supervisor wanted me to issue a problem report because the HR person made a mistake on somebody's paycheck (shorted him two hours).
It was strictly personal and I told him to take a powder.:bonk:
But, David did say that they review all that stuff before doing anything about it, so he would have tossed the guy out, too. Unless it was his paycheck!:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

How about this:

If it is bad issue a corrective action.

If it is not bad don't issue a corrective action!

MHO, Al...

Al,
Please define BAD.
You have reiterated bbelden's problem, not answered it!


Mike,
Sometimes I am passionate - this was not one of those times.
Dramatising my response - sure was.
I was hit by a car and went head first into a light post whilst cycling last weekend - that didn't rile me, so don't be nervous.
Have you ever had an action request cancelled? You'll never write another one unless out of spite or Homeritis.
Cripes, I gave 4 examples of when they weren't valid requests!
Mike, never, ever, ever rile me!:biglaugh:


Energy,
Yes, I get the swings and roundabouts reference when you use them.;)
I had an ex-army colonel boss when I was working with the USAF, and he said there are 2 things you don't mess up on in terms of employees: their pay and their pay. In an organisation of 100, if you stuffed up one pay each week, you will have p!55ed off the entire workfore in under 2 years! (yes I know statistically, blah, blah....) HOWEVER, by documenting these instances, reviewing the trends, you could have used the management system to avoid upsetting the vast majority of the workforce, and fixed the root cause.
Never, ever, ever, stuff up an employee's pay!

bbelden said:

I have been tasked with drafting a policy for determining when to not issue a Corrective action request and when to voids/cancel existing ones. :p

Any sugestions on or guidelines to follow?:bigwave:

bb,

Drafting a policy will not work unless the policy states that issues will be handled on a case by case basis. Recently, we conducted a failed experiment in CA/PA with one of our business units. Everyone was encouraged to submit a problem detail report for anything that was wrong with the system. In a little over 2 months, we accumulated 138 reports. The root causes were never addressed. We have a thread about what is an acceptable response and employee arror was ruled out by the majority of the members. Our responses were, "Overlooked it", "missed it", "My mistake" and other admission of guilt. The decision was made to scrap the current method and develop a weekly "tick" list for any problems. We will then group problems by catagories and write CAR's for the top 2 or 3. You have to draw the line on frivilous complaints, unless you have the resources to throw at every problem. We'll get there, in due time. This "agreement" was made between Department Managers and there does not exist a written policy. You cannot create a policy that covers all things that can go wrong. Who's the judge? I would also be a little leery of showing a Customer or Auditor a policy that accepts nonconformances based on someone's idea of what is serious or not. JMHO:ko: :smokin:

Quite right Energy.

Simply base your CA/PA on a Pareto analysis of the things that go wrong.

David Mullins said:


Have you ever had an action request cancelled? You'll never write another one unless out of spite or Homeritis.
Cripes, I gave 4 examples of when they weren't valid requests!
Mike, never, ever, ever rile me!:biglaugh:


Aussie Bloke,

After re-reading both of your posts a few times I think we agree more than not. Perhaps I didn’t understand you completely the first time -- I can be dense sometimes. If I now understand correctly, your method is to let anyone write up anything on a CAR, then you review them to decide whether or not to act on them, employing your experience, knowledge, common sense, and understanding of the culture? Correct?

In our system, maybe because we’re smaller and our CAR procedure is a little different, I or another Senior Management person listens to the complaint then decides whether or not to document it, and if it does get documented we then must act on it.

Either way, not every little thing gets acted upon if it is deemed not worth it. Your way generates more paper, my way might miss something. Tradeoffs again.

Now, when you say “never, ever, ever, ever rile me” you know, just like a little curious kid, that I want to do just that to see what happens! Never, ever, ever…aw, forget it. :vfunny:

Watch those cars, Bloke, and have a nice weekend!

Dave,

I was not trying to be too shallow about this topic, but sometimes there are too many reasons, suspensions, outs, interpretations concerning the issue of a corrective action.

How about this:

If it is not conforming to a documented, specific company or customer requirement, issue a corrective action.

Can differing levels of C/A be issued? Sure, as long as they are defined.

MHO, Al...

Al Dyer said:
If it is not conforming to a documented, specific company or customer requirement, issue a corrective action.


What if it's a CAR which identifies that a procedure is needed where one doesn't already exist?
Rhetorical question!
I understand you're looking for the succinct answer (consultant's answer), but it isn't easy.

Mike's comment about talking the issue through with the manager or supervisor, is typically what you endorse in the early life stages of your management system (termed - immature). Later, when the staff are aware of (have a decent feel for) when the issue warrants a CAR it is less of a problem. Regardless, Mike is right - any issue should be addressed with the immediate supervisor/leader/manager as it may require immediate action.

The big problem are the superiors who don't want the CAR raised, so work around the issue. Everyone loses.
To help counteract this I encourage staff to talk to their boss about the issue first, but if they don't like the answer, they can take the issue higher through their dept or the quality dept (even if it's a dept of 1).

Everything is a trade-off, and there are no right/wrong ways. I'd advocate that you get the troops recording issues and then continue the education process (at all levels).

With regard to ISO9001:2000 how would you determine that a procedure was needed (apart from the golden six) ?

I presume you mean "documented" procedure. To me, when an undocumented procedure is not consistently practiced in an organization and the potential for product or serivce nonconforms is at risk.

M Greenaway said:

With regard to ISO9001:2000 how would you determine that a procedure was needed (apart from the golden six) ?

That has been bothering me for awhile. My thoughts are this: If you were auditing one of our employees, or me, and asked that question, "How do you know how to do your job?" (I've been told by 2 outside sources that is a potential question.) The answer can be "I've been trained" or "Here's my procedure". For the training answer, you would then go to the person's training folder and view the skill requirements needed for that position. If the procedure is produced, work instruction if you will, you would obviously want to make sure that it's the latest revision and controlled. I don't know because we have not been through an Audit by external auditors. Our Internal Auditors, myself included, have not gone that route yet. We have audited written procedures, the famous 6, plus Customer Satisfaction and a couple of others. Most of ours will be Work Instructiuons, like Customer Supplied Product. But, I'm still not comfortable with not having procedures for other things that are mentioned in the Standard. We will say we do yak yak yak in our QPM. You will ask "How do you......?" We will explain how we do it. If you ask two or three people the same thing, get the same answer and there is no written procedure, whatcha gonna do? Good question, M. I'm really interested in other opinions. Maybe start a new thread?:ko: :smokin:

I think it would be quite wrong to say in an audit finding that a procedure was required - an audit cannot (should not ?) determine this.

The audit finding could be that people did not know what they were doing, from which a corrective action might arise to create a procedure, but to state in the first place that a procedure is required is wrong.

As you say energy training also comes into it in a big way.

Also I dont get this 'ask a few people and if they are all doing it the same then OK' stance (i'm sure we have discussed this before). Surely we should look at the output and if that is the same then OK - the procedure is only a method to achieve a desired outcome. If the desired outcome is achieved who cares about the method employed !

David Mullins said:

The big problem are the superiors who don't want the CAR raised, so work around the issue. Everyone loses.
To help counteract this I encourage staff to talk to their boss about the issue first, but if they don't like the answer, they can take the issue higher through their dept or the quality dept (even if it's a dept of 1).

Excellent point. This, too, is how I operate and can help prevent ongoing cover-ups of serious problems.

:bigwave:

Well thanks for all the feedback. Attached is the draft. It say when to issue instead of when not to.

All feedback would be appricieated.

Bob