Preventive Action Follow Up

[jeffr]

Two months ago I wrote up a preventive action and under follow up stated: Validation and verification to occur at next purchase order.

It was written this way because I thought the next order could be many months away and I wanted to close out the PAR.

Is it okay to write a follow up as I did ? Should the PAR be left open ?

I feel I should somehow document the followup was effective. Do I write another document or amend the .pdf ?

thanks,

jeff

[sorin]

What was the PA? Could you do a follow-up without an actual order?

[jeffr]

The action was to add another dimensional measurement at final inspection to ensure no damage had occurred to a particular surface.

Difficult to follow up until you make another part (grin)

jeff

[sorin]

In Reply to Parent Post by jeffr

The action was to add another dimensional measurement at final inspection to ensure no damage had occurred to a particular surface.

Difficult to follow up until you make another part (grin)

jeff

So, I assume you had to update the inspection plan. Would not be easier to ensure that the inspection plan was updated (as a follow-up for your PA)?

[jeffr]

Yes, the final inspection report was updated (part of the preventive action), but I wasn't sure if that was sufficient.

jeff

[sorin]

I have no idea how it's working in your company. I will try to give you an idea how I was doing it a few years back.

Say I had an issue that required a CA/PA. Apart from the follow-up(s) I was making a note in our ERP (number of my CAPA or NCR - example: NCR-128 or CA-125 or PA-150) and the next time the part was launched, my note was printed on the BOM (bill of materials).

That way I was able to do a follow-up (not that it was required).

My note was always in the same place on BOM: section QA.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by jeffr

The action was to add another dimensional measurement at final inspection to ensure no damage had occurred to a particular surface.

Difficult to follow up until you make another part (grin)

jeff

If you're doing this in reaction to damage having occurred previously, it's not preventive action. On the other hand, if you're anticipating something bad happening that hasn't happened before, characterizing additional inspection as preventive is questionable at best. The idea should be to prevent the defect from occurring.

[suffelde]

I agree with the fact that you shouldn't put a time limit on preventive actions. We have a Continuous Improvement Log where we capture preventive actions for tracking purposes. We update the status of such actions with a periodic review (no less than once a quarter) with a status report going to the President of the company after the review. This is done to make sure P/A doesn't slip and get forgotten or in order to make sure there are adequate resources so that it does get completed in a time-frame commensurate with the risk encountered. Of course, we state this in a Level II document.