K
KenS
As part of the implementation of a Quality System in a multi million dollar company that has none, I set up a database on the Intranet to record in process discrepancies. The database is accessable by all employees and is configured to accept input from any point in the manufacturing process, from material receipt to product shipment. The operator has the ability to check a box on the input form to automatically generate a Corrective Action for review/distribution by QA. An example of an entry may be a jumper missing when trouble shooting an electrical rack. The technician will want a CAR if this is something he/she has seen before. Periodically I use Excel to review the data and identify additional entries needing CARs. In addition, this review is used to identify areas requiring training of personnel. As a result we have generated over fifty CARs and SCARs in the few months the system has been in operation.
The problem is the amount of entries, currently 497. The VP Quality (Corporate) questioned why all entries do not have a corrective action. I explained that the system was not only a Corrective Action system, but was gathering data for continuous improvement in many areas. I thought we had cleared this, but he questioned it again today, as "an ISO requirement", the result of a procedure I wrote for using the database.
My question - where does it say every discrepancy must have a written/documented corrective action?
The problem is the amount of entries, currently 497. The VP Quality (Corporate) questioned why all entries do not have a corrective action. I explained that the system was not only a Corrective Action system, but was gathering data for continuous improvement in many areas. I thought we had cleared this, but he questioned it again today, as "an ISO requirement", the result of a procedure I wrote for using the database.
My question - where does it say every discrepancy must have a written/documented corrective action?