Is special CA (Corrective Action) verification step necessary?

[Bev D]

Tool repair (or maintenance, repair or replacement of any consumable) is unavoidable. it is analogous to rework or repair. this situation doesn't typically cross the threshold for Corrective Action. It does require correction.

When dealing with tooling we often add (and some Customers such as the aerospace industry require) a first article inspection of the first parts off the tool to ensure that the affected dimension was corrected and no other dimension was inadvertantly harmed. This can also include an inspection of the tool to ensure that it meets the drawing dimensions. In this case these two 'inspections' are indeed separate inspections and not merely submitting post tool repair parts to the in line inspection. My experience is that the tool inspection is a good fail safe, but first article is often silly. If you have an effective accurate in line inspection that test the first pieces off a repaired tool that is often sufficient and less wasteful then submittign parts adn waiting for an off line frist article. Thsi is particularlly true if you ahve a good SPC program.

to Coury's original point about continuous improvement there are times - based on overall priorities - that a true corrective action could be issued to improve the tool life or to put PM measures in place on the tool or SPC on line to catch the deterioration and initiate repair befroe it generates defective product (that coudl be missed by inspection and shipped to a customer)


As for the confusion surrounding rework/repair, Corrective Acion to prevent recurrence and Preventive Action - As Sydney said: we have normative references for the definitions of terms. Corrective Action is intended to prevent reoccurence of a Problem (that has already happened; Preventive action action is to prevent occurence of something that hasn't happened yet.
these terms ar often misused and lead to horrendous misinterpretation...

[psquared]

In Reply to Parent Post by Bev D

Tool repair (or maintenance, repair or replacement of any consumable) is unavoidable. it is analogous to rework or repair. this situation doesn't typically cross the threshold for Corrective Action. It does require correction.

When dealing with tooling we often add (and some Customers such as the aerospace industry require) a first article inspection of the first parts off the tool to ensure that the affected dimension was corrected and no other dimension was inadvertantly harmed. This can also include an inspection of the tool to ensure that it meets the drawing dimensions. In this case these two 'inspections' are indeed separate inspections and not merely submitting post tool repair parts to the in line inspection. My experience is that the tool inspection is a good fail safe, but first article is often silly. If you have an effective accurate in line inspection that test the first pieces off a repaired tool that is often sufficient and less wasteful then submittign parts adn waiting for an off line frist article. Thsi is particularlly true if you ahve a good SPC program.

to Coury's original point about continuous improvement there are times - based on overall priorities - that a true corrective action could be issued to improve the tool life or to put PM measures in place on the tool or SPC on line to catch the deterioration and initiate repair before it generates defective product (that coudl be missed by inspection and shipped to a customer)


As for the confusion surrounding rework/repair, Corrective Action to prevent recurrence and Preventive Action - As Sydney said: we have normative references for the definitions of terms....

Bev,

I have highlighted some some points you and Coury made that are particularly helpful as we scrutinize our system. We are reviewing ISO 9004 for additional illumination.

Your point about not meeting the "threshold for corrective action" was particularly helpful. We correct and improve situations all the time that IMO do not warrant the formality identified in clause ISO 9001:2000 8.5.3.

I believe we can simplify our system (per Coury's point about the whole process) while improving compliance and (most important) effectiveness.


Thanks again,