Nonconformance and Corrective Actions vs. Preventive Action - Problem Supplier

[NHopkins]

OK. As best as possible here is my situation:

We build nothing. We assemble from parts bought all over the place. If there's a problem with a part, we NCR/contact vendor...etc to get the problem fixed. Corrective actions are very simple (Vendor replace, Scrap, Vendor Repair).

Preventative actions, not so much. If I have a consistent problem with parts from a specific vendor, and this vendor isn't respondning to requests for information what they're doing to prevent the issue, I recommend to Upper management that we either escalate to vendor/manufacturer management or source from a different vendor/manufacturer.

All three (NCR, CA, PA) are on the same form.

I have a feeling, after reading through this very forum, that this is going to be a pain in the arse when we go for ISO certification later this year.

Advice?

[ChrissieO]

Originally Posted by NHopkins

If I have a consistent problem with parts from a specific vendor, and this vendor isn't respondning to requests for information what they're doing to prevent the issue, I recommend to Upper management that we either escalate to vendor/manufacturer management or source from a different vendor/manufacturer.

You are certainly not alone with this issue. Firstly you need to define the difference between CA & PA.

Although you refer in your paragraph highlighted above as PA, in fact it is your CA because something has already gone wrong.

CA is not just about replacing faulty part, refunds etc, the action you mention in the highlighted para is in fact your corrective action.

Preventive action is stopping something happening in the first place.

i.e. Risk Assessments, FMEAs, MOC, software testing etc all these and many more processes are part of your risk based decision making process.

These are tools you use to identify what "could" happen this is the start of your preventive action process.

As I think I said in a similar thread, think of it from a safety aspect:-

CA : Taking steps to ensure that a particular accident/incident does not happen again.

PA : Stop the accident/incident happening in the first place.

Hope that helps.

Cx

[JoCam]

Hi NHopkins,

For each NCR there must be a corrective action, and in some cases a preventive action. However, really speaking once the non-conformance has been identified raising a preventive action would be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I would therefore recommend that the NCR/CA remain on one form, but that there should be a separate PA form for detailing preventive actions that are identified from more general activities, eg FMEA, design reviews, customer feedback etc.

Remember CA's are reactive and PA's pro-active.

I hope this helps,

Jo

[Ajit Basrur]

NHopkins,

Its fine to have all NC, CA and PA in a single form but ensure that the CAs and PAs are effective enough so as to ensure that they do not get repeated.

Since you only assemble the parts, having good control on supplier through effective CA and PA is the key

[samsung]

Originally Posted by JoCam

For each NCR there must be a corrective action,............

As I see this quote, I recall that this topic has been discussed over here to a great extent in recent past and there was a general consensus that all NC's may not call for a 'Corrective Action', yet all instances of nonconformity must be reviewed to evaluate the need for action or corrective action. Some of them might be trivial and might not pose a significant risk, and thus can be dealt with simple 'corrections' while other may warrant a full-blown Corrective Action.

I hope you too agree to this.

[JoCam]

Originally Posted by samsung

As I see this quote, I recall that this topic has been discussed over here to a great extent in recent past and there was a general consensus that all NC's may not call for a 'Corrective Action',

I don't quite understand this, how could it have been non-conforming in the first place if it doesn't require a corrective action? If we are talking about Customer Complaints then they must be investigated before a decision is made to raise a non-conformance and hence a corrective action, but I fail to see why a NCR would be raised when nothing is non-conforming.

Help!

[Stijloor]

Originally Posted by JoCam

I don't quite understand this, how could it have been non-conforming in the first place if it doesn't require a corrective action? If we are talking about Customer Complaints then they must be investigated before a decision is made to raise a non-conformance and hence a corrective action, but I fail to see why a NCR would be raised when nothing is non-conforming.

Help!

I think you are a little confused regarding terminology.

When a nonconformity is observed, it is typically recorded. It could be a nonconformity report, a nonconforming material report, etc. Smart companies have competent/authorized personnel who review the nonconforming situation based on a number of pre-established criteria to see if formal corrective action is necessary. If so, a corrective action request (CAR) is issued. Personally, I do not like the nonconformity report and the corrective action request on one form. That implies that corrective action will always be taken. And that is not true.

Hope this clarifies.

Stijloor.

[NHopkins]

It's my, albeit limited, understanding that even if the CA is simple (Vendor replace or, QC Gods forbid, SCRAP) there has to be an action after the initial NCR?