The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Quality Assurance Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > Quality Management Systems Standards > ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 - Questions and Discussions
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"


Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links



Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Howard's
International Quality Services

Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum

Bob Doering's
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


LinkedIn Groups

ISO 9001 for Small Businesses

Information Security Community

Medical Devices Group

Quality and Regulatory Network

AS91XX Series - Tips and Advice

FDA (Food and Drugs)


Related Topic Tags
corrective action (ca), definitions
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 20th March 2010, 09:56 AM
michelle8075's Avatar
michelle8075

 
 
Total Posts: 156
Question Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

I was recently a Quality Manager for 8 years. About 8 months ago, I left the field and I am pursing another field (which I use my Quality background in more than one would ever realize!).

To shorten this question... My Mother works in a company and she was thrown into being the Quality Manager, and I try to answer and provide support to her questions as much as I can.

Recently she had an audit, where they listed a step in a procedure, but failed to describe how it was done. The auditor wrote up the minor. In doing that, the auditor said "When you write the noncompliance, do not just write one root cause. The new standard states that you must give me more than one "cause" for the noncompliance". That is when I did this I proceeded to tell my Mother that I believe that the ISO:9001:2008 standard was updated to say "causes" so that people will not only search for one "cause". If only one cause is found, which in this case it's simple oversight, why does she have to list several causes.

Because I've been out of the Quality business for a bit am I missing something? Or is their auditor correct in saying he will not accept just "one cause" to this noncompliance? I know that the standard says "Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformity encountered". That is what I told her to use back if they still made an issue.

Thank you for any help for this "rusty" QA mgr!

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 20th March 2010, 10:19 AM
Jim Wynne's Avatar
Jim Wynne

 
 
Total Posts: 14,138
Re: Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by michelle8075 View Post

I was recently a Quality Manager for 8 years. About 8 months ago, I left the field and I am pursing another field (which I use my Quality background in more than one would ever realize!).

To shorten this question... My Mother works in a company and she was thrown into being the Quality Manager, and I try to answer and provide support to her questions as much as I can.

Recently she had an audit, where they listed a step in a procedure, but failed to describe how it was done. The auditor wrote up the minor. In doing that, the auditor said "When you write the noncompliance, do not just write one root cause. The new standard states that you must give me more than one "cause" for the noncompliance". That is when I did this I proceeded to tell my Mother that I believe that the ISO:9001:2008 standard was updated to say "causes" so that people will not only search for one "cause". If only one cause is found, which in this case it's simple oversight, why does she have to list several causes.

Because I've been out of the Quality business for a bit am I missing something? Or is their auditor correct in saying he will not accept just "one cause" to this noncompliance? I know that the standard says "Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformity encountered". That is what I told her to use back if they still made an issue.

Thank you for any help for this "rusty" QA mgr!
It's another case of an auditor not understanding the requirements. If your mother is confident that the cause of the problem has been identified and corrected, nothing more needs to be done.
Thanks to Jim Wynne for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 20th March 2010, 10:49 AM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna

 
 
Total Posts: 8,124
Re: Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

Jim is right. The text of ISO 9001:2008 states causes (plural) to jive with nonconformities (also plural). But, in a corrective action exercise, the typical approach is to do root cause analysis towards the likely/probable cause. That is the one that needs addressing.

At the end of a root cause analysis, it is possible to end up with more than one probable cause for a failure. In that case, take corrective action on the most likely one, and, IF APPROPRIATE, deal with the other ones via a preventive action resolution. But that is not either required, nor the norm out there.
Thanks to Sidney Vianna for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #4  
Old 20th March 2010, 01:06 PM
michelle8075's Avatar
michelle8075

 
 
Total Posts: 156
Re: Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

Jim and Sidney,
Thank you for your most helpful replies. I have printed this out for my Mother so she can read your replies.

Good to know that I'm not 100% rusty after all! I did not have the ISO-9001:2008 nor the sanctioned interpretations with me. She had some other OFI and findings that I said to. But I think I have given her enough information to use in the future.

Thanks again and enjoy your weekends!
  Post Number #5  
Old 20th March 2010, 02:22 PM
Randy's Avatar
Randy

 
 
Total Posts: 8,339
Re: Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

The auditor is full of rubbish and I will say so out loud ... RUBBISH!, and your mother can say that I said so.

This is the type of requirement that goes with "all records must be in ink" and "all departments must have an objective"
Thank You to Randy for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #6  
Old 20th March 2010, 03:36 PM
michelle8075's Avatar
michelle8075

 
 
Total Posts: 156
Re: Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

Randy, I love it!

I did tell my Mother that the people on this site are fantastic and have way more experience in the Quality field than her auditor. I also said that I have always gotten top notch advice on here when I was in the QA field.

The auditor also tried to tell her that they had a problem with their "work environment clause" because he heard someone cough. It's cold and allergy season in these parts! What was somewhat funny to us was the fact that her company produces hazardous materials and they are so regulated by every other agency out there and have always passed with flying colors. So our joke was something like "Oh someone's coughing, guess the auditor wants more than the EPA!" LOL

But I will say, she's had the same auditor for a while, and there have been times where I armed her with rebuttals.... and also the auditor has provided some great feedback. Who knows what the auditor was thinking the other day. I'm clueless!
  Post Number #7  
Old 20th March 2010, 10:06 PM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,582
Re: Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

Here is some wonderful guidance for responding to audit nonconformances. It is from ANAB.

The audience is different, as it is guidance for a certification body in responding to nonconformances written against them by ANAB. It still fits registered companies responding to nonconformances written against them by their certification body, but it helps to pay attention to the labels of the parties involved. Some certification bodies have distributed this to their auditors as guidance.

Pay particular attention to 8.

"8. The root cause must focus on a single issue. a) If more than one root cause is identified, for instance training and inadequate work instructions, then two Corrective Action plans must be submitted."

http://www.anab.org/media/4600/hu137.pdf

I stress, this is guidance, not a requirement.
Thanks to Big Jim for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #8  
Old 21st March 2010, 02:24 AM
sixsigmais

 
 
Total Posts: 69
Re: Cl 8.5.2 Corrective Action - "Cause" vs. "Causes"

The reason ISO states "causes" not mean that "MUST" provide more than 1 cause, it means you can have more than one cause, not compulsory to have more than one causes.
No any NC be issued unless the auditor find out some another rootcause to be added in
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Quality Assurance Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > Quality Management Systems Standards > ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 - Questions and Discussions

Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Recommendations - Understanding "recommendations" and "recommended corrective action" Matrix45 Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations 8 24th March 2015 12:56 PM
Controls and Preventions are not "OJT", "Ample Supply" & "Supervisor Verification" cavrdave FMEA and Control Plans 4 24th February 2014 06:16 PM
Have you heard about "Ample Amps" - "Miraculous Motors" - "Maxeff" ? (or Wanlass) Popeos Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 10 19th December 2012 02:58 AM
"Testing procedure: TMP", "WMT", "SMT" and "RMT" - IEC 60601-1 TRF nomenclature Jaydub IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3 13th June 2012 11:47 AM
What do "OAI" "VAI" and "NAI" used in FDA QSIT manual mean in inspections? TJG954 - 2009 ISO 13485 and ISO 14969 - Medical Devices - Quality Management Systems 3 25th June 2007 12:55 AM



The time now is 05:09 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" -- The Elsmar Cove is *Copyright Free*.