posted 24 November 1998 09:19 AM            

------------------
Editors NOTE: By the way -- This thread is continued from http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum31/HTML/000023.html

posted 24 November 1998 12:21 PM               

I wrote something about a week ago in the QS9000 forum under the topic of Continuous Improvement Techniques that may help you out. I am assuming that you are having difficulty understanding the element and not having difficulty deploying CA & PA. Give that a look for greater detail and for a crude case example. Otherwise, here is a thought or two.

Corrective Action: Actions taken to eliminate the root cause of an existing nonconformance and to prevent its reoccurrence.

Preventive Action: Actions taken to eliminate a 'potential root cause' to a potential problem that has not occurred.

The element (4.14) requires that you identify areas for both within your organization. The CA portion deals with items such as customer complaints received, nonconformances uncovered as part of internal quality audits, or received incoming materials not meeting specifications for example. These problems exist in the here and now and require corrective action to prevent their reoccurrence. What do you do to correct the issues and how do you document what you did? Did it work (close the loop)? Do you review this as part of Management Review?

posted 25 November 1998 09:31 AM               

You have covered the aspects very well. I generally use this when describing the difference between CA and PA.

Corrective Action: Putting out a house fire after it has started.

Preventive Action: Observing conditions that may start a house fire and removing them from the system.

posted 25 November 1998 12:06 PM               

Corrective Action: Resolving an actual cause that exists in direct relation to the problem.

Preventive Action: Resolving potential causes that exist as a symptom of the problem.

posted 11 December 1998 09:44 AM               

Putting out the fire in the house is action on disposal of non-conformity.

Ensuring that safety systems are installed in the house such that the house does not catch fire in future is Corrective action.

Ensuring that the barn or the car or the office does not catch fire like the house did, and taking suitable steps for that is Preventive action. Ensuring that flooding or electrocution or such hazards do not take place in the hose even though they have not occured, is Preventive action.

------------------
Ram
Bangalore, India

posted 12 September 1999 02:32 AM               

The boys in this forum are getting better and better at explaining complex issues. I learnt the difference between PA and CA via this forum, the registrars that i worked with did not seem to be able to understand it themselves.

You are however left with the question 'what sort of activities can be classified as PA'. I think i would be right in saying that FMEA is a good example of PA. This is an excellent technique which all employees should be taught, even if they use it simply as a structured brainstorming.

In one particular company where i work they do something called a 'Preventive Action Overview' for each product. In this they define what 'general' steps are required to prevent defects. IE

Column 1 Supplier Selection - Are the suppliers certified? Do they have a history of good delivery? Do they need an Audit?
Column 2 Parts Criticallity - Do you need from the suppliers evidence of Inspection if the parts are cirtical?
Column 3 Supplier Contract - Is any special contract with the supplier needed to ensure that they follow certain manufacturing steps?
Column 4 Incoming Inspection - What incoming inspection is necessary inside the company.?
Column 5 What in process and final inspection is necessary?

The whole thing can normally be laid out on one A3 spread sheet, and really is a good quality overview, it encourages your manufacturing staff to think about the quality of the whole product, from beginning to the end, not just at the point they are concentrating on. Its pretty impressive to show to customers, it gives the impression that the whole process is under control.

I think it helps companies to be proactive to do it in this way, however i think it also pretty close to being a 'Quality Plan' but nobodies twigged yet.

Hope that helps

posted 27 May 2000 07:30 AM               

Everyone is willing to argue about what Preventive Action is but no one will believe me when I quote, directly from ISO 9001, 4.14.3; "the use of appropriate sources..... to detect, analyse and eliminate potential causes". It's not me saying it - it's ISO 9001. Whose boss around here? I say that ISO 9001 is the boss and what he says goes.

Corrective action eliminates causes. It analyses them as well although the word used is 'investigate'. Inevitably, when they 'take corrective action to eliminate causes', this action is preventive.

The only thing remaining to distinguish between Corrective Action, 4.14.2 and Preventive Action, 4.14.3 is the word 'detect'.

Preventive action detects causes. It is essentially a detection excercise; 'Go out and detect (potential) causes before they bite us.' Set up a process to find them.

The word 'potential' is probably what throws people but really, it is irrelevant. You fix the ones you know about but you have to detect the ones you don't. It's that simple.

Don't listen to them Andy! Don't listen! Stick to your FMEA (whatever the hell that is) and your Preventive Action Overview, where you are establishing your 'sources..to..detect..causes', straight out of 4.14.3.
rgds,
John C

posted 29 May 2000 05:20 AM               

The internal combustion aero/aircraft engine is a dodo. A dead duck! Itâs ok for weekend fliers but not for practical purposes. From a simple and promising system in 1939, it underwent one of the most intense development programs ever and, by the end of World War 2, it was unrecognisable in appearance, complexity and performance as the progeny of its forebears. But it hadnât grown up to be a gas turbine and no amount of development would turn it into one.

The development of the internal combustion was a Corrective Action process, focusing on product defects. Corrective Action stops and starts and stutters along, going whichever way the wind blows. It is essentially, negative, sterile and limited.

While the development of the engine was going on, Frank Whittle in England and Mr Messerschmidt in Germany were engaged in Preventive Quality and were developing the gas turbine which consigned the I.C aero motor to history. Preventive Quality focuses on the end purpose and on the process, which it breaks down to the minimal optimum. It is ongoing and it embraces all engineering aspects. As a a small but significant bonus, it eliminates defects before they occur. It is positive, potent and unlimited.

So where does this leave ISO 9001?

Well, ISO 9001 has itâs roots in the old quality loop so Corrective Action is at the heart of its being. It is totally dependant upon auditing out defects so, when the ISO guys heard the message that Preventive Quality was the future, they were in a bit of a quandry. In hotels in Geneva, Barcelona, London, Cork, LA and Hongkong, they covened to chew over the problem; How could they reconcile ISO 9001 with the new light?
Well, as you and I know, they couldnât. Just as the engineers working on the internal combustion engine could never engineer it into a gas turbine, nor could Technical Commitee TC 176 (or whatever), change ISO 9001 from a defects based system. They compromised - doesnât everyone? - and promoted Preventive Quality to equal status to Corrective Action. But even in that, they made a mistake. Maybe even a terrible mistake, as you will see below.

Fact is, guys. ISO 9001 is also a duck. Its not dead but maybe weâd be better off if it was.

As one who has always defended ISO 9001, you might think I too, have compromised but I always knew it was a duck. I never ordered it when I wanted sirloin with gravy and a good beaujolais.

Why is ISO 9001 a duck?

1) Because Preventive Quality is greater and maybe should have a whole standard to itself.

2) While ISO 9001 does not preclude Preventive Quality, it hasnât the means to apply it. So it emphasises Corrective Action with the high profile drama of trouble shooting teams pulling the company back from the brink of extinction and resolving problems which they themselves caused. Corrective Action is the easy option and it appears to be cheap. Expensive and low profile Preventive Quality receives lip service from everyone but it just doesnât get done and ISO 9001 is largely to blame, not because of its own weaknesses but because of general mistaken perception.

Note;

The BS 5750 boys, engineers who worked among the nuts and bolts, wrote in BS 5750, 1987 4.14 b); ãanalysing all processes, work operations, concessions, quality records, service reports and customer complaints to detect and eliminate potential causes...ä

Technical Committee TC 176, in ISO 9001, 1994, 4.14.3 a) wrote; ãthe use of appropriate sources of information such as processes and work operations which affect product quality, concessions, audit results, quality records, service reports and customer complaints to detect, analyse and eliminate potential causes)

See the difference? In the first, Engineers ãAnalyse all processesä, ie; they go out and look to see what is going on and, in doing so, they think about the purpose and about new ways to do it. Quality bureaucrats send inspectors to collect defect data and then use that data to Îanalyse potential causesâ.

Itâs a small difference on paper but a world of difference in practise. A camel of quite a different colour.

Now the crunch time; You were right and I was wrong and anyone who is confused about 4.14.2 and 4.14.3 is dead right to be confused. Also, the guys who describe both sections in terms of corrective action and fail to see the Preventive Quality in the latter, are justified in doing so. The wording of 4.14.3 is an error and it should read ÎAnalyse all processesâ because, as it stands, it is nonsense. It should read as I interpreted.

One thing more; The exception that proves the rule; I ãinterpretedä. Even though I have shouted from the rooftops that we must not interpret ISO 9001, but should read it carefully to see what it says. I didnât read this carefully but assumed that it said what it used to say back in 1987.

Well, on the subject of ISO 9001, I have been proved to be fallible but, as I say, it was the exception that proves the rule and I will be more careful in future. The Standard, version Î94, has also been shown to be seriously fallible. I wonder how version 2000 will stand up, now that the bureaucrats have really had a go at it?

rgds, John C

posted 06 June 2000 07:26 PM               

The intent behind the words is the issue here. Reading through all the responses, I believe everyone understands the intent, although implementation may differ.

Regardless of the order or the methodology, 4.14 wants the user to follow through after identifying and dealing with non conformance, to not only putting in action to remove the root cause, but learn from the non conformance and also analyse various sources of information (in place of an actual non conformance) to do the same with potential problems.

The ca/pa system can be as complex or as simple as you want to make it, although it is one requirement where I have found even the simplest systems can be very effective in a large organisation.