posted 18 February 2000 07:01 PM              

Also, to help me understand PARS more correctly, how are PARS generated from CARS ??

posted 22 February 2000 06:39 AM               

The advantage is that you can weekly/monthly publish a statistics of which person/dept/area has the most amount of open points. This tends to help.

I tried to implement this in a company of 200 people and it was a complete administrative pain.

I am also interested to hear of other peoples solutions.

posted 22 February 2000 06:43 AM               

When a suspect part is located one sticker is put on the part directly, and the other is placed on the left-hand column of a A3 sheet alos located in the production area. QC are responsible for noting by hand on the A3 sheet the CA/PA, although as ever the difference between the two is fiercely debated.

posted 22 February 2000 07:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryan:

During our ISO Audits we always seem to get a ding on our CAR/PAR system.

---

posted 22 February 2000 10:52 AM               

I would suggest we take a brief tour of What is a Preventive action.

Ley's look at: http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000016.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum31/HTML/000000.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000036.html

In the 'old' days, you did a preventive action in a corrective action. It meant "What will you do to prevent this (or this type) of problem from recurring?" The definition has since widened a bit. But - read thru the links and let's see what questions arise.

posted 22 February 2000 04:56 PM              

We have the same trouble with PAR's, getting people to write them. Company participation.

posted 23 February 2000 08:30 AM               

From your earlier post:

For discussion:
I guess my next question then would be "does it really matter"...is it all part of continuous improvement regardless of what we call it? If PFMEA's are a typically produced document as evidence of preventative action, and since PFMEA's aren't a part of the ISO requirements, what did those folks have in mind? AND, are PFMEA's really PREVENTATIVE, when typically similar past processes are looked at for occurance data? mmmmm Just trying to stir up some debate.

To your first question, does it really matter in the differentiation of activities I would have to say yes. This differentiation speaks volumes about the organization. Are they results oriented or process oriented. Process oriented folks will spend more time on the preventative side of things. In the spirit of CI, I would have to agree that the difference appears trivial. But would you rather place your business with an organization trying to prevent sending you nonconforming product or the one who will fix things later?

An interesting perspective for your second and third questions. In light of what you were told at the lead auditor training, an extension of past corrective action is not preventative. A bit fuzzy perhaps, but the definition has gone back and forth, especially with the QS requirements. Perhaps it is a blend of both.

The FMEA process is still, in my opinion, a preventive action. It forces the group to consider potential failure modes, by using similar processes and knowledge along side new knowledge and new processes, and eliminate them. The activity is a true continuous improvement tool in that FMEAs are living documents. In the case of PFMEAs, often times you find when you revisit the documents that the original RPN values are incorrect, and also dynamic. Constant updating is required. Additionally, as new technology and methodology is introduced to the organization, an evaluation will need to be made. No prior experience exits, so such an activity is preventive. A bit of guesswork, but perhaps an educated guess (experience and bad theory is better than nothing).

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.

Regards,

posted 25 February 2000 03:27 PM              

What we were looking for was what controlled systems are used out there. Is there more sucess with the use of a software package ..... or just track and control as best as possible.

Laura, to answer your question, we are not that big of a company, maybe 80-90 at our main office here. Sounds like what your company does is somewhat what we do, internal handled by each dept, external handled by QA. Difference is our upper mgmt wants better control.

posted 25 February 2000 10:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryan:

Thank you all for your feedback.

We received two, one for lack of writting CAR's, (it was felt CAR's written were small compaired to the number of NCR's written, company participation) and two, not having a very controlled system. (it was felt unorginized with each dept trying to handle and control there own CAR's, to many locations of filing CARs.) Recommendation was to have a more centralized system. Thats what brought on the question of what others may be doing in a centralized system.

We have the same trouble with PAR's, getting people to write them. Company participation.

---

Look at what you're saying: "...getting people to write them..." which tells me there is not much emphasis on their importance by upper management. Unfortunately, many companies are quite like the description - nonconformance and corrective action systems (not to mention PREVENTIVE action) are just not deemed important. God bless you, this can be next to impossible to deal with.

I can only say a centralized focus and folks have to be shown the system is important.

posted 01 March 2000 09:54 AM               

Lastly this forum is a real good service to anyone involved in the ISO process.