Measuring Corrective and Preventive Action System Effectiveness

M

meta124

Hello all

I am new to this forum but I have already read a few interesting views.

The company I work for uses the 8D methodology in order to record discrepancies and provide corrective and preventive actions. Now I need to find a way to measure the effectiveness of the process. Has anyone come across a similar situation? How do you measure your c.a.p.a. system?

I do apologise in advance if there is a similar thread already. It might be the case of this subject having been discussed in the past.

Thank you
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Hello all

I am new to this forum but I have already read a few interesting views.

The company I work for uses the 8D methodology in order to record discrepancies and provide corrective and preventive actions. Now I need to find a way to measure the effectiveness of the process. Has anyone come across a similar situation? How do you measure your c.a.p.a. system?

I do apologise in advance if there is a similar thread already. It might be the case of this subject having been discussed in the past.

Thank you

Welcome to the Cove :D.

Scroll down to the bottom of this page and you'll see a list of related discussion threads. Have a look, and post back if you have questions.
 
C

ChuckHughes

I suggest measuring effectiveness of both actions on the basis of root causes.

The intent of Corrective Action is to find the root cause and apply a fix to it. The effectiveness of corrective action is the degree to which the root cause already fixed, reappears. Often the symptom (customer complaint, inspection failure) has several root causes. The analysis of the corrective action system should focus on which root causes reappearred and/or how the corrective actions were applied. Either the corrective action process identified the wrong root cause or the application and verification of the "fix" was not effective.

In preventive action the analysis should begin with the appearance of the symptom you did not want. Again the analysis should focus on what root cause was most likely and how mitigation was applied.

Note that this approach may be confused by the 8D. The lack of appearance of repeat issues may be the result of enhanced inspection and not accurate root cause analysis.
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
Hello all

I am new to this forum but I have already read a few interesting views.

The company I work for uses the 8D methodology in order to record discrepancies and provide corrective and preventive actions. Now I need to find a way to measure the effectiveness of the process. Has anyone come across a similar situation? How do you measure your c.a.p.a. system?

I do apologise in advance if there is a similar thread already. It might be the case of this subject having been discussed in the past.

Thank you

Measuring the effectiveness?

Simple!
  • Corrective action: The absence of recurrences.
  • Preventive action: The absence of occurrences.

Stijloor.
 
C

ChuckHughes

Not that simple

How many times have "late delivery" reoccurred?

A fault tree analysis will find many root causes for the same symptom i.e. late delivery. The key is which root cause did we try to fix and did the same root cause reappear?
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
How many times have "late delivery" reoccurred?

Which means that whatever has been implemented before is not effective.

I do not want to trivialize measuring the effectiveness of PA and CA processes, but sometimes there is a tendency to make simple concepts way too complex. Going back to basics (intent and what we're trying to accomplish) brings us back to earth.

Stijloor.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Which means that whatever has been implemented before is not effective.

I do not want to trivialize measuring the effectiveness of PA and CA processes, but sometimes there is a tendency to make simple concepts way too complex. Going back to basics (intent and what we're trying to accomplish) brings us back to earth.

Stijloor.
This of course assumes the process has been repeated under the same relative conditions as before, and that the only thing different is the change made through c.a.p.a. If even one variable is different, such as a different shipping company in the delivery process because various shippers are contracted, then one could doubt if a difference is from c.a.p.a. unless the change affects both carriers.

You see? You need to look for performance that the change actually impacted.
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
This of course assumes the process has been repeated under the same relative conditions as before, and that the only thing different is the change made through c.a.p.a. If even one variable is different, such as a different shipping company in the delivery process because various shippers are contracted, then one could doubt if a difference is from c.a.p.a. unless the change affects both carriers.

You see? You need to look for performance that the change actually impacted.

A detailed in-depth analyis as part of CA would bring this to light.

Stijloor.
 
C

ChuckHughes

I think we are in fundamental agreement. I also opt for the simplist approach. In evaluating effectiveness of anything, we want answers that we can act on. We control only two actions when we perform corrective actions: our ability to find a root cause and our ability to perform a "fix". Reoccurance, as a measure of effectiveness, needs to be evaluated in the context of our actions.

Late delivery is a good example to use as there are hundreds of reasons why a company is never perfect in delivery for any length of time. Root causes are different for each event and one gets frustrated in measuring corrective action effectiveness in terms of "reoccurances". :bonk:
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
I think we are in fundamental agreement. I also opt for the simplist approach. In evaluating effectiveness of anything, we want answers that we can act on. We control only two actions when we perform corrective actions: our ability to find a root cause and our ability to perform a "fix". Reoccurance, as a measure of effectiveness, needs to be evaluated in the context of our actions.

Late delivery is a good example to use as there are hundreds of reasons why a company is never perfect in delivery for any length of time. Root causes are different for each event and one gets frustrated in measuring corrective action effectiveness in terms of "reoccurances". :bonk:

Chuck,

Excellent points!

As an auditor (I am one too ;)), I am sure that you have observed sloppy CA and PA practices. Most of the CA (rarely PA) attempts that I have observed were merely quick-fixes; a topic extensively discussed here at The Cove.

My approach to this topic may be somewhat "blunt", but it usually gets the message across.

Recurrences are mostly due to ineffective CA. And I do understand that there are exceptions.

Great discussion.:agree1:

Stijloor.
 
Top Bottom