Preventive Action (PA) and Corrective Action (CA) - One or Two Procedures?

One procedure or two

  • One procedure

    Votes: 64 54.7%
  • Got one, changing to two

    Votes: 8 6.8%
  • Two procedures

    Votes: 44 37.6%
  • I need more than two for my system (OUCH!!)

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Total voters
    117
Status
Not open for further replies.

CarolX

Trusted Information Resource
Hello Friends,

Just curious as to what the rest of you are doing.

I currently have one procedure for both, and I am considering making two seperate procedures.

What are you doing?:bigwave:

Thanks,
CarolX
 
J

Jimmy Olson

We did just the opposite here. We had 2 seperate procedures under the old standard and then combined them when we upgraded. Now we have one procedure and one form to cover both.
 
D

D.Scott

I have 2 but then again, we are still under the old QS standard. Might be different later.

Dave
 
B

Bob_M

Hope Just ONE works out.

We had one under ISO 9001:1994.
Our last surveillance audit in Sept '02 (my first as "Quality Guy") pointed out that our Preventitive was very weak and no proof of using that part.

I recently updated Procedure (still just one) and form. Although the Procedure and form are more corrective oriented, it is designed to do both.

Hopefully our last 1994 assessment (03-11-03) and upcoming pre-assessment (9k2k) will not force/encourage me to seperate them.

For the size of our little company and limited resources and SPC style anaylsis, I think we'd get even less Preventitive Actions if they were seperated.

*shrug*
 
K

Kim bentley

:bigwave: Hi, I'm new here. We are working on transitioning to 9001:2000. At our last audit, the auditor told me I had to make corrective and preventive two separte procedures. Is this correct? I'm having trouble creating preventive action form
Thanks Kim
 
J

Jimmy Olson

Hi Kim and wlecome :bigwave:

There is nothing in the standard that requires them to be seperate procedures. This sounds like a personal preference of the auditor. We have made the transition to 9001:2000 and have one procedure for both (we also have one procedure to combine document and record control). The auditor had no problem with this and actually liked the idea of simplifying it into one procedure and one form.
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
Oh well, as some of you know, I don't mind telling the registrar no if I think they are wrong. One is enough if that is what you want. It's what we have. As for the form, I use one and choose corrective action or preventive action as the type. When I set up my actions to be taken i.e. corrective or preventive action, the field is just named Action To Be Taken. That way, nobody can come back on me and say, "you said this is a preventive action request, but your actions state they are corrective." I developed my CA/PA system in a database, so I could just develope one (internal corrective action) system and then just copy tables, and add additional fields for things like audit corrective actions and customer complaints/claims/feedback.

Make your system work for you, the chances that you are in the same business as your registrar are mighty slim, why let them tell you what you need to run your business past the obvious you met or did not meet the intent of the standard?:bonk:

Have a good one
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
Carol,

I have elected to keep these together because from my perspective, both are continuous improvement activities. Making the distinction helps to satisfy a curious auditor perhaps, but in the long run, it is what it is. Opportunity for improvement.

I do make the distinction as to which is which, just for the reason noted above. I track and trend both activities within the same database. Amazingly, what I find the most interesting is in the difficulty of others to understand the difference between the two. By treating them as one under the label of "Continuous Improvement", the confusion is mitigated.

But to each their own I suppose. If splitting them helps, do it!!

Kind regards,

Kevin:bigwave:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom