The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA) - A Definitive Discussion - Page 12

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

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


Some Related Topic Tags
capa (corrective and preventive action), corrective action (ca), preventive action (pa)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  Post Number #89  
Old 11th March 2004, 10:15 AM
David Hartman's Avatar
David Hartman

 
 
Total Posts: 564
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Rob Nix

Due to a recent article I am resurrecting this issue.

It is no wonder that people outside the Quality field consider us nuts. We often use vernacular that is strange to the outsider. The use of “correction”, “corrective action” and “preventive action is a good example.

The March 2004 Quality Digest magazine has an article entitled “Correct Me if I’m Wrong” (pg. 56) by Dan Nelson (which I will because he is). A couple of quotes are as follows:



So correcting something is not corrective action, and preventing something is not preventive action. That’s enough to drive anyone mad.

Webster’s 10th ed. defines things this way: Correct = “To make or set right”, and Prevent = “To meet or satisfy in advance… to keep from happening or existing”.

Prevent me if I’m wrong, but would not correcting an error, say reworking a part, be a CORRECTIVE action, albeit interim or short term? And is not preventing a recurrence, say adding a mistake-proofing mechanism, a PREVENTIVE action, even though it is a long term solution to an existing concern?

I would suppose normal people would think so. But not us Quality Professionals!

The way we do it here follows the 8D thinking of years ago. We have short term and long term corrective actions. The long term is generally preventive in nature and we may even state it as such. We save the ISO required/defined “preventive actions” for process improvements, suggestions, and FMEAs.

Notice too that the word is “preventive”, not “preventative” (some people like that extra syllable, “ta”). So anyway, ta ta for now. I won’t try to correct you from replying – or is that, prevent you – I always get that mixed up.
I agree, but this is one time I'm not going to take the bait on this discussion. A quick search of the Cove will show that we have discussed this several times previously, and the end result always appears to be an understanding that the solution is possibly beyond reach (no common interpretation has been reached).

In-fact let me take the opportunity to say that this is a good illustration of C.I. Lewis' discussions on "Common Concepts" or the lack thereof. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there really is a lack of common concept when it comes to discussions related to corrective -Vs- preventive, in that we all seemingly have our own definitions.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #90  
Old 11th March 2004, 10:32 AM
Claes Gefvenberg's Avatar
Claes Gefvenberg

 
 
Total Posts: 4,952
Hehehe...

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Rob Nix

So anyway, ta ta for now. I won’t try to correct you from replying – or is that, prevent you – I always get that mixed up.
Great writing Rob... You made my day .

First of all we have to prevent bad things from happening.

When they nevertheless do happen, we have to stop them from happening again.

We also have to fix the stuff that turned out bad as a result from our failure to stop things from happening in the first place and/or happening again...

To top it all off we then have to take care of it when it happens again

Small wonder most of us are mentally deranged...

/Claes
  Post Number #91  
Old 11th March 2004, 12:20 PM
Mike S.

 
 
Total Posts: 2,270
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Rob Nix

The ISO standard on the matter is as muddy as it gets. Daniel, Merrriam, and the rest of the Webster family would go bonkers in this field.

It is no wonder that people outside the Quality field consider us nuts. We often use vernacular that is strange to the outsider. The use of “correction”, “corrective action” and “preventive action is a good example.
Rob,

What's wrong with the ISO 9000-2000 definitions? They seem reasonably clear to me -- especially relative to some of the stuff ISO defines.

Last edited by Claes Gefvenberg; 12th March 2004 at 03:39 AM. Reason: Quote mended
  Post Number #92  
Old 11th March 2004, 07:58 PM
Wes Bucey's Avatar
Wes Bucey

 
 
Total Posts: 11,169
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by ddhartma

In-fact let me take the opportunity to say that this is a good illustration of C.I. Lewis' discussions on "Common Concepts" or the lack thereof. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there really is a lack of common concept when it comes to discussions related to corrective -Vs- preventive, in that we all seemingly have our own definitions.
I recall, Dave, through a vaguely alcoholic and smoke filled haze, my days in the University when the Philosophy majors used to destroy us poor Science and Engineering types by shouting
"Define your terms!"
whenever we had the audacity to venture an opinion on ANY topic in the saloon across the street from our campus.

We would take the challenge literally and spend twenty or thirty minutes trying to give gilt-edged (if slightly slurred) definitions only to be interrupted and shouted down again to define something like "war."

Except he is too young to have been there, Slick Willy's statement of
"it depends on the meaning of what 'is' is."
sounds almost exactly like those Philosophy majors about the Viet Nam "activity" during the early 1960's.

Now here we are again, trying to put definitive labels on processes which are fluid and changing in every organization.

One of the saving graces of ISO Standards is the "escape" concept of "as it applies to the organization and to satisfying its customer's requirements."

Perhaps we'll reach that day when we get a bunch of Cliff's Notes for each Standard to help us get through them the same way we got through Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis (is it really cheating?)
  Post Number #93  
Old 12th March 2004, 10:28 AM
Mike S.

 
 
Total Posts: 2,270
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Wes Bucey

I recall, Dave, through a vaguely alcoholic and smoke filled haze, my days in the University when the Philosophy majors used to destroy us poor Science and Engineering types by shouting
"Define your terms!"

Perhaps we'll reach that day when we get a bunch of Cliff's Notes for each Standard to help us get through them the same way we got through Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis (is it really cheating?)
Wes,

In this particular case, did ISO not "define [their] terms"? In this case, isn't ISO 9000-2000 your "Cliff's Notes"? What is wrong with the ISO definitions in this case? -- I think they are pretty clear. Maybe I only think I understand it but I really don't.
  Post Number #94  
Old 12th March 2004, 11:09 AM
Rob Nix

 
 
Total Posts: n/a
Mike,

Twice you've mentioned the 'clarity of the ISO terms'. Please define them here along with where you got them from. It might help get us all "on the same page".
  Post Number #95  
Old 12th March 2004, 12:32 PM
Mike S.

 
 
Total Posts: 2,270
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Rob Nix

Mike,

Twice you've mentioned the 'clarity of the ISO terms'. Please define them here along with where you got them from. It might help get us all "on the same page".
Sorry, I assumed you guys had a copy of ISO 9000-2000, and I shouldn't oughta done that.

I hope this is not copyright violation - if it is a moderator can delete it:

3.6.4
preventive action
action to eliminate the cause of a potential nonconformity (3.6.2) or other undesirable potential situation
NOTE 1 There can be more than one cause for a potential nonconformity.
NOTE 2 Preventive action is taken to prevent occurrence whereas corrective action (3.6.5) is taken to prevent recurrence.

3.6.5
corrective action
action to eliminate the cause of a detected nonconformity (3.6.2) or other undesirable situation
NOTE 1 There can be more than one cause for a nonconformity.
NOTE 2 Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action (3.6.4) is taken to prevent occurrence.
NOTE 3 There is a distinction between correction (3.6.6) and corrective action.

3.6.6
correction
action to eliminate a detected nonconformity (3.6.2)
NOTE 1 A correction can be made in conjunction with a corrective action (3.6.5).
NOTE 2 A correction can be, for example, rework (3.6.7) or regrade (3.6.8).
  Post Number #96  
Old 12th March 2004, 12:41 PM
Mike S.

 
 
Total Posts: 2,270
Now, I can see where there might be some debate in some circumstances about when an action is corrective or preventive. For example, let's say you make red wagons. Your customer, who buys only large size red wagons, complains that the wheels are falling off. You investigate and find that the cotter pins you were using are defective -- too soft.

IMO...

If you replace the defective cotter pins (with new and better ones) on the customer's large wagons, that is correction.

If you use only the new cotter pins on all future large red wagons you produce, that is corrective action.

If you decide to also use only the new cotter pins on the little and medium size red wagons as well, even though there has never yet been a case of a wheel falling off of them, that is preventive action, IMO. Some could argue, I suppose, that it is CA since the issues are so similar, but IMO it is PA.

Comments?
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >

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
Emoticons 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
How to measure CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action) System Performance QA Memphis Nonconformance and Corrective Action 20 9th August 2010 11:36 AM
Corrective Action (CA) vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA) kedarg6500 Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 18 17th November 2008 08:30 AM
CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action) example to provide training wanted class08820 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 7 1st October 2008 09:54 AM
CAPA (corrective action preventive action) Effectiveness - Medical Device Industry jampot Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3 26th February 2006 04:22 PM
Audit Program and CAPA (Corrective Action - Preventive Action) Effectiveness e006823 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4 22nd July 2004 01:51 PM



The time now is 04:03 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"