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 2

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

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)
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  Post Number #9  
Old 31st December 1998, 11:29 AM
Don Winton's Avatar
Don Winton

Total Posts: 484

First of all, welcome to the Cove.

Your observations regarding the flowchart approach seem relatively straightforward and should not present a problem. Your definitions seem within the intent of 4.14.


Sponsored Links
  Post Number #10  
Old 31st December 1998, 05:25 PM

Total Posts: n/a
Why do you need to insert corrective and preventive action into each of your processes? Can you document it on an as needed basis through your corrective action process?
I, too, am still confused with preventive action. I understand the concepts but have trouble deciphering between the two and don't know how I am going to have documented proof of preventive action when registration time comes. I know we do it. Maybe I need to analyze things we do for preventive actions and keep a separate file?
  Post Number #11  
Old 31st December 1998, 07:39 PM
barb butrym

Total Posts: 786
The thing about preventive Action is that nearly everyone does it, but 99% don't document it well.

I have difficulty seeing how you can put that into an existing process. AND I use process flow diagrams ALL the time. Seems to me, if you can predict it, then its corrective action (poka-yoke) not preventive. I see that fitting nicely into a flow diagram, but preventive is yet another animal. Preventive is many things, your process engineering group does it all the time I bet. As do task teams and all good managers. AND the best to capture is the operator level stuff.

Some registars just tell you PA is a long term fix to correct the root cause, and CA the short term to fix the problem at hand. That if you do CA correctly, then PA is the result. I disagree, but depending on the registrar I am representing, I have to adjust that a bit.

As a consultant I approach it for the prevention of potential issues...a common sense approach that leads you onto the path toward Continuous Improvement.....which now will fit nicely into the '2000' revision, even though I have been doing it for years. CA still addresses root cause of issues at hand.
  Post Number #12  
Old 31st December 1998, 08:35 PM
Marc's Avatar

Total Posts: 26,666
Could we not say:

Corrective Action is a response to a negative event (an occurance),


Preventive Action is response to a predicted negative event (has not yet occurred)?

Or is this too simple a definition? I think the definition of Preventive Action has changed over the last 15 years. I learned it as 'things we do to prevent a negative event from happening again'. Now I understand it as I stated above.

Key to differences as I understand them:
Actual occurance of a negative event
Predicted occurance of a negative event.

If I was told:
--> ...need to insert a (new) Corrective & Preventive
--> section into each of our processes.

I would point blank ask for an example of what that person has in mind. I would want to know just what their expectation was/is. C&P Section? What is that? What does (should) it contain? Will a system where FMEAs and Control Plans are utilized suffice?

I would, as I say, ask for an example to really pin down (and I personally would document) their requirement and expectations. Come to an agreement on the intent of their request (yeah, I know it's self evident, but I wouldn't let that stop me from discussing it). Then come to an understanding on issues such as implementation time, breadth of implementation (All products? Customer specific products?), and related issues. Develop a project plan and get them to approve it. Then, I guess, do it.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 12-31-98).]
  Post Number #13  
Old 4th January 1999, 09:32 AM
Kevin Mader's Avatar
Kevin Mader

Total Posts: 1,223

I am in agreement with Dawn on the need not to place CA and PA into each flowchart. It seems to me that you would be better off creating one process to deal with any type of CA/PA issue that is referred to perhaps in each flowchart. Otherwise, redundancy will only increase the typing.

You mentioned the "what" that could go wrong and "what to do about it when it does". This sounds to me like contingency planning. As far as the differences of CA and PA, the group sums it up well. There were several postings about a month or so ago, can't remember where, but I will post where they are if I get the chance.

Welcome to the group...
  Post Number #14  
Old 4th January 1999, 10:01 AM
John LeBlanc

Total Posts: n/a
Thanks, everyone, especially for the quick responses. Let me clarify something. I misled you regarding the flow charts. While we have flow charts in each of our process documents, I didn't mean to imply that we were inserting corrective and preventive INTO the flow charts. That is not the case. Rather, we have been instructed to now include a new section of the process document that deals specifically with Corrective and Preventive.

My point was that I had been suggesting to the document authors that they utilize the flow chart as a "stepping off point" for creation of this new section of the process document. Looking at the flow chart, they were to determine what could go wrong, and what they would do to rectify that situation (thus, Corrective) and then they would give some thought to what should be done to ensure that this same problem would not happen again (thus, Preventive).
Does that clarify the confusion that I caused regarding the flow charts?
  Post Number #15  
Old 4th January 1999, 11:48 AM
Marc's Avatar

Total Posts: 26,666
Using a process flow chart is standard procedure for 8-D and other investigations. I've very 'pro' flow charts. See the 8-D pdf file in the pdf files directory.

I don't know how you'll solve this but please do keep us informed of what happens. I still think we are all at issue over preventive vs corrective. Seems to be a never ending topic subject.
  Post Number #16  
Old 4th January 1999, 04:30 PM
Kevin Mader's Avatar
Kevin Mader

Total Posts: 1,223

Marc is right, CA vs. PA is an ongoing discussion. Barb raised a good point. Some registrars consider long-term fixes as preventive action (the registrar we have viewed it that way, my organization does not). From my perspective, CA is taken to remedy an "existing" problem. PA is taken to "prevent" problems from occurring. By definition, CA is taken to eliminate cause and prevent future occurrences of a nonconformance (although prevent is used here, it is not a preventive action as it is "an existing negative event").

Flowcharting is a great tool! Keep pushing that point with your document creators. But I feel that the responses you are building in your flowcharts are contingency plans and not CA. Remember, CA totally eliminates 'causes' making contingencies unnecessary (in theory anyway). There is nothing wrong with contingency planning as it provokes a response to an undesired result, and as you will find, most processes and systems will always produce some level of nonconformance. Contingency planning will hopefully control the level of nonconformance, CA will eliminate the cause of nonconformance.

I also think that Contingency Planning points to potential Preventive and Corrective Actions. For example, "if" this occurs "then" this is what we will do. If you know the "ifs", you may decide to plan to avoid the "ifs" (preventive actions). And if the "ifs" exist, you may plan to avoid them in the future (corrective action). Quite a tough read there, but I hope you get my point.

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


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 2 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 2 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 09:05 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.

Misc. Internal Links

NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"