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 6

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 #41  
Old 17th March 1999, 09:05 AM

Total Posts: n/a
Corrective Action is a Response to an observed problem / defect.

Preventive Action is Predictive (a problem *may* occur based upon analysis of data).

Right on the money, Marc.

While in the military (many moons ago) we had preventative maintenance scheduled at various intervals during the week, to prevent problems that *may* occur based on experience from the past operation of the vehicles concerned...things such as checking the battery fluid levels (before maintenance free batteries-am I dating myself or what?)to name one.

When, during the course of this preventative maintenance we found a need for the fluid, it was added as a corrective action and annotated as such.

Well said all, on the above comments.

Dusty Rhoads
(Chief Dummy)

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #42  
Old 17th March 1999, 09:24 PM

Total Posts: n/a
Not to worry,'t just came out with a report saying it isn't addictive as they thought and it does have medicinal value...preventative or corrective??? Eee-gads, matey!

Dusty Rhoads
(Chief Dummy)

  Post Number #43  
Old 17th March 1999, 10:40 PM
Don Winton's Avatar
Don Winton

Total Posts: 484
Marc, ‘Local Wizard.’ You are too kind.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I guess that I was hopeful for a clear-cut distinction between Corrective & Preventive...
I have always hoped that a distinct difference would exist, but that is a vague assumption. Marc’s definitions are very good and work in the majority of applications. Predictive goes very well with preventive. For example, APQP (or whatever) could be used as objective evidence that preventive action is a part of the Quality Management System. In the medical device world, risk analysis (in whatever form) is very good objective evidence of preventive action.

To detect something there has to be something (a defect?) to detect...
Agreed. To go back to the ‘oily rags’ example. Oily rags are not a defect (disregarding the obvious safety issues). But, the potential for a fire is a ‘predictive’ effect. Therefore, removing the oily rags would be (may be?) a preventive action. I readily admit that the ‘oily rags’ is not the best example to use, but I thought it might illustrate the point. Perhaps it just muddied the water.

...the definition is definitely blurred...
Agreed. But, this thread is getting rather long, so perhaps this is better saved for another. Just a thought.

We poor, demented, fermented old men often are....
Ain’t it the truth, Ain’t it the truth. For me, particularly the old part.

Just some ramblings from an old warrior.

  Post Number #44  
Old 18th March 1999, 01:48 AM
Marc's Avatar

Total Posts: 26,664
I think most of the 'disagreement' here is in how we interpret some words like REACTIVE. I called Corrective Action REACTIVE. One can also say that what one does in response to findings from analyzing data is REACTING to the data - and to some degree I agree. But I tend to want to use the word ACTING on data rather than REACTING to data.

I particularly liked:
I understand the fundamental tool for corrective action is cause analysis. In order to remove causes it is necessary to change the process. The changes should prevent falures to happen again in the future. Corrective action is triggered by an event in the operation of a process, but it causes us to review process and product design.

In preventive action, we are dealing with things that didn't happen yet. The fundamental tools are PDPC (process decision program chart) and FMEA. Thus preventive action is triggered while the product and/or process are in their design phase.
Citing the tools provides a clarifying look at what we're dealing with.

I use the word PREDICTIVE with PREVENTATIVE as that's how I learned it. You PREDICT possible problems and their causes.

I have a problem to some degree with the relationship of Continuous Improvement and Preventive Action because they are so closely related. I guess what I mean to say is I believe these confuse folks as well. I see Preventive Action as one of a sub-set of things you to for Continuous Improvement.

If I start a thread on Continuous Improvement (or revive an old one...), will anyone come? (If a tree fall in a forest, does....?"
  Post Number #45  
Old 18th March 1999, 01:48 AM
Marc's Avatar

Total Posts: 26,664
OK! OK! John, I understand your dilemma. I think the definition is changing.

When I first learned of Corrective and Preventative Actions some years ago (mid 1980's) the paradigm was that Preventative Action was a follow up within Corrective Action. Preventive Action, I was taught, was "How do you stop that defect from getting out if, despite 'fixing the cause', it actually DOES happen again." This might be what is now known as Poke-Yoke - install a sensor to catch the defect. An example might be where a machine is supposed to drill a hole and it doesn't. The corrective action would be to fix the immediate failure mode (in this case, let's say a drill bit broke) - replace the drill bit. The Preventive Action might be to put in a sensor which checks for the hole and, if the hole is not present, stops the process equipment so that it is (theoretically) impossible for a mis-processed part to pass on to the next operation. A visual inspection would also have been a Preventative Action back then - the old "There was not an inspection point so put one in" before sensors were as cheap and easy to get as now (Ah! Technology in the 1970's and 1980's as compared to now. Heck - PCs have only been around for what - 16 years? 18 years?)

Since that time Continuous Improvement has come on the scene. Preventative Action has taken on a fuzzy meaning. It used to be a Preventative Action was in response to a specific known problem or defect. It was part of what became FORD's 8-D methodology but I knew it long before as just a Corrective Action Response in the military manufacturing arena. Containment wasn't known as containment back then, either, but we did the same Nonconformance-Corrective Action system.

Ok. OK! Maybe it's me. I now think of Preventive Action as part of the Continuous Improvement system. What I used to know as Preventive Action is now (or seems to me to be) just part of the corrective action process.

Ford had Prevent Recurrence training in the 1980's and it dealt with addressing a specific problem cause but heavily addressed Root Cause. I knew of Root Cause from military manufacturing so that didn't surprise me as far as a methodology goes. A number of times I had to go before some military hulks and explain what I did about the ROOT cause when there was a nonconformance. This may have been where the drift started for me. Instead of preventing the part from passing to the next operation, the mantra was where did it start and how do we correct THE ROOT CAUSE' which was generally in planning (design) phase.

It seems to me now when you look at the ISO words they are using Preventive Actions are no longer an exclusive element (per se) of the Corrective Action reaction. To me they are reading into the Continuous Improvement aspect (looking at data and predicting places to improve). Look at the end of 4.14.3 a where it says "...eliminate potential causes of nonconformities." The word potential (to me) throws it to an open arena as opposed to a reaction to a specific event. What I used to know as preventive action is now covered in 4.14.2 d where it says: "application of controls...". The assumption seems to me to now be that the corrective action include what I used to know as preventive action - keeping that specific problem from occurring again and placing a control to ensure if it somehow does it is detected as close to the source of the cause of the problem (defect?) as possible. We should note that althought 4.14.3 a states POTENTIAL, 4.14.3 b, c and d alude to an existing problem - specifically 4.14.3 b: determination of steps needed to deal with any problems requiring preventive action." What does this tell us?

Again, let us look at 4.14.3 a where, near the end of one long sentence, it says: " detect, analyze and eliminate potential causes...". To me this is saying you will monitor things (data) and use the data to 'detect' (which conflicts with potential) potential (which conflicts with 'detect') causes and you will do this not in response to an event, but in as a part of every day life on the farm. This is why, with regard to ISO, I class Preventive Action as PREDICTIVE. I'll admit you can link POTENTIAL to an EXISTING problem. I also read it, all words considered, in a predictive sense. Maybe I'm way off base.

So - is Preventive Action only in response to a problem? How does the word POTENTIAL come into play? Does the phrase DETECT POTENTIAL confuse things? Could they have worded this more clearly? Where in the world is Carmen Santiego? Can you find Waldo in this picture?

There are a fair amount of professionals here and, as is evident from responses, the definition is definitely blurred. You are in good company.

How can you handle it? Just make clear (if possible) definitions in your system as to how you categorize it and describe it. Choose your words carefully!

John: You have excellent points.

Comments anyone? Tell me if I'm off base. We poor, demented, fermented old men often are.... Too much pot in the 60's probably didn't help much, either.... And then there was that big party.... Things just haven't been the same since.... Having said that, yes - I inhaled... Maybe more than once.... Maybe not. Probably maybe. But maybe not. I forget. What did you say???

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03-17-99).]
  Post Number #46  
Old 18th March 1999, 07:18 AM
John C

Total Posts: n/a

You say; “Nope - I disagree. Preventive action does not involve detection.”
But it does. It says it in 4.14.3a. Does anyone read the Standard? Or have I a different copy from everyone else? (I’ve got ISO 9002:1994. If that isn’t the latest rev then apologies all round.)

But I’m only pursuing this so as to develop a sound basis so that I can teach people and deal with sloppy registrars. (I feel I am going to have some difficulties) But we do agree on the important things:

Preventive action is prediction. It is detection and it is continuous improvement. You mentioned starting a new string; As I said in my original post on the subject; I don’t know where to put ‘continuous improvement’. Is it here in 4.14.3 or is it in 4.2.3 Quality Planning? That’s probably a good starting point. I would certainly like to see a discussion on Continuous Improvement because it’s my favourite subject. I’ll send an opener.

Just for interest; You mentioned you were taught corr. preventive. action differently. Well I have here BS5750 Part 1 1987 - almost certainly worded identically to the orginal ISO 9001. There is no preventive action section. Only 4.14 Corr. Action and it includes;
“4.14 b) analysing all processes, work operations, concessions, quality records, service reports and customer complaints to detect and eliminate potential causes of nonconforming product.”

That, for me, is preventive action. And it has been lifted out of Corr Action and made Preventive Action in the latest version. The latest is less clear, less precise, less sensible, but that is inevitable since the engineer’s original wording has been taken over by bureaucrats. When we start arguing about ISO 9000:2000, then we will have some Herculean task.

Hope to see you all in the ‘Continuous Improvement’ string.

rgds, John C
  Post Number #47  
Old 18th March 1999, 08:13 AM
Marc's Avatar

Total Posts: 26,664
You say; “Nope - I disagree. Preventive action does not involve detection.” But it does.
I'll agree it can.
It says it in 4.14.3a. Does anyone read the Standard?
You may not have noticed, but in several messages in this thread I cite and quote verbatum ISO9000:1994 including 4.14.3a - several times.
But I’m only pursuing this so as to develop a sound basis so that I can teach people and deal with sloppy registrars. (I feel I am going to have some difficulties)
You'll have to do what I do. I make sure that everyone understands that there are differing interpretations. In fact in my last 8-D course I prinred out a couple of threads from the forum on CA & PA and included them in the course notes binder. I started out the course addressing issues of conflicting definitions and have the students read thru the thread so that everyone is well aware of differences in interpretation. The best way to do this is to recount the history, discuss the verbiage and go on from there.
[quote]Just for interest; You mentioned you were taught corr. preventive. action differently.
Well I have here BS5750 Part 1 1987 - almost certainly worded identically to the orginal ISO 9001. There is no preventive action section. Only 4.14 Corr. Action and it includes;
Yes - I am sure. In the 1980's in military manufacturing I learned of preventive action within corrective action. The automotive world has popularized and isolated 'preventive' in their own light - and the definition is changing. ISO does consider QS9000 in its developmen t(more now than then, but none the less)... I never did work with BS5750 and, in fact, have never seen a copy of it. Just more evidence of the 'drifting' definition of Preventive Action.
The latest is less clear, less precise, less sensible, but that is inevitable since the engineer’s original wording has been taken over by bureaucrats.
I don't know how much of a part engineers played in the early development of the standards. I think it may be more of an issue of trying to address different 'sectors' (chemical, automotive, etc) with one document.

The bottom line is the definition at this point in time is blurred. If you ensure your students understand the situation and the range of definitions, I dont see a problem.

I ensure my students understand this. As far as clients for registration I could care less about the definitions. I ensure my client is addressing issues correctly and that has nothing to do with the definition of Preventive. Proper CA investigations, including Root Cause and appropriate 'controls'. An appropriate planning stage as is appropriate to their operations and whether QS (APQP) or just ISO (which allows more latitude as in not requiring FMEAs for an example). Continuous Improvement - there are a number of elements here, one of which I will include is PA. Never had a problem during a registration because no matter how you define Preventive Action, if you're doing all the things required you can put the label where ever you want to.
  Post Number #48  
Old 19th March 1999, 09:59 AM
John C

Total Posts: n/a
You now agree that Preventive action “can” include detection. Well in 4.14.3 it says that it “shall”, which is totally different from “can”. If we were allowed to replace “shall” with “can”, wherever it occurs in the Standard, then the document would be worthless. We can’t go around making up our own “interpretations”. Even more important, we can’t go round saying that the standard says things that it clearly does not and calling it ‘interpretation’.
Interpretations are not in the interests of industry. They are the tools of self interest.
They are also a nonsense. They cannot clarify the message, only confuse it. If, as you say, there are several interpretations for this section, then there will soon be hundreds. But I don’t believe there are any. The words are simple. They mean what they say and are available, officially translated, into most people’s native language. Instead of continually going on about the need for interpretation, I would like someone to show me one case from 4.14.3 where there is any ambiguity. I doubt I’ll hear from anyone with an example. It’s only about 60 words. Try it.
I hope I don’t hear from anyone with ideas about how the clauses are met. For example; deciding what is ‘appropriate’, is not interpretation. There are many opinions as to what is appropriate, but only one meaning for the adjective ‘appropriate’.
Our first responsibility is to give engineers and managers good information, from which base they can go ahead and design their process. If we give them bad information and muddy the water for them, then we do them a disservice and take their money for doing so.
If we tell them there are three interpretations of a clause, then we leave them vulnerable to the next chancer who comes along with a fourth one.
If we tell them, there are lots of chancers out there who would like to use various interpretations as leverage for their own ends, and that they should read the standard and stick to what they see, then we have done them a service and not left them in the dark.
I’m on the side of industry. I support free trade.

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


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 09:27 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.

Misc. Internal Links

NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"