Any tips on how to improve a CA (Corrective Action) system?

Hello -

Thanks for all your help here - I'm back again with a new question.

I've appointed myself the Corrective Action guy, in an effort to improve what has always been a token system at best.

I've gained an electronic tool for administering CAs, but the corporate culture does not support timely closure of CAs.

The philosophy at the top is that if it's not an issue that prevents good product from getting to a customer, then it's a low priority. Unfortunately that philosophy has trickled down on the rest of the staff.

So any progress that is made regarding closing CAs in a reasonable time is a challenge. Our CA dwell times are appalling, for routine matters that could be dealt with relatively quickly.

I've reached the conclusion that high visibility is my best tool. I think I may be reduced to modular graffiti reminders in lunchrooms and hallways ( "Ask John Doe about Corrective Action 0040!" ) and Denial of Service email attacks on the responsible parties computers.

Any advice appreciated

normzone said:

Hello -

Thanks for all your help here - I'm back again with a new question.

I've appointed myself the Corrective Action guy, in an effort to improve what has always been a token system at best.

I've gained an electronic tool for administering CAs, but the corporate culture does not support timely closure of CAs.

The philosophy at the top is that if it's not an issue that prevents good product from getting to a customer, then it's a low priority. Unfortunately that philosophy has trickled down on the rest of the staff.

So any progress that is made regarding closing CAs in a reasonable time is a challenge. Our CA dwell times are appalling, for routine matters that could be dealt with relatively quickly.

I've reached the conclusion that high visibility is my best tool. I think I may be reduced to modular graffiti reminders in lunchrooms and hallways ( "Ask John Doe about Corrective Action 0040!" ) and Denial of Service email attacks on the responsible parties computers.

Any advice appreciated

Click to expand...

There's a single element that's missing from almost all problem-solving strategies, and ironically, it's the most important one. Once a problem has been correctly described, the next thing that must be done is to identify the person who has the authority to correct it. If people feel that CA isn't important, there must be things they consider more important. The person who establishes the priorities is the one you need to work on.

It will do you no good whatsoever to admonish people who aren't interested in what you're admonishing them about, and who know that you have no authority in setting their priorities.

If you want to improve the situation, you'll need to demonstrate that money is being lost to repetitive quality issues. That's the only thing that will get the person with authority motivated.

If they are routine matters, then why put them in a "CA System" anyway. IMO a CA system looses it credibilty when too many "routine" items are corrective actions. When you spend more time filling out paperwork than solving the problem, people loose interest. Make sure your problems requiring CA are substantive and I'll bet you'll have better luck.

normzone said:

Hello -

Thanks for all your help here - I'm back again with a new question.

I've appointed myself the Corrective Action guy, in an effort to improve what has always been a token system at best.

I've gained an electronic tool for administering CAs, but the corporate culture does not support timely closure of CAs.

The philosophy at the top is that if it's not an issue that prevents good product from getting to a customer, then it's a low priority. Unfortunately that philosophy has trickled down on the rest of the staff.

So any progress that is made regarding closing CAs in a reasonable time is a challenge. Our CA dwell times are appalling, for routine matters that could be dealt with relatively quickly.

I've reached the conclusion that high visibility is my best tool. I think I may be reduced to modular graffiti reminders in lunchrooms and hallways ( "Ask John Doe about Corrective Action 0040!" ) and Denial of Service email attacks on the responsible parties computers.

Any advice appreciated

Click to expand...

Dont you have external audits like ISO or Customer audits to show this as a non conformance or Oppurtunities For Improvements (OFI) ?

Ajit Basrur said:

Dont you have external audits like ISO or Customer audits to show this as a non conformance or Oppurtunities For Improvements (OFI) ?

Click to expand...

The issues are commitment/support of leaders and involvement of employees at all levels. I doubt if they will take any audit programmes seriously.

maris said:

The issues are commitment/support of leaders and involvement of employees at all levels. I doubt if they will take any audit programmes seriously.

Click to expand...

Yeah - the concept of "continual improvement" seems to be missing !

First, review all the corrective actions and see if they are excessive. Are there too many of them being issued for similar issues? Of much more importance to me than the # of corrective actions, is time spent actually determining the root cause.

Next, Jim already said this well. One element may be clearly identifying potential impact for these corrective actions.

I know this probably is not the case here, but I am seeing this massive binder of corrective actions, with very little impact assessment, money saved, etc. Too, I can envision a lot of them producing little value for the process, and creating lots and lots of paperwork.

Again, I'm sure that is not the case, but hopefully it helps maybe bring some light to what management may perceive. The quality program should always bring value to the process. We as quality professionals need to be good as spelling out what that value is.

Review the ones you have, and see if they can be combined. If they are older, ask people if that problem has occurred again. Possibly something got fixed, but it was not documented. Review the ones left and assess the potential impact, savings, etc. Take these few to management, and see if you can get some help.

Your CA-PA system could be electronic or manual and use a formal methodology for root cause analysis, etc. All of these are good tools, but what I have learned over the years is that without adequate management involvement your system will simply be ineffective no matter how many training courses the users attend and no matter which data base you use.

Management support is needed to assign resources, require timeliness, and promote compliance. It is key for your management to be convinced that the CAPA system is an important tool to drive improvement.

Using manual forms, and and Excel spread sheet to track status could be enough with good cooperation form your upper management. Once you have that then you can explore the options for its administration.

If I had appointed myself to do what I do (manage corrective actions through the internal audit processes) I'd be sunk from the start. From almost the minute I started in my position I initiated more demanding findings than most before me - according to records I have reviewed. Is that also the case with you?

A position and function like this really needs management sanction. I haven't yet seen anything describing the depth and extent of your management's interest in your corrective action activities. What is there? How is it shown? How is it made understood among the people you ask to do stuff?