1. I totally agree with you in principle.
2. I have also had exactly this discussion with multiple QS (not TS) auditors. Apparently there was some direction given by the OEM's to the QS auditors to the effect that
none of the actions taken in response to a customer complaint could be considered "preventive action". Nor could they be considered "continuous improvement". A bit of this thinking is written in TS as note 2 to
8.5.1.2: " Manufacturing process improvement shall continuously focus upon control and reduction of variation in product characteristics...
NOTE 2 Continual improvement is implemented once manufacturing processes are capable and stable, or product characteristics are predictable and meet customer requirements"
If my memory serves, there are some QS interpretations issued long ago that specified this. I don't have my books handy right now to look it up.
Apparently the thinking behind this point was that suppliers were/are expected to do continuous improvement even after meeting specifications; and any response to a problem meant that specifications hadn't been met. Therefore the action only "counted" as corrective action.
I believe that the 7D/
8D systemic prevention should "count" as preventive, as you do. However, the more demanding interpretation seems to be fairly consistent with the auditors I have worked with.
I have never prevailed in my discussions with auditors on this point.
Best regards,
Brad
d_rock30 said:
Hello Guys,
Our TS auditor looked at our D7 and says what we put there are corrective actions and not preventive actions because it still describes actions to prevent recurrence of the problem and not to prevent occurence of potential potential problems. I think he is wrong in saying this. The D7 should be treated separately from the definition of preventive actions as defined int he TS standard.
What do you think?
