Employees Not Using Corrective / Preventive Action Process Procedure

I work for a small govt. contractor that provides nothing more than services. Currently our QMS only covers the HQ functions and some of the functions that occur between HQ and the field operations.

My problem is the employees just aren't utilizing the Corrective and Preventive Action process. I've trained them all on it, given them examples, and have brought the problem up in every management review. The only time it seems it gets used is when my manager, or I, initiate because we hear of an issue.

So I need a little input on how I can increase the use of the system so its beneficial to the company. Below are a few areas I may see as the problem(s):

- Department managers not promoting the process when issues arise
- Form to complicated/intimidating (attached)
- Procedure itself too confusing (very in depth and wordy)
- Employees feel they are recording their screw-ups

Thanks for any help you can give. I'll be pulling a few examples posted on this site and reviewing them to see if they may fit my organization better than what is in place now.

~Gregg

Re: Employees not using Corrective/Preventive Action Process Procedure

Gmayes said:

- Department managers not promoting the process when issues arise
- Form to complicated/intimidating (attached)
- Procedure itself too confusing (very in depth and wordy)
- Employees feel they are recording their screw-ups

Click to expand...

It sounds like people haven't been given a good reason to use the process. What's in it for them? Your second and third points are just excuses; if people understood the value of what you're trying to do, they would make suggestions for improving the process. Your fourth point might be very telling; if people are afraid to let mistakes see the light of day, there must be a reason for it unless all of your employees are psychotic, which is a completely different problem.

Re: Employees not using Corrective/Preventive Action Process Procedure

Right on, Jim!
Of equal consideration could be the fact that 'Management' aren't giving any direction to the use of the procedures. In effect, if you allow folks to use CA/PA without direction it will (potentially) become anarchy (either they use it too much or not at all). Which of all the corrective actions, has greater priority? Some of your people might not know what to work on first. Don't forget that action has to be commensurate to the risks to the business/customers etc.

Perhaps, as is the case in many situations, you're using CA when simple correction is more appropriate. Too many CA's will overwhelm everyone, including management, and that might result in the same 'non-use' of the procedures.

Andy

Re: Employees not using Corrective/Preventive Action Process Procedure

Jim Wynne said:

It sounds like people haven't been given a good reason to use the process. What's in it for them? Your second and third points are just excuses; if people understood the value of what you're trying to do, they would make suggestions for improving the process. Your fourth point might be very telling; if people are afraid to let mistakes see the light of day, there must be a reason for it unless all of your employees are psychotic, which is a completely different problem.

Click to expand...

During the training and other conversations with them regarding the process, i've made it pretty clear the reason for using this is to improve the processes (PA) to make your job more efficient, bring attention to areas that are problematic but ignored by management, and to improve our overall system.

Re: Employees not using Corrective/Preventive Action Process Procedure

Thanks for all the feedback.....keep it coming.

AndyN said:

Perhaps, as is the case in many situations, you're using CA when simple correction is more appropriate. Too many CA's will overwhelm everyone, including management, and that might result in the same 'non-use' of the procedures.

Andy

Click to expand...

Its been tough trying to give them examples of what is too little of a problem and what deserves the process. I'd rather they flood me with CPANs, some get rejected because they are so minor, and use the results to set standards of what does/does not require the process.

Re: Employees not using Corrective/Preventive Action Process Procedure

Gmayes said:

During the training and other conversations with them regarding the process, i've made it pretty clear the reason for using this is to improve the processes (PA) to make your job more efficient, bring attention to areas that are problematic but ignored by management, and to improve our overall system.

Click to expand...

Well, then they probably don't believe you. People don't care about being more efficient unless there's something in it for them. If management is ignoring problems, how will a CAPA system help? If they can ignore costly problems, they can also ignore potential solutions. You have to make people care about what they're doing. Sometimes a breakthrough happens--you might come across a single example where a gnarly problem gets fixed through use of the CAPA system, and everyone sees the light. But in my experience, when masses of people aren't seeing a very bright light, it can only be because of where they have their heads. The extraction process is painful and often protracted and often fails despite the best efforts of the practitioner. The bottom line is that you have to make people want to change, or they won't.

Since I've just covered this topic in class (earlier today), and I've got a few minutes......

Corrective action has to be (in most cases) done in teams. If we are serious about fixing a process (which should be our focus, in my belief) it takes at least 4 representatives (customer, supplier, processor(s)) to work on the issue. In addition, those folks should be familiar with a number of techniques - brain storming, affinity charts/diagrams, cause/effect, fishbone diagrams, etc. etc. If they are to be effective, they should be somewhat qualified like a 6 Sigma 'Green Belt' in the use of such tools.

Correction, however, just needs a 'git 'er done' approach

Andy