The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Nonconformance and Corrective Action
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence! - Page 2


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Howard's
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


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 (Not all threads are Tagged)
form(s), quality records, corrective action (ca), forms and templates (general), procedures (general)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #9  
Old 31st July 2006, 08:50 AM
Randy's Avatar
Randy

 
 
Total Posts: 8,483
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

You could use the Louisville Slugger approach on folks that violate your procedure.

BTW...Are the forms you listed actually "Quality" related, or are they just forms that are used for whatever?

Are they actually necessary? Is the data actually used for soemthing or are we just filling out forms?

Are they redundent? Are we recording the same information someplace else?

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #10  
Old 31st July 2006, 09:01 AM
Craig H.

 
 
Total Posts: 2,048
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

A few observations, to be taken as my approach and not necessarily the "right" approach concerning ISO 9001.

We have several forms that we use for DNR (Dept. of Natural Resources) reporting. They are not "used" as part of our process, other than filling them out.

But, (changing gears here) is our doc control system a Quality Document Control System, or a Business Document Control System? Is our "ISO 9001" System a Quality Management System or a Business Management System?

If the main goal of the system is quality management only, then purge the non-quality documents ASAP. If, however, your system is for management of a large portion of the business, does it not make business sense to have ONE document management system, for quality, environmental reporting, safety, etc.? Why confuse things with 2 or more document systems?

If there is a document that is not worth controlling from a quality, safety, or other standpoint, rid yourself of the extra weight (during the annual review process?).

From a user standpoint, why should they have to guess which system to go to when they need to retrieve a document?

Just my thoughts. Remember, it is Monday morning.
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #11  
Old 31st July 2006, 10:11 AM
Randy's Avatar
Randy

 
 
Total Posts: 8,483
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

OMG It's Monday again? Another travel day. Let's see, this week Fitzgerald, Georgia.

Back on topic........

If you are controlling all your business doc's with your system, just provide a mechanism (like your list) to tell the difference between the Q stuff and all the rest. If it ain't related to customer satisfaction, planning and all that other stuff show it and move on to more important stuff like planning a great lunch for you auditor.
  Post Number #12  
Old 31st July 2006, 12:36 PM
lrowe's Avatar
lrowe

 
 
Total Posts: 43
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

Hey everyone,

Just to reiterate some of the points made, I agree that you need to decide which forms are quality related or required records and only control those. When I first started here, every piece of paper generated seemed to be controlled! This included a fractional to decimal conversion chart!

Anyway, keeping your forms to a managable level will help in keeping contol over them. Auditors I've delt with really want to see a master list of ALL controlled documents and if your forms are controlled then they need to be on the list. This would also mean that the forms would fall under you controlled document proceedure (which you MUST have) and can address the issue of when a form needs to be controlled and therefore why it does or does not need to be on the list.
  Post Number #13  
Old 31st July 2006, 12:58 PM
Bev D's Avatar
Bev D

 
 
Total Posts: 3,442
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

OK the finding was that not all 'forms' in use were listed the Quality Records procedure.

If the froms in question were NOT quality records, the original finding is invalid.

If some were in fact quality records then we do need a Corrective Action that will prevent reoccurrence.

Some of the condidtions that makes this error so possible is that the quality record index is a SEPARATE document form the procedures that reference forms. It is often viewed as Quality's job to keep the index up to date - it is typically not viewed as the originator's responsibility and ti aslo not typically viewed as the approvers responsibility to check if the new form is a quality record and if the index has been updated. (Qualityalways mentions this!)

Some actions we can take:

A checklist for those who initiate or revise existing procedures that requires that all forms be identified as a qualty record or not. (Having the definition of a quality record on the checklist is helpful)
the checklist can also include the responsibility of the originator to revise the qulaity record index as a requirement of the change.

Add a checklist for reviewers including QA asking and requiring the same thing.

The above are preventive actions although not mistake proof.

If you have control over your doc control software you may want to make forms separate documetnt types. each form must have a checkbox indicating if it is a quality record or not. (TWO Boxes, not just one - that way the software can be made to force the selection of one box or the other). Teh software can then check for those forms that are qulaty records and automatically initiate a change for the quality record index. (this is what I did in one company I was at. no more out of synch indexes!) when forms were reviewed, QA always checked (they had an electronic checklist that they had to complete prior to approving a change) if the form was a properl identified as a quality record or not...

Of course all of the above just gets me started on the value add of ISO, but that's one thing I can't control...
  Post Number #14  
Old 31st July 2006, 12:58 PM
ScottK's Avatar
ScottK

 
 
Total Posts: 2,584
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by lrowe


When I first started here, every piece of paper generated seemed to be controlled! This included a fractional to decimal conversion chart!
I'm building a QMS right now and my jaw hit the floor a few weeks ago when the owner told everyone at a production meeting - before consulting with me - to give me a copy of every single form they use so I "can put it into the document control system" I recently wrote and haven't trained anyone in yet.

Tomorrow he's receiving training on document control.
  Post Number #15  
Old 31st July 2006, 05:04 PM
Coury Ferguson's Avatar
Coury Ferguson

 
 
Total Posts: 4,422
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Bev D

OK the finding was that not all 'forms' in use were listed the Quality Records procedure.

If the froms in question were NOT quality records, the original finding is invalid.

If some were in fact quality records then we do need a Corrective Action that will prevent reoccurrence.

Some of the condidtions that makes this error so possible is that the quality record index is a SEPARATE document form the procedures that reference forms. It is often viewed as Quality's job to keep the index up to date - it is typically not viewed as the originator's responsibility and ti aslo not typically viewed as the approvers responsibility to check if the new form is a quality record and if the index has been updated. (Qualityalways mentions this!)

Some actions we can take:

A checklist for those who initiate or revise existing procedures that requires that all forms be identified as a qualty record or not. (Having the definition of a quality record on the checklist is helpful)
the checklist can also include the responsibility of the originator to revise the qulaity record index as a requirement of the change.

Add a checklist for reviewers including QA asking and requiring the same thing.

The above are preventive actions although not mistake proof.

If you have control over your doc control software you may want to make forms separate documetnt types. each form must have a checkbox indicating if it is a quality record or not. (TWO Boxes, not just one - that way the software can be made to force the selection of one box or the other). Teh software can then check for those forms that are qulaty records and automatically initiate a change for the quality record index. (this is what I did in one company I was at. no more out of synch indexes!) when forms were reviewed, QA always checked (they had an electronic checklist that they had to complete prior to approving a change) if the form was a properl identified as a quality record or not...

Of course all of the above just gets me started on the value add of ISO, but that's one thing I can't control...

Bev, you have some valid points in the dissertation. I am not challenging your post, nor am I saying that you are wrong. Now let us look at the OP's statement, sentence by sentence:

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by randy04

We recently had our yearly audit here at Britt Tool, one of our minors was due to not listing all of our forms in our Quality Records Procedure.
This sentence identifies that there was a minor NC generated by the Registrar for not listing all of the forms in the Quality Records Procedure (as Bev stated). So, I guess this really means that the Auditor went out on the floor and found that there were some forms being used that were not listed in the Quality Procedure. Therefore, the finding would be valid. Reference ISO9001:2000, Paragraphs 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.5.1 (e), and 7.3.6 (if design responsible), and maybe ones that I have missed.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by randy04

I went through all of our forms and updated the procedure accorddingly and retrained everyone to the procedure.
This sentence states that the procedures were updated identifying the forms and retrained. This is Corrective Action. At this point the decision should be made if the records or forms that were identified during the audit are "Quality Related." The forms which are not quality related should not be identified in the Quality Records Procedures. Still part of the Corrective Action plan.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by randy04

When I submitted the corrective action our auditor rejected it saying that this action would not prevent reoccurance.
What the .....?
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by ISO9001:2000, para 8.5.3

The organization shall determine action to eliminate the causes of potential nonconformities in order to prevent their occurrence. Preventative actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the potential problems
It is apparent that the response only addressed Corrective Action as you can see by the previous statements. There is no Preventative Action identified in the response. Therefore, the Auditor should have rejected the CA because the Preventative Action was not addressed. Reference ISO9001:2000, Paragraph 8.5.3 above.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by randy04

Other than training, how are you supposed to keep forms from being used that aren't in the procedures?
This is just a simple matter of removing the forms that aren't listed in their Quality Records Procedure. The Quality forms and what every Business forms they want to control would have to be identified in their Quality Records Procedure.

Last edited by Coury Ferguson; 31st July 2006 at 05:39 PM.
  Post Number #16  
Old 31st July 2006, 05:42 PM
Bev D's Avatar
Bev D

 
 
Total Posts: 3,442
Re: Corrective Action Does Not Prevent Reocurrence!

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Coury Ferguson

This sentence identifies that there was a minor NC generated by the Registrar for not listing all of the forms in the Quality Records Procedure. So, I guess this really means that the Auditor went out on the floor and found that there were some forms being used that were not listed in the Quality Procedure. Therefore, the finding would be valid. Reference ISO9001:2000, Paragraphs 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.5.1 (e), and 7.3.6 (if design responsible), and maybe ones that I have missed.
Actually, not all forms are quality records and so not all forms are subject to the requirement for control of quality records. Randy04 only talks about all forms – he didn’t specifically clarify if all of the forms in question were truly quality records or if they were other types of forms. So the finding may in fact not be valid.
Additionally, it’s important to note at this time that a record INDEX is not necessary, the applicable section of the ISO9000 standard states:

“4.2.4 Control of records
Records shall be established and maintained to provide evidence of conformity to requirements and of the effective operation of the quality management system. Records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable. A documented procedure shall be established to define the controls needed for the identification, storage, protection ,retrieval, retention time and disposition of records.”

Most companies choose to use a quality record index to achieve this control because they believe it is the easiest, or at least the most common method…but it is not required.


Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Coury Ferguson

This sentence states that the procedures were updated identifying the forms and retrained. This is Corrective Action. At this point the decision should be made if the records or forms that were identified during the audit are "Quality Related." The forms which are not quality related should not be identified in the Quality Records Procedures. Still part of the Corrective Action plan.
Again – it’s quality RECORDS not quality related forms. Quality related forms require some form of document control but do not require the same level of retention control as a quality record. Not all quality related forms are quality records.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Coury Ferguson

It is apparent that the response only addressed Corrective Action as you can see by the previous statements. There is no Preventative Action identified in the response. Therefore, the Auditor should have rejected the CA because the Preventative Action was not addressed. Reference ISO9001:2000, Paragraph 8.5.3 above.
Actaully, in an audit only Corrective Action (section 8.5.2) is required. NOT Preventive Action (section 8.5.3). Preventive Action (8.5.3) can only be doen for problems that haven't occured - in an audit, the auditor is identifying existing nonconformances, not potential nonconformances. This is the standard confusion around corrective and preventive action that has been discussed in this forum to death. And 8.5.2 states:

"8.5.2 Corrective action
The organization shall take action to eliminate the cause of nonconformities in order to prevent recurrence.
Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformities encountered."

Some interpret the second sentence as meaning that not all corrective actions require the elimination of the cause and prevention of recurrence. So that some nonconformnaces can simply be repaired – such as updating the record index and nothing else. However, some registrars will require elimination of the cause to prevent recurrence…it looks like Randy04’s auditor is requesting this level of corrective action.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Coury Ferguson

This is just a simple matter of removing the forms that aren't listed in their Quality Records Procedure. The Quality forms and what every Business forms they want to control would have to be identified in their Quality Records Procedure.
Simply removing the forms that were in use but not in the quality record index, will NOT prevent new forms from being generated and used but not listed in the index…some additional action is necessary to ensure that new forms are properly assessed and where necessary the index is revised to add the form as a quality record…OR come up with a different way of complying the quality record requirement that doesn’t involve an INDEX…
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Nonconformance and Corrective Action

Bookmarks



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
Smilies 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
Corrective Action - For a corrective action to be effective, a change is required? Matrix45 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5 30th April 2015 01:49 AM
Corrective and Preventive Action - Prevent Recurrence is not Preventive Action? Matrix45 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 24 13th April 2015 10:03 AM
Corrective Action vs. Failure Analysis - Corrective Action for Every Defect Found? Shawn97701 - 2009 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5 6th December 2007 04:48 AM
D7 Prevent Recurrence vs. TS 16949 8.5.3 Preventive Action d_rock30 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 2 2nd September 2005 08:24 AM
Corrective Action and Preventive Action clauses - ISO 9001 - Corrective Action Ace Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6 26th November 2001 01:47 AM



The time now is 08:16 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 
 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" - A Peachfarm Internet Property