TS16949 8.5.2.1 Problem Solving: Root Cause Analysis Requirement

M

Mike Smith

Root Cause Analysis

I have a question for all the experts.

TS16949 8.5.2.1 Problem Solving "The organization shall have a defined process for problem solving leading to root cause identification and elimination".
Does this require root cause analysis for all CARS. The reason I ask is that we have a defined procedure for corrective action. It states that the Quality Manager (Me) decides when root cause analysis is required.
Our registrar is telling us that root cause analysis is required on all CARS. I assume he is right after reading the clause above,
Does everyone agree?
 
T

Tom W

Re: Root Cause Analysis

While I am in no way an expert; I will chime in here anyway. :bigwave:

IMO Root Cause Analysis is one of the weakest part of any business. The easy way out is always training or something like that. To truly get to the root cause is a challenge. People might get their feathers ruffled when the true root cause is found and that makes some people reluctant to do it right.

Anyway back to your point:
I would say that root cause analysis is required with every CARS; however some of those can be accomplished very quickly and effectively without a long in-depth process. Selecting a severity for each CA and then initiating appropriate actions (to include root cause analysis) to correct and eliminate the problem is a key to this. For example; is an in-depth team approach required like an 8D or is this a simple correction that can be handled by the QAM?

I think another key is to identify the real root cause and eliminate it, that way the issue will go away (If it is the real root cause). JMHO Thanks.
 
R

Rob Nix

Re: Root Cause Analysis

I agree with Tom, that Root Cause Analysis (or formal problem solving of any kind) is woefully lacking in many organizations. Just look at some of the crazy replies (from CARs) we get from our suppliers, e.g. "Root Cause: Joe forgot to stamp part. We told 'em he better get it right next time, or else".

As far as doing RCA on a CAR, well that depends on how the CAR is used, or what issues are reported on CARs. Some non-conforming material (often written up on a CAR) simply requires immediate rework with no further actions taken (the cause may even be obvious: "Sam tripped and dropped the part on the floor"). If the cost of investigation is greater than the cost of fixing the problem, why take the time.

IMO, The magnitude of the problem (be it repetition, safety, customer dissatisfaction) should dictate the depth of the RCA investigation.
 
T

The Fixer

Re: Root Cause Analysis

Mike,
The selectivity comes with whether to open a CAR or not, not whether to do RCA once its opened. All CARs need root cause. So, if "Sam" trips and drops a part, I probably wouldn't open a CAR. BUT, if Sam and Sally and George tripped, I've either got a severe drug & alcohol abuse problem in the shop or there is something wrong with the floor, and I would open a CAR. The decision to do root cause analysis is not an issue.

Glenn
 
R

Rob Nix

Re: Root Cause Analysis

Fixer,

Good thoughts. Some companies I've worked with do, however, use their CAR system for all non-conformities - no matter how small. Their rationale is that if Sam dropped it first and nothing was written, and later Sally dropped it with nothing written, no history would suggest writing one for repeated concerns. I don't necessarily agree with that logic. I only suggest that the depth of RCA varies. Dig just deep enough to get the weeds out with none growing back.
 
M

Mike Smith

Re: Root Cause Analysis

Thanks for the good information and examples. We currently have our corrective action system set up with three types of CARS. A, simple requires no in depth problem solving. One week to close. B CARS, one month to close, no root cause analysis required. Then we have C CARS, Root cause analysis required, interim actions taken immediately and six weeks to close CAR. This is where our decision making was taking place. Maybe we should eliminate the types of CARS and just adjust the times it takes to close them. Root cause will be required on all CARS, regardless of circumstances.

By the way, I inherited the system, I did not create it.
 
T

Tom W

Re: Root Cause Analysis

Mike I think you are on to something when you say scrap current timeframes and start over. Having time frames is good but only as an incentive to try to accomplish them. If it is a major issue that takes longer than 6 weeks what happens? Addressing each CAR as it happens; then selecting its severity might be a better road to travel. Same type of tiered system but without specific time frames for completion. Just a thought.
 
M

Mike Smith

Re: Root Cause Analysis

We got hit with a minor during one of our surveillance audits for QS for not closing CARS in a timely manner.. This is when we started the timeframes thing. I am just curious, Do you guys set a timeframe for a CAR to be closed? If it is not met, then what happens, just revise the due date?
 
T

Tom W

Re: Root Cause Analysis

I set a target date for internal audit CA but for the shop floor CAR and customer complaints and issues like those they are open as long as the root cause analysis take and the implementation of CA.
 

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Leader
Super Moderator
Re: Root Cause Analysis

Mike Smith said:
We got hit with a minor during one of our surveillance audits for QS for not closing CARS in a timely manner.. This is when we started the timeframes thing. I am just curious, Do you guys set a timeframe for a CAR to be closed? If it is not met, then what happens, just revise the due date?

We determine an estimated timeframe for each individual issue. As mentioned above - some things are easily implemented and effectiveness can be evaluated in a short time. Some things might take a lot more effort. For example - we have had an open CAR for over 4 months now (result of internal audit). We have tried two different approaches - when the first was found to be ineffective, we re-evaluated and tried a different solution - and it is one of those things that is going to take a while to evaluate the effectiveness again.

We have a space on our form for estimated timeframe next to the chosen implemented actions - and yes, if it is not met as in the example above, we document why (chosen action ineffective) and revise the date.
 

Attachments

  • TCF.14.01.doc
    80 KB · Views: 639
  • Like
Reactions: db
Top Bottom