Add new action plans in CA, while waiting effectiveness - Same problem reappears

qualprod

Trusted Information Resource
Hello everybody
When doing a CA, and all action plans were finished, just waiting to evaluate effectiveness, at this time if suddenly, the same problem appears again, is it common or accustomed to add a new action to the current ca, Before is closed? And again to wait to be sure was effective?
Please feed me back
Thanks
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
same problem appears again

You can't close the corrective action because obviously it is not effective. You keep it open and reevaluate the action plan(s) you tried which failed. From that you have to develop new plan(s). Closing the CA out and starting a new one will only complicate things and potentially cause a loss of lessons learned (as an example). That is, "We tried this and it didn't work, and we tried this and it didn't work."

I look at these things like mystery stories, which I love. I think I have watched every "Air Crash Investigation" episode, for example. You might not think of ACI as mysteries, but they are - And they essentially come down to problem solving. From Charlie Chan to Perry Mason and Matlock and Murder She Wrote. Something happens. You investigate. The thing mystery stories for the most part lack is the "how to keep it from happening again" aspect, which is one reason I like programs like "Air Crash Investigation" so much. They're not just "what happened, how it happened and why (motive)?" They continue on to look at similar potential issues on other products. If you look at the current Boeing MAX fiasco, investigations into potential problems with the entire Boeing development process going back to the 707 are happening. At the same time, other aircraft manufacturers are also looking at their products for similar potential issues.

:2cents:
 

normzone

Trusted Information Resource
Marc, I partially agree, but what if their action plans were effective for the root cause(s) addressed, but a new root cause appeared causing the same failure mode?

I feel that in that case they have the option of appending this example on to the original C/A, or starting a new one. I think it comes down to a case of whatever works best for that organization. Of course, it's Monday, I could be wildly mistaken and disagree with this answer later on ...
 

qualprod

Trusted Information Resource
Hi Qualprod, why no interim Containment/CA? Following the 8D format or something similar in structure?
Optomist1
Hi Qualprod, why no interim Containment/CA? Following the 8D format or something similar in structure?
Thanks Optomist1

Containment action was performed, immediately NC occurred.
Root cause analysis was done, after that, we defined action plans to eliminate root cause.
the CA is waiting to evaluate it was effective.
The effectiveness will be evaluated in the next audit, (next september) meanwhile CA is open.
the question is : If same problem happens again, is a normal practice, to add other action plan to the same CA after
a new root cause analysis is performed?
Thanks
 

Randy

Super Moderator
You didn't take your cause analysis far enough. When you look at a determined cause and have to ask a question about it, you're not done.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Containment action was performed, immediately NC occurred.
Root cause analysis was done, after that, we defined action plans to eliminate root cause.
the CA is waiting to evaluate it was effective.
The effectiveness will be evaluated in the next audit, (next september) meanwhile CA is open.
the question is : If same problem happens again, is a normal practice, to add other action plan to the same CA after
a new root cause analysis is performed?
Thanks
Is something that actually happened, or a hypothetical? If the former is true, was the cause of the second nonconformity the same as the first?
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Marc, I partially agree, but what if their action plans were effective for the root cause(s) addressed, but a new root cause appeared causing the same failure mode?
If it was effective, close it out. But - The same problem occurs again, the problem is significantly more problematic because it indicates that either the product/part design and/or the process design really sucked.

I will say that the problem was caught both times appears to show good control(s).

I feel that in that case they have the option of appending this example on to the original C/A, or starting a new one. I think it comes down to a case of whatever works best for that organization. Of course, it's Monday, I could be wildly mistaken and disagree with this answer later on ...
Even if they start a new one, that it is the same problem would make me want to keep the files linked for cross reference. Sure, it's "what works best for the organization" but that only goes so far. For example, not requiring a corrective action to be closed out may be "good for the organization". Not a smart move in my opinion, but an organization could say, and believe, that there is no reason to include ensuring a corrective action is effective.

You didn't take your cause analysis far enough. When you look at a determined cause and have to ask a question about it, you're not done.
This is quite often the case. Five Whys doesn't mean "Ask Why 5 times and you're done."

A corrective action is done but the true cause was not actually identified. I have written before about a corrective action I was involved in back in the 1980s on a failing aircraft guidance circuit card. The same component kept failing. All the attention was focused there. The problem was finally given to our group and we did thermal studies, etc. While the original group focused on the failing component, we reviewed the entire CCA. We found that an upstream component was occasionally causing over voltage spikes which killed the component. In short the failing component was not the cause of the failure.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom