Continual Improvement as Result of Corrective Action?

[tlarosa]

Why is it written in ISO 9001:2015 that continual improvement includes corrective action? I thought that continual improvement referred to making something good even better. With corrective action, on the other hand, there was a failure.

 

[John C. Abnet]

Poor choice of terminology by the ISO gods. You are correct @tlarosa

Be well.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Why is it written in ISO 9001:2015 that continual improvement includes corrective action? I thought that continual improvement referred to making something good even better. With corrective action, on the other hand, there was a failure.

Poor choice of terminology by the ISO gods. You are correct @tlarosa

I beg to differ. Perhaps there's confusion with the idiotic ISO idea that actions taken as a result of corrective action to prevent the NC from recurring can't be classified as preventive actions. Thus things that are clearly preventive aren't preventive.
I don't know where the idea that "... continual improvement refer to making something good even better" came from. There is danger in tampering with "good" processes, where "good" might be defined as running in an optimal state.
It seems clear to me that when looking for improvement opportunities, it would be foolhardy to disregard historical corrective actions. Taking something "bad" and making it better is the essence of improvement.

 

[John C. Abnet]

"... continual improvement refer to making something good even better" came from. There is danger in tampering with "good" processes, where "good" might be defined as running in an optimal state.

Good day @Jim Wynne ;
This comes from the Japanese actual applied use of the term kaizen. I was fortunate enough to "cut my teeth" in quality as result of direct work with Japanese associates and leadership. "We" here in the west have generally bastardized the "definition"/intent of a number of Japanese terms, not the least of which is kaizen. Continuing to improve beyond the simple meeting of originally established goals, is indeed a key to the approach. In Japan "kaizen" is not a thing or a project, but an approach.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Good day @Jim Wynne ;
This comes from the Japanese actual applied use of the term kaizen. I was fortunate enough to "cut my teeth" in quality as result of direct work with Japanese associates and leadership. "We" here in the west have generally bastardized the "definition"/intent of a number of Japanese terms, not the least of which is kaizen. Continuing to improve beyond the simple meeting of originally established goals, is indeed a key to the approach. In Japan "kaizen" is not a thing or a project, but an approach.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

I had two points: A process that needs to be improved is not a "good" process, and that using past corrective actions in pursuit of improvement is perfectly sensible.

 

[tlarosa]

Poor choice of terminology by the ISO gods. You are correct @tlarosa

Be well.

The "Note" in 10.1 states that improvement can include corrective action. I don't see that as an improvement, but rather fixing a failure.

 

[tlarosa]

I had two points: A process that needs to be improved is not a "good" process, and that using past corrective actions in pursuit of improvement is perfectly sensible.

A process that is meeting a Cpk of greater than 1.33, for example, could still be targeted for improvement to greater than 1.67, for example. I see this as true improvement.

 

[Mike S.]

If ISO says improvement can include corrective action, then in the context of ISO it can. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to me. If you have a hole in your roof and you fix it, wouldn't you say that was an improvement?

 

[tlarosa]

If ISO says improvement can include corrective action, then in the context of ISO it can. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to me. If you have a hole in your roof and you fix it, wouldn't you say that was an improvement?

I would not say that it is an improvement. It is fixing a defect.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I would not say that it is an improvement. It is fixing a defect.

We're talking about improvements in general here, and if you're searching for things to improve, why wouldn't you review all of the relevant information, including past corrective actions? No one is saying that past corrective actions must be used to inform improvement efforts; it's just given as a potential source for information.