Control plans - TS 16949:2002 requires corrective actions to be addressed

[Andrews]

Annexe A of ISO/TS 16949:2002 requires corrective actions to be addressed in the control plan.What does this mean? Does it mean we should address the actions taken on existing failures identified during inprocess inspection, final inpsection , customer rejections etc.?
An example will help.

 

[D.Scott]

The control plan is meant to be a living document describing the controls you have for various parts of the proces. The thinking here is that if you have a failure and a corrective action is implemented to keep it from recurring, then the new control should be reflected in the control plan. This avoids the case of putting in a new control to correct a problem then slipping back to the old way because you didn't document it in the process control plan.

Hope this helps.

Dave

 

[Andrews]

Dave

Thanks for your help.

Does this mean that we have to review the corrective actions taken for the various problems for a period of 6 months or so and then add this in the control plan?

But there are people who say that the corrective action in the control plan should be generic like adjust the tool if there are dimensional problems, recheck the tool and change tool if there is tool problem.

can you please send a sample for reference.

 

[Howard Atkins]

As I see it the corrective actions are dealt with in the FMEA which also deals with the situation in reality and not only the preventative actions from before the production.
If you add to the FMEA the logical step is the change to the CP and these are rthe corrective actions.

 

[Sam]

What yiu are going to do should be addressed in your reaction plan, how you are going to do it is adddressed in the corrective action plan. Any action on your part shoild require an update in the control paln.
If you decide to monitor for six months before updating then you need to describe how you will do it while preventing further nonconformances from leaving the process.

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

I'm with Howard on this. I deal with the "Corrective Action" in the PFMEA. That Failure Mode is then added (or updated - depending on what happened) in either the "Product or Process Characteristic" column of the Control Plan with the "newest" controls and whatever the Reaction Plan is.

Just my

 

[Notts QA]

Corrective actions are dealt with in the PMFEA, but we also have a column for corrective action in the Control Plan which has the reference to the Corrective Action procedure number. The detail for corrective action is in the procedure and the operators are trained with this.

 

[Howard Atkins]

The control plans are growing to become unmanageable documents, I have seen those which have columns for maintenace etc.

I am moving to change these so that the CP will be the bare bones and there will be a much larger number of referenced documents.
There is becoming a situation whereby there is a need to update several documents with the same information, the CP the instructions by the operator, the corrective actions etc .
This to me is none value added or in other words a waste of time.

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

The control plans are growing to become unmanageable documents, I have seen those which have columns for maintenace etc.

I am moving to change these so that the CP will be the bare bones and there will be a much larger number of referenced documents.
There is becoming a situation whereby there is a need to update several documents with the same information, the CP the instructions by the operator, the corrective actions etc .
This to me is none value added or in other words a waste of time.

We started referencing our procedures in the "Reaction Plan" column, but, along with the procedure name we referenced the specific procedure number. As I was reviewing some of our Corporate Procedures recently I noticed we had changed the numbering scheme (due to upgrading from TS-"1st ed." to TS- "2nd ed."). Now I need to go through all Control Plans and make sure to only use the "generic" procedure name. So even though we "simplified" we didn't take it far enough. Although not caught in the audit last month, it surely will be noticed at some time in the future if not corrected.

Notts QA - Welcome to the Cove

Might I ask the reasoning behind adding a column to an already "clustered" document? I'm only curious because I tend to view the Control Plan as the "base" for writing instructions for our operators to produce the product and verify its compliance to the part drawing and established process parameters. The "Reaction Plan" column pretty much just references our nonconforming procedure and to notify their Supervisor should something be "out of whack". If a formal Corrective Action is necessary, that's the Supervisor's or Quality Manager's call. Basically, we just want the operator to fix the problem (if within his ability), document what he/she did, and get back to making good product.

 

[Howard Atkins]

The "Reaction Plan" column pretty much just references our nonconforming procedure and to notify their Supervisor should something be "out of whack". If a formal Corrective Action is necessary, that's the Supervisor's or Quality Manager's call. Basically, we just want the operator to fix the problem (if within his ability), document what he/she did, and get back to making good product.

In fact the standard annex A says reaction plan(include or reference).
In this case maybe it should all be reference!
I attache an example of a control plan/flow chart that I received from a customer, I beleive that originally it was Toyota based, here there is no room

Here is written "defect handling procedure" this is not exactly a reaction plan , if I use a customer mandated document do I also have to ensure that it is in accordance with the standard?