Correction and Corrective Action - ALWAYS DOCUMENT BOTH

[emanbocol]

I've read a thread here in Elsmar explaining why at times you only need to indicate corrections on minor nonconformances/findings with no corrective actions needed.

We were about to adopt that in our QMS when, during our transition audit to ISO 9001:2008, the external auditor insisted that it cannot be just either (correction/corrective action) but should always be both. He pointed out that 8.2.2 states that "The management responsible for the area being audited SHALL ensure that any necessary corrections AND corrective actions are taken without undue delay...."

We had a long exchange of ideas in the interpretation of this statement, but I hope to know how the experts would interpret this?

Would surely appreciate.

 

[Randy]

Those with expertise don't interpret...we use the standards themselves and in this case ISO 9000:2005

3.6.5
corrective action
action to eliminate the cause of a detected nonconformity (3.6.2) or other undesirable situation

NOTE 1 There can be more than one cause for a nonconformity.

NOTE 2 Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action (3.6.4) is taken to prevent occurrence.

NOTE 3 There is a distinction between correction (3.6.6) and corrective action.

3.6.6
correction
action to eliminate a detected nonconformity (3.6.2)

NOTE 1 A correction can be made in conjunction with a corrective action (3.6.5).

NOTE 2 A correction can be, for example, rework (3.6.7) or regrade (3.6.8).

You have to both fix it and find the reason it happened in the 1st place.

 

[Umang Vidyarthi]

I've read a thread here in Elsmar explaining why at times you only need to indicate corrections on minor nonconformances/findings with no corrective actions needed.

We were about to adopt that in our QMS when, during our transition audit to ISO 9001:2008, the external auditor insisted that it cannot be just either (correction/corrective action) but should always be both. He pointed out that 8.2.2 states that "The management responsible for the area being audited SHALL ensure that any necessary corrections AND corrective actions are taken without undue delay...."

We had a long exchange of ideas in the interpretation of this statement, but I hope to know how the experts would interpret this?

Would surely appreciate.

Hello emanbocol, welcome to the cove.

Randy has provided the definitions straight from the horse's mouth. While correction is an act of correcting a nonconformity (viz: by rework), the corrective action is an act to prevent its recurrence, in other words, attacking at the cause(s) of of the nonconformity.

8.2.2 says "The management...shall ensure....any necessary corrections and corrective actions are taken without undue delay....."

Here 'Necessary' is the catch word. It is the prerogative of the management to decide as to which is necessary and which is not. (Of course, the responsibility to show why 'unnecessary' is unnecessary, lies squarely with the management).

The other point raised by the auditor that in stead of either/or it has to be both, is a valid arguement. Equally (or even More) important than correction is corrective action to avoid recurrence.

Hope this helps

Umang

 

[howste]

I agree with Umang's response. While I believe in most cases doing both correction and corrective action is the best route to take, forcing both in ALL cases could be counter-productive.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Those with expertise don't interpret...we use the standards themselves and in this case ISO 9000:2005
<snip>
You have to both fix it and find the reason it happened in the 1st place.

If necessary.

 

[Randy]

If necessary.

If necessary what?

 

[Jim Wynne]

If necessary what?

If necessary, sir.
You said (with regard to detected NCs):"You have to both fix it and find the reason it happened in the 1st place." I was pointing out (based on your quotation of ISO 9000, which those with expertise don't interpret) that you have to fix it and find the reason it happened if necessary.

 

[emanbocol]

Yup. The "necessary" word in 8.2.2 was actually my point of contention against the ALWAYS TOGETHER. It appears to me that there are times wherein you can omit correction and just go straight to corrective action (i have yet to see cases where you can have corrections with no need for corrective actions).

I hope i'm not risking a longer discussion here with this example:
If for example you are given an NC for not completing your forms well, would you need correction for that, that is, fill out completely those old forms that are no longer relevant?

 

[howste]

(i have yet to see cases where you can have corrections with no need for corrective actions).

Let's say you have a document control procedure that does not address legibility. Would you spend a lot of time identifying why it was not addressed when the system was first implemented? Or would you just add controls to the procedure to address the missing information?

 

[Geoff Withnell]

In the past, with minor problems, I have put a statement into the corrective action area such as "As this problem does not appear to be a systematic or repetitive issue, further action is not warrented at this time. If this problem becomes repetitive or systematic, further action will be taken."

Geoff Withnell