Corrective Action and Preventive Action for Operator Error (Cosmetic - Handling)

[cqt18060180]

Question on the CA and PA,

SOME Time i should reply 8D to customer, but i have some confesion on the CA AND PA,

eg.

cosmetic problem, cause by operaor handlding error so it means

training operator is the corrective action , what is the preventive action? revise document WI ?

 

[samsung]

Re: Question on the CA and PA,

Since the problem has already occurred, no PA is applicable and possible either.

 

[somashekar]

CA AND PA or CAPA are two methods of continual improvement.
There is no need to think of a PA after a CA for a noticed non conformance, in your case the cosmetic problem via the 8D to customer. You should rather work on how effective your CA has been in further eliminating such a defect. So revising document and any other sure steps that you take are the CA after finding the root cause of the problem
This learning can be such, that when you have an other cosmetic inspection requirement, you apply this and before hand prevent such cosmetic problem from surfacing. When you are so aware that you are applying the learning of an earlier corrective action, you are doing a preventive action and how effective this is for this new situation will again depend upon its effectiveness monitoring.
In both the cases you are continualy improving.
Logic: Once you have a problem and detect the root cause of it and take actions to eliminate it (CA) you will perform so smartly that the same problem due to that cause will not recur again in the future (PA)

 

[Ajit Basrur]

Question on the CA and PA,

SOME Time i should reply 8D to customer, but i have some confesion on the CA AND PA,

eg.

cosmetic problem, cause by operaor handlding error so it means

training operator is the corrective action , what is the preventive action? revise document WI ?

We have lot of threads explaining what is CA and PA.

Pls remember that first you have to identify the root cause that happened this defect and then CA will eliminate the "cause" of the existing problem and PA addresses the potential (unhappened) issues.

So, in the example that you cited for Cosmetic problem, you have to first identify the root cause.

 

[cqt18060180]

CA AND PA or CAPA are two methods of continual improvement.
There is no need to think of a PA after a CA for a noticed non conformance, in your case the cosmetic problem via the 8D to customer. You should rather work on how effective your CA has been in further eliminating such a defect. So revising document and any other sure steps that you take are the CA after finding the root cause of the problem
This learning can be such, that when you have an other cosmetic inspection requirement, you apply this and before hand prevent such cosmetic problem from surfacing. When you are so aware that you are applying the learning of an earlier corrective action, you are doing a preventive action and how effective this is for this new situation will again depend upon its effectiveness monitoring.
In both the cases you are continualy improving.
Logic: Once you have a problem and detect the root cause of it and take actions to eliminate it (CA) you will perform so smartly that the same problem due to that cause will not recur again in the future (PA)

For my case is cosmetic defected, easy to identified the cause and CA,

The root cause is the operator poor workmanship when use knife cutting the gate
CA: educate and training the operate the knife when degating by the revise WI
I propose to put PA like these: Operaotr selfcheck and make a pen mark on the degated position, ......
or Put N/A

 

[samsung]

I propose to put PA like these: Operaotr selfcheck and make a pen mark on the degated position, ......
or Put N/A

It's still a CA because you are taking action after a nonconformity has occurred. Furthermore, why it ("Operator self check and make a pen mark on the degated position,...") shouldn't be included in the WI that you proposed as CA?

 

[Boscoeee]

It's still a CA because you are taking action after a nonconformity has occurred. Furthermore, why it ("Operator self check and make a pen mark on the degated position,...") shouldn't be included in the WI that you proposed as CA?

An effective corrective action corrects a problem and prevents it from occurring again.

Training in itself is not a complete corrective action, there should be some additional action to prevent the same problem from occurring again such as a Poke Yoke or error proofing activity.

As indicated by other Covers, Preventive Actions are those action that actually prevent a nonconformity.

 

[samsung]

As indicated by other Covers, Preventive Actions are those action that actually prevent a nonconformity.

Agree but the CA too does the same thing, i.e. prevent a nonconformity. The actual difference between the two is that of terminology - recurring and occurring.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Agree but the CA too does the same thing, i.e. prevent a nonconformity. The actual difference between the two is that of terminology - recurring and occurring.

But a recurrence is an occurrence.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Pancho]

For my case is cosmetic defected, easy to identified the cause and CA,

The root cause is the operator poor workmanship when use knife cutting the gate

Hi Cqt,

A root cause is very seldom error, negligence or malice. Ask yourself why did the operator display poor workmanship? Maybe he wasn't properly trained. Then you must question why the training failed. Don't stop asking why until you find the weaknesses in your process that prevent your people from doing their job properly.

That is the root cause that Ajit is referring to.

CA: educate and training the operate the knife when degating by the revise WI

Ok, lets say the operator needs training. Why wasn't he trained properly the first time? What makes you think that he will be trained properly this time? You need to review your training process. If your training process is weak, retraining the operator is a correction, not a corrective action.

I propose to put PA like these: Operaotr selfcheck and make a pen mark on the degated position, ......
or Put N/A

Alternatively, lets say your root cause is that the denegated position is not being properly identified. That may call for a CA like what you describe: changing your process so that your operators always make a pen mark on the relevant position and thereby prevent subsequent errors.

Whether you fix your training process or your denegation process, in either or both cases, what you will be doing when improving your process is taking Corrective Action, not Preventive Action.

Corrective action prevents recurrence of a non-conformity. Preventive action prevents first ocurrence of a potential non-conformity. By the way, many here in the Cove think that the distinction between these two types of action is not worth them having different names and just leads to confusion (like you are experiencing). Whether or not they have different names, you dont take both in order to eliminate one root cause of a non-conformity.

Good luck!
Pancho