Corrective Action and Preventive Action - Where do I Start?

[jwendt2]

CAPA- Where to Start

Ok, a little background first. I am an IT guy (formailly a process engineer)who primarily works on Manufacturing Execution Applications (MES). I am trying to put together a vision for our companies CAPA program. Right now we have three different wings of our quality organization pursuing this effor independently. One wing is looking at the customer complaint side. This side primarily utilizes data from a customer compaint database to analyze first 60 day complaints and compiles a top ten list. The second wing looks at supplier quality issues including non-conforming material issues. This wing looks at day-to-day supplier issues and strategic sourcing issues. The last wing is the lean manufacturing orgainization looking at process compliance, metric compliance (bowling charts) and safety compliance. Everyone seems to agree that we need a common system however I am struggling on how to document/determine what that system is. The forums have been very usefull for getting some insite on things like the 8D processes however it looks like most of the forum participants are from small to mid size companies. We are a 2Bil manufacturer. Any experience/thoughts on how to accomplish this. Are people standaridizing on one CAPA workflow for every type of CAPA (ie Supplier issues vs. process issues) or do you have different process flows for each type of CAPA? Also, do your companies typically have an "incident" reporting system that is a one to many relationship to a "corrective action" or do you typically just track corrective actions. How does the NCM (non-conforming material) tracking system relate to your corrective action system? Anyone else have an MES system that sits below their ERP that is resposible for the CAPA tracking? Sorry for the rambling...

John

 

[CarolX]

Hi John and Welcome to the Cove ,


Well, first off...don't worry about the rambling...we all do it to some degree or another.

Second...I invite you to try the search function found at the top of each page...you will find a wealth of info there.

Thirdly - many companies run three systems as you describe. I work for a small sheet metal fabricator. We have one system for suppliers, another for internal issues, and a third for customer complaints. I think you may find this is the norm. The idea may be, how can you tie all three together.

CarolX

 

[M Greenaway]

Well I utilise the 8D format for all CA/PA, from customer complaints, internal rejects, supplier rejects, and internal audit findings.

All go into the same Access database, and the three 'product' CA's use the same fault analysis codes.

The Access (and hard copy) forms are slightly different for different header information, and they sit in seperate tables in the database, and are reported seperately.

 

[Cathy]

Hi John,

CarolX is right you can run three systems easily. I have worked for a number of mutli-national corps. and now I am in a mid size business but the basics are exactly the same.

When you start tying them together you are making it more complicated and every department is going to want things done their own way. The best way to succeed is to keep it simple!

If they want to share information they should be doing this at department meetings or on email or even set up a forum on the intranet if you have one. They should not be pushing this onto IT.

You can also give the different quality functions access to the other areas database.This will allow good communication of issues that have been raised.

As long as they can keep records, track progress and sign off on issue close outs they should be happy.

Hope this helps!

Cathy

 

[tarang]

Hi John,

As said by Cathy, keeping it separatly would also work. the lesser complications u have the easier it'll b for u to ensure that CA/PA are actually being implemented and are really effective. as far as the overlapping issues are concerned, departmental meetings are the best way to ensure that the info is communicated to one and all.

Tying up all the 3 segments would not necessarily ensure that the actual info is "communicated" and thus the actual worth of CA/PA would b reduced and may even b null!

 

[Randy Stewart]

John,
I've found that trying to run these together can be a detriment to the sytem itself. What I've found is by combining the Continuous Improvement program with the PA system, the company has a better understanding of what each is and how they function. Corrective Action and Problem Solving are reactive measures, Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement take more planning and implementation. A great deal of PA & CI take place on a daily basis that no one sees or reports, thus the company doesn't get "credit" during an audit. As an example - piping heat from the air compressor into the warehouse for additional heat and cost savings. To our maintenance people it was a no brainer, to our environmental people it was a gold mine but it wasn't documented until a review of our objectives and targets was done.

 

[jwendt2]

Well I utilise the 8D format for all CA/PA, from customer complaints, internal rejects, supplier rejects, and internal audit findings.

All go into the same Access database, and the three 'product' CA's use the same fault analysis codes.

The Access (and hard copy) forms are slightly different for different header information, and they sit in seperate tables in the database, and are reported seperately.

Can you provide me some additional detail on what you mean by the same fault analysis codes? Which step in the 8D are you capturing those codes? Could you provide some examples?

Thanks to everyone else for their comments as well!!

John