Corrective Action Process Review - Reducing the scope of our NRS

D

dominick

#1
I am currently reviewing our nonconformance reporting system (NRS)and believe our current system allows us to document a wide variety of issues (over 70 reason codes). Our system struggles under this deluge of info. and our resources cannot adequately address all these issues.

I am looking to reduce the scope of our NRS and was hoping for some advice on where to start. What considerations should factor in to the decision-making process when trying to scale down the number of issues we should be looking at as part of our corrective action process.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#2
You're saying you are 'coding' defect classes, correct? And you have identified 70 categories (classes) of defects?
 
D

dominick

#3
That is correct. These 70 classification codes are grouped under headings that include Packaging, Material, Documentation, Communications, Delevery, etc. The system provides evidence that we cannot effectively address all these issues and my team is looking to restrict the number of instances that can warrant a CAR. But we need to be careful we don't ignore fundamental signals that our system is not healthy. I am looking for thoughts we need to consider before defining what justifies a CAR. Thanks
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Staff member
Admin
#4
Hey Dominick,

You may want to try the old "80/20" rule. What you want to find are the Vital Few in the Trivial Many. As your program becomes more stable, you may elect to reintroduce some of those you may have been on the fence about removing. Your goal is to increase the efficiency, so your steps towards making it more user friendly should work out.

Additionally, when should a CAR be issued? Many folks don't know the answer, so when in doubt, issue a CAR (in reality as Barb B. says; train, train, train!). This is bad practice. It gives the program a bad taste. Pretty soon, no one reports trouble, because CARs they issued, some for good reason, some not, have gone unanswered for months! Why bother? The system bogs down because there are many useless CARs in the system, no hope for improvement. Again, the Vital Few need consideration. I would also say that "System Knowledge" needs to be taught (my own opinion here).

An example: a CAR is issued by an inside sales associate because someone called up, upset that a product they bought was missing a key piece of hardware. The system that produced the problem operates at 99.98% efficient. Was this a bonified reason to issue the CAR? Things to consider: Severity of the problem, Occurrence of the problem, point of Detection. Looks familiar? It is part of the FMEA risk rating system. Develop an RPN (risk priority number) and address those that require addressing. Again, the 80/20 rule applies. An organization has limited resources, and chasing a shadow won't get it done, only worse!

I inherited a CAR program that had issued 367 CARs in a 6 month period. I went through them all, classified them, and came to the conclusion only about 12 required corrective action. Needless to say, no one was filling out the CARs before, but they fill them out now. They only get them when they are needed.

I'll be out your neck of the woods most of next week, so let's meet at Honey Girls for lunch if you like.

Regards,

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Kevin Mader (edited 10 February 2000).]
 
M

Marloun

#5
Same problem we are seeing in our plant, Dominick. We have a lot of rejection modes here and it has been standardized already that we require a CAR in every valid rejection seen, specially if the reject was found during QA inspection. What we are currently doing is to segregate the more-serious ones (problems which are most likely to become a customer complaint) from the not-so-serious ones. We only give a disposition on the affected materials for the not-so-serious problems, while the more-serious ones will have to require a corrective and/or preventive action.

Rgds,
Marloun
 
J

Johnny Joe

#6
Hello to kevin and others.

I bumped into your forum while deleting old bookmarks off my browser. The caymen cove link still worked after 3 years!

More to topic. I took an interest in two things. #1. Dominic wants to get his data in a fine detail of 70 "things". To me he should keep after them. In any factory that i admire, i really marvel at their attention to detail. That is because they have gotten the easy 80% and were on the last 20%. To get the last 20% you really need detail from all areas, the more the better. Can you imagine the level of detail that is needed when you are working on the last 5% of your i- If you find a way to deal with the data please get back to me........which leads me to #2 which is Kevin's point about inheriting a +350 CAR back log (sounds like maintenance work order system). What's wrong with the +350 Car backlog is our inabilty to digest the data. I have seen the same thing in safety programs that want employees to report even potential hazards (ie air hose are similar in color to the floor. tripping hazard......i don't think the color is the problem). But aside from the pile of work, people....real live employees were reporting stuff. The problem was in what they were told to report or the resources allocated to handle the information or nobody knew what to expect. Maybe that situation arose because people thought the QA dept was a combination maintenance/IT dept!

I think Dominic's solution may lie in relaying the workforce that the CARS are only information on how the systems are working. You can't address all them unless you are "super dept" but you can use them to focus on the critical 12. Ask Kevin the impact of those 12 CARS he distilled from over 350. I would guess pretty good.

Maybe a suggestion: in the paper work it would be clearer if the 70 "things" there were put on say five sheets with only 10 - 15 codes. The writer might have to chose but would be much happier with a clearer and perhaps more specific paper. They could also be dept, site or even classification specific.

Education and delivering a clear understanding that the QA program collects data, analyses it and issues reports on the performance of "systems." It usually doesn't have the stuff to fix them. If these two things are up front I think you will be able to handle all the data.

Greg Jobe

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 16 February 2000).]
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Staff member
Admin
#7
Greg,

A nice job of explaining! Your suggestion to compile the data to make it more meaningful is a good one. Working on a QS is never ending. Each NC should be reviewed for its merit and dealt with in a way to make the QS more effective. By itself, it may be meaningless. Get a pile of "hose in the aisleway" notes, you might just want to investigate.

I am glad the shortcut to the Cove still worked. I am impressed with the popularity of Marc's growing creation!

Regards,

Kevin
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) A Key Process of the Quality Management System Dec 17... Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
I Corrective Action Tracking for Product and Process in the same system? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
D Seeking Corrective Action Process Examples Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
E Corrective Action Process Abuse Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
S Process Owner role in Problem Investigation/Corrective Action Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 9
J Corrective Action Process and Human Error ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
R Corrective Action Process has become a way to "annoy" other persons Nonconformance and Corrective Action 10
L Audit NC - Lack of Effective Corrective Action Process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
A Closing CARs (Corrective Action Requests) due to Process Change ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
T Six Sigma Project - The entire Corrective Action Process Six Sigma 3
P Nonconformance on the Corrective Action Process - Audit Finding Nonconformance and Corrective Action 13
Q RCA (Request for Corrective Action) on an Information Transaction Process Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 2
W Customer Complaints captured in CA (Corrective Action) Process Customer Complaints 12
H Warranty Analytics To Feed Corrective Action Process Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
H Corrective Action: When to update the Process FMEA (PFMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 15
A CPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Verification and Validation Process Steps Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
G Employees Not Using Corrective / Preventive Action Process Procedure Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
D Corrective and preventive action, process monitoring ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
V No "Process Owner" for the Control Plan - Who to cite in a corrective action? FMEA and Control Plans 10
F Multi-Level CA (corrective action) Process? Levels of investigation, reply deadline Nonconformance and Corrective Action 4
B CAR/PAR (Corrective Action / Preventive Action) process flow - Seeking example Nonconformance and Corrective Action 7
J GM 5 Whys Corrective Action Process - Is anyone familiar with this 'format'? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 17
R Updated Process FMEA: How much detail? Closure of an External Corrective Action FMEA and Control Plans 3
J Supplier Corrective Action: Are you requiring suppliers to follow a defined process? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
Q Process Correction vs. Corrective Action - Failure to React when Out of Control Nonconformance and Corrective Action 8
S Process FMEA (PFMEA) RPN Corrective Action Plan FMEA and Control Plans 6
P Compaq's 14D Corrective Action Process Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
L Sanctioned format for the Chrysler 7 Step Corrective Action Process Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
Marc True root cause in a corrective action process - How do you know? Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 35
R Non conformance (NC) or Corrective & Preventive action (CAPA) CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 7
D Corrective Action Timing - IATF CB Deadline IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
R AS 9100D - Containment and Corrective action AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
P Customer Corrective Action Requests in OASIS? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
C Corrective action for failure in documents control ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
G Assignable cause/corrective action list for SPC Software Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
S Can we provide training plan as corrective action for IATF 16949 Non conformity? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
P Corrective Action Response for Missed bumps on brake press Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
B Stakeholder Initiated Corrective and Preventive Action Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
I When exactly can a corrective action be closed? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
L What to do if a Corrective Action requires several extensions Nonconformance and Corrective Action 7
qualprod Best criteria to measure Corrective Action effectiveness - Poor Maintenance ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
Ashok sunder Is it possible to reduce Risk likelihood and impact Post control Ranking after corrective action taken for risk? FMEA and Control Plans 1
E CAR (Corrective Action Report) with questionable Root Cause ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
B How to reply NCR on ineffectiveness of corrective action during IATF external audit? This is repeated issue whereby some mistake was done. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
I AS9100D Non-conformance for 10.2.1 b 2 and 10.2.1. b 3 e and f - Corrective Action AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
Ashok sunder Is it possible to reduce FMEA Occurrence and Detection Ranking after corrective action taken for customer complaints? FMEA and Control Plans 6
R CIP (Corrective Action) requirements - ISO 9001 clause 10.2 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
E CAR (Corrective Action Request) Due Dates ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
E Corrective Action or Customer Complaint ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 16
J If Corrective and Preventive Action were truly Effective IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom