Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA) - A Definitive Discussion

[Don Winton]

Everything must have a price tag on it to be valid. What hooey!

Yea, Kevin. I agree. If only most understood that most things do have a price. They just do not realize it. That particular line from Sun-Tzu I used a lot at a previous employer in Florida. I learned then that in order to ‘win’ a discussion, you must be able to choose the time and place and circumstance in which to discuss it. Sun-Tzu came in real handy for that. As it turned out, I was fighting a loosing battle from the BEGINNING. The company was running on the bottom line because the parent was trying to sell it. As it turns out, that particular company was sold and now no longer exists. Really sucks.

When an organization begins to play this wishy-washy game, integrity is lost and renders all you have done useless and invalid.

Unfortunately, honor seems lost on most modern types. In order to be effective in battle, honor, above all else, must be followed. Therefore, when ‘wishy-washy’ comes into the picture, any preconceptions of honor are lost. ‘Will business ever figure out that most of the costs are in fact, unknowable?’ Yes, they are. The problem is, many do not know how to determine these costs.

So as one, there may be little you can do. But as an organization, the odds get better.

Ain’t it the truth.

Regards,
Don

 

[Don Winton]

Is this how management wishes to manage, by hard dollars alone? Foolishness!

Foolishness? Agreed. Is this how? Seen it all to often, sadly.

Challenge a decision? Of course, so long as your challenge is in the best interests of everyone involved, and the organization, or to determine if the decision is well thought out.

Agreed. But also: “One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious.” Sun-Tzu

Regards,
Don

 

[Kevin Mader]

Don,

Interesting point : " As it turned out, I was fighting a loosing battle from the BEGINNING. The company was running on the bottom line because the parent was trying to sell it. As it turns out, that particular company was sold and now no longer exists. Really sucks." Running the bottom line, or as I term it, the game of "fluff the numbers". Do nothing to improve the quality of product, the system by which it was produced, and sell no more than the year before. Can you show this to the stockholder? No. The holder already expects to make a profit, can't bare the down side. So, in come the Financier's with solutions to inflate the numbers to give the illusion of success (stop right there, why the need for smoke and mirrors?). Let's load a bunch of trucks, fill them with product, show on the books the product is sold, ship it out, take it back eventually and put it back in the books as usable inventory. Wait three months, and do it again. Bravo. What a plan. Just think, ship out a little more each quarter, and show the holder a positive yearly trend. Bottom line: no improvement! Nothing new here I know, but I mention it again anyway.

Sad, you had the ability to improve a bad situation, perhaps help save a sinking ship. But the powers that be (or had been) had other ideas. Well, I hope the organization you are with today realize your present commitment and future potential. And perhaps you have a bit of job satisfaction to go along with that? Now how did we get here.......oh yeah, CA and PA. Should end this on a good note. Let's see......how about Risk Analysis. Anyone using this process as part of their PA program (I know you are Don)?

Back to the group...

 

[John C]

I thought we had killed this prevention/correction issue but I can see thing is back on it’s feet again. Need give it the other barrel;
Batman; You say you predict a part will fail. Are you a medium? Presumably not. Do you predict that good parts, within their MTBF, will fail? I don’t think so. So your prediction has to be formed on the basis of some observed defect. So you take corrective action and remove that defect. It is corrective, not preventive. The reason you see preventive and corrective as being so close as to be hardly distinguishable is that you are not differentiating between cause and effect. We are dealing with causes.
Don, Kim, Kevin; Removing oily rags is not preventive, it is corrective. The oily rags are the defect so you correct it.
Kim, You say that preventive action prevents an occurance. But we are not talking about putting out fires. That’s too late - the fireman will do that. We are talking about discovering and dealing with causes. Removing the cause is corrective. Always corrective.
So, if all dealing with nonconformities is corrective, you can only take preventive action before you find nonconformities. Therefore preventive action involves detection.
Don’t take my word for it. Read 4.14.3 “procedures for preventive action shall include......detect...potential causes’. The word ‘detect’ is the only uncommon factor between 4.14.2 and 4.14.3.

 

[Batman]

No arguement from me, John. I speak better than I type. One of my greatest tests in life is teaching causes v effects. Your text indicates to me you have seen the same thing, the mixing of causes and effects.

Absolutely removing causes is corrective, as in 4.14.2. However, in 4.14.3, preventive actions are to eliminate potential causes of nonconformances. I probably did not say it well, and probably won't again, but that mention of 'potential' is what I meant about predicting. It hasn't happened yet. I mentioned semantics before, and I guess I am guilty of it, too. I try to keep it simple, as we can see just from this group there is a diversity of approaches to what I think is in fact the correct end result - part of the overall continuous improvement effort with respect to 4.14.

The fact that there are obvious professionals here discussing their differences is why I try to simplify these concepts when teaching. FMEA's are a good place to get causes and effects mixed. Most of our suppliers who perform FMEA's have mixed causes and effects.

Frankly, I haven't seen much here in this post that would pose a detriment to any company. I think that doing your best to apply corrective actions and preventive actions in any fashion is better than not doing it at all, even if we differ in a precise definition.

No, I'm not a medium by profession, just an apprentice. But, I think if you look closely, you may see a couple of wizards having a good time.

 

[Don Winton]

Yea, this thing never seems to die.

Don, Kim, Kevin; Removing oily rags is not preventive, it is corrective.

John,

I agree in part. In the “Ideal” world, the oily rags would not have appeared in the first place. My POINT was to show that OBSERVATION is the key, not what PEOPLE think the answer is. IMHO, there is no perfect answer. Each organization must choose this.

But we are not talking about putting out fires.

Deming said that putting out fires is not improvement. Preventing fires is improvement. After all, stopping the fire after it has started is not improvement, preventing the fire BEFORE it has started is the KEY.

In other words, I agree with most of what was said.

Regards,
Don

 

[Marc]

You say you predict a part will fail. Are you a medium? Presumably not. Do you predict that good parts, within their MTBF, will fail? I don’t think so. So your prediction has to be formed on the basis of some observed defect. So you take corrective action and remove that defect. It is corrective, not preventive.

Ummm, well, sorta. Situation: Current production. We are in a 'team' meeting of production staff. We review certain process data and see some patterns. We see no evidence of a 'defect', only data which we review every meeting. We decide that it is evident first shift production is not as efficient as second shift. Here, with NO DEFECT PRESENT, we PREDICT there is a difference which, if we can identify cause, may allow us to improve first shift through-put. We have acted on other issues and decide to take on this issue. We form a team, investigate, find th cause and act. We do not have to be 'mediums' to predict. In fact, we all do it every day.

4.14.3 b cites measureables and says you must look at this data and analyze it. Note that it cites "...appropriate sources of information such as processes and work operations..." which is current production. This means you must make PREDICTIONS based upon the data at hand. There does not at all have to be a specific problem (how do we define PROBLEM?) or defect to make a prediction and there is no bearing on the planning stage - we are in production and have been for a year.

The latest ISO9001:2000 draft is reworded and 8.4.2 starts out to say:
"The organization shall establish a process for eliminating the causes of potential nonconformities to prevent occurrence."

I take "...eliminating the causes of potential nonconformities to prevent occurrence." to indicate that no problem or defect has yet to occurred.

Kim, You say that preventive action prevents an occurance. But we are not talking about putting out fires.

Welllll - you are mixing this up, maybe. There is no fire yet which is why it appears to be preventive (we all know about oily rags and spontaneous combustion). The problem is in part due to the example. If you spot oily rags and it is a 'problem' (safety issue), it is akin to a defect and your reaction will be corrective.

I stick with my earlier 'definition':

Corrective Action is a Response to an observed problem / defect.

Preventive Action is Predictive (a problem *may* occur based upon analysis of data).

You say:

So, if all dealing with nonconformities is corrective, you can only take preventive action before you find nonconformities. Therefore preventive action involves detection.

Nope - I disagree. Preventive action does not involve detection. To detect something there has to be something (a defect?) to detect. If it hasn't happened yet, you can't detect it. This is precisely why I say it is predictive in nature.

And Preventive Action is a big part of Continuous Improvement. I also see Preventive Action as a current production issue unrelated to the planning / design phase.

Last - if you want to say that in preventive action you are REACTING, it is a reaction to data. I see this data. It tells me a problem might occur (I am PREDICTING as no problem has yet actually occurred - I just believe, based upon my background and experience, that there is a 'hole in the system' so to speak). In this sense, yes - both are reactions. But you are also reacting to data and experiences in the FMEA stage. So - "How do you define the word 'reaction'?" and when do you use it?

Nuff said here - I'm in a hotel in NY and I gotta go beddy bye. Long day tomorrow.

 

[barb butrym]

i am with you Marc.....you are right on....

 

[Durval]

I understand the fundamental tool for corrective action is cause analysis. In order to remove causes it is necessary to change the process. The changes should prevent falures to happen again in the future. Corrective action is triggered by an event in the operation of a process, but it causes us to review process and product design.

In preventive action, we are dealing with things that didn't happen yet. The fundamental tools are PDPC (process decision program chart) and FMEA. Thus preventive action is triggered while the product and/or process are in their design phase.

 

[John LeBlanc]

Whew! What's that ol' saying about being careful what you ask for...you just might get it! The discussion thread has gotten a little deep for this poor soul, and (to my inexperienced eye) still remains murky. I guess that I was hopeful for a clear-cut distinction between Corrective & Preventive, but it seems to be very subjective, based upon the responses from the professionals.
We are still on the path of correcting what we find to be wrong, then (if we can) built that corrective into our process to act as a preventive against that happening again in the future.
I do agree with Batman's comment about doing your best with corrective and preventive being better than not doing it at all, and our group can point to efforts in this direction.