Re: Distinction between correction and corrective action
In our company Change Request (we call it Discrepancy Report) directs a CORRECTION. That is fixing the specific bug in our SW product.
Please make a distinction between 'correction' and
CORRECTIVE ACTION which may or may not be started (based on Root Cause Analysis) to change the process (procedures, work instructions, forms) so that similar causes would not produce new similar bugs in future versions.
PREVENTIVE ACTION may be started if we notice e.g. statistically that some type of bug is repeating, or that we do continually fixes to same part of code.
Lifecycle of a non conformance (whether it be software problem, hardware problem, process problem)
Non conformance noted (all details available at time [when, where, who, what etc etc] recorded)
Correction put in place, immediate fix e.g. correct software installed, new part fitted etc etc
Investigation (including impact analysis - see earlier post) record finding of investigation and all data e.g. trend analysis, pareto, cause and effect etc etc
Root Cause identified from analysis - process not followed, training, process incomplete etc etc
CA proposed - Action that will prevent recurrence, process changed, training given, CCP (crittical control point) put in place, process introduced etc etc
CA Agreed - proposal reviewed along with investigation and findings by cross functional team
CA implemented - CA owner implements according to plan and by agreed date
Effectivity Check assigned - criteria put in place to check the CA has been effective, e.g. after 2 months check NC database for similar (do another trend) basically assign criteria for pass e.g. no further occurences = pass and time span required before check
As an easy example
The Quality Train 007 fails to stop at complianceville over shooting station by 300 metres on the 18 Feb 08 at 15:49 GMT
Correction - replace brakes on Quality Train 007
Investigation; shows that service of brakes is due every 12 months, 007 was serviced Aug 07 (approx 6 months ago), but investigation has shown that the Quality Train Fleet (if right word for a group of trains) has doubled its operation now running twice as much since Sept 07. Trending shows this is first occurence.
CA - Whole fleet of Quality Trains to have brakes serviced/replaced after 4 months. check reveals that 3 other Quality Trains will require replacements with this new regime. Implement change to PMM (Preventive Maintenance Manual) to change brakes after 4 months, update all schedules (10 trains affected 001 - 010). Implement change to operation of train schedules so if reduced or increased service requirements are considered - additional box to be added to request form that requires completion prior to agreement of change to operation.
Effectivity - Check after 4 months that schedule is being followed and no further instances of failed stopping has occurred.
Equally the investigation for this could have shown that there was a supplier change to save money on train brakes and the failure happened after this... I guess what I am saying is that only with thorough/good investigation can determine root cause and implement (via change) effective CA's
hope this clarifies a little
cheers Nigel
