Globalization of corrective action and follow up

Lee.ck.2

Registered
Is there a requirement anywhere for that? Obviously you want to apply lessons learned as widely as possible but if you don't exercise care and want to turn corrective actions in one specific issue as preventive actions everywhere else, you are seeking mission impossible.

Is this "globalization" of corrective actions something being advised by a "consultant"?
I am being dinged for failure of corrective actions due to missing a similar process is a different department...I had tunnel vision in the involved department.
 

Lee.ck.2

Registered
No applying the changes from the original CA to other products or processes is not required. But I've always added a statement in the 8D saying we reviewed similar product and what was decided. Sometimes we made changes to very similar parts for the same customer. Often the systemic changes would apply to similar parts automatically. But I always had a statement addressing item d.
Auditor wrote a major nonconformance for not changing a similar area in a different department
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
Is this an internal auditor or external auditor?

to address the actual question: why do you have to close the CA before effectiveness is proven?

There is NO standard that requires it. The standards require effective corrective action in a timely manner. There is no definition of ‘timely’.

We have addressed this misunderstanding many times here. The bottom line is that your CA should stay open until it has completed ALL steps. Thre are some that want to force a closure in the mistaken belief that it will ‘hurry up’ the process. All that accomplishes is shrotcuttign the. Process and results in ineffective CAs. The solution that works in my experience is to record and use completion dates for each step. Sometimes it make sense to ask for a first response and/or containment action date to be within 5, 10 days or 30 days depending on the severity of the nonconformance. But the actual root cause, corrective action decision, implementation and effectiveness will be dependent on the nature of the nonconformance. Instead of looking for set dates the system should look for action and progress…
 

John Predmore

Trusted Information Resource
I am at a loss of how do you show evidence and closure without leaving the CA open

One solution I have used to expeditiously close an 8D while lingering action items are open, is to transfer the open action items on to someone else's list. Not just someone, but a committee with authority to monitor and assign resource and track the action item to completion. For example, once an action item becomes an ECR in our Engineering Change Control system, it might take 12 months to fully implement a tooling change which requires customer approval, but the authority and the project management to do that is outside the scope of the problem investigation/correction team. Another suitable spot is an improvement project if there is an Improvement Project authority that won't let the idea die on the vine.
 

Bran

Involved In Discussions
While it may not be a formal requirement during an RCA to perform read across, it is at least a strong expectation. Below is a snip from the IATF NC CARA tool. With every CAR issued during an IATF audit, a response to the below read across questions is not optional.

Answering 'yes' to the read across question would presumably require a user to provide evidence or a statement of how the identified risks are mitigated in any similar process or products.

Personally, I haven't tried answering 'yes' and not provided evidence that the other similar processes/products also had their risks addressed. I would assume any auditor worth their weight would question why, if the read across identified the issue exists in another area, nothing is being done to address it systemically.

Globalization of corrective action and follow up
 

Bran

Involved In Discussions
One solution I have used to expeditiously close an 8D while lingering action items are open, is to transfer the open action items on to someone else's list. Not just someone, but a committee with authority to monitor and assign resource and track the action item to completion.
Be careful with this because you can end up with problems if CARs are being closed without having completed actions that have addressed the root cause(s). Here's some wording I have used:

Some CAR action plans may contain larger, more “sustainable”, continuous improvement actions that require capital or other additional resources that are not immediately available. (These actions typically fall under <higher level> Error-Proofing categories.) Where a continuous improvement action has been included within an action plan, and other actions within the action plan already fully address the root cause, completion of these continuous improvement actions are not required for CAR closure.

For example, once an action item becomes an ECR in our Engineering Change Control system, it might take 12 months to fully implement a tooling change which requires customer approval, but the authority and the project management to do that is outside the scope of the problem investigation/correction team.

As you point out, CARs frequently generate not only actions but larger projects that take engineering, project management, or IT resources to complete. In my experience it is very difficult to convince [engineering or IT] management to prioritize these types of projects, especially when lower level administrative controls are already checking the box. These groups are typically very thin on resources, and when they're not firefighting, their existing resource time is working on a priority project backlog that is already too long to ever get completed...

This sounds good on paper but is very difficult to implement effectively within some organizations.
 

PlasticForCars

Registered
I was dinged in an audit in a particular department. All corrective action was concentrated on that department. I had tunnel vision. This year a separate department had a similar process. I am now dinged for failure of effectiveness of CA.
I am at a loss of how do you show evidence and closure without leaving the CA open
you can always classify it as a failure to consider similar issues (10.2.3 as seen above from Johnnymo62). This will be a separate but new item. For future instances, it may be good to have a 2 layer closure--immediate countermeasure to correct in the area and a plan for long-term correction everywhere to close the finding, and re-audit the area after the long-term plan is implemented to confirm there is no more systemic issue. If the issue persists, open a new finding to keep items more siloed.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
The 8D format actually contains all of those steps. In a single ‘document’ you can keep track and document your actions and timelines. I would simply report the ‘completion’ of each step and final closure happened after all steps were completed or marked and justified as not applicable.

I also have not relied solely on the corrective action team to ensure that all steps are completed. Managemetn is responsible for the effective completion of each warranted step. When this process crosses organizational boundaries the management team ensures successful completion led by QA. This is why it is called a quality management system
 
Top Bottom