Big Jim & Ajit,
I am not disputing the definitions or the type of activities associated with what are commonly called corrective & preventive actions, just the need to categorize them. Below is an excerpt from my posting in the another forum that I have posted the link to:
"My position on clasifying findings is that it is a waste of time and a futile exercise, and I'll try to explain why (I will need you to forget what you know about corrective and preventive actions for a minute, though). Any action that an organization takes is an improvement action, unless it is sabotaje or a mistake (remember mistake proofin' in corrective actions!). Therefore, it makes no difference what triggers the need or perceived need to take action as long as it results in improvement. I also believe that most value added is derived from treating all actions equally with regard to root cause analysis and/or anticipating the effects of the actions to be taken. Just because you see a small symptom it does not mean that you don't have a fundamental cause lurking around (remember the iceberg concept). Not doing a root cause analysis means that you do not identify the cause therefore you cannot verify if your actions addressed it and if they are effective (a.k.a. 'band-aid syndrome' that is all so common). In a nutshell, don't waste time categorizing the reason for taking actions, instead spend some time to analyze what actions could have the largest positive impact on the organization and tackle those first.
Now my position might seem at odds with the traditional thinking and difficult to sell. However, always talk money to the executive management, engineering to engineers, less work and an easier job (and rework) to the operators, then you'll be successful. I encoutered difficulties when implementing this approach but nothing but positive results after. I know organizations that do not care anymore if anything is called a major or minor or an opportunity/observation; the question they ask is "How is me taking action going to impact my organization?" and that is where the auditor has to justify the value added of a finding."
Also, if we are to split hairs on requirements, the ISO 9001 standard and all other standards based on it do not 'require' corrective and preventive actions but that the organizations take ACTIONS to eliminate/prevent the cause of existing/potential nonconformities. All these actions should lead to improvement within the organization, which is part of the intent of the standard.
I am not asking that you agree or disagree with my position, just to give it some thought. The least you'll derive from this is stimulation of the brain cells.
I am not disputing the definitions or the type of activities associated with what are commonly called corrective & preventive actions, just the need to categorize them. Below is an excerpt from my posting in the another forum that I have posted the link to:
"My position on clasifying findings is that it is a waste of time and a futile exercise, and I'll try to explain why (I will need you to forget what you know about corrective and preventive actions for a minute, though). Any action that an organization takes is an improvement action, unless it is sabotaje or a mistake (remember mistake proofin' in corrective actions!). Therefore, it makes no difference what triggers the need or perceived need to take action as long as it results in improvement. I also believe that most value added is derived from treating all actions equally with regard to root cause analysis and/or anticipating the effects of the actions to be taken. Just because you see a small symptom it does not mean that you don't have a fundamental cause lurking around (remember the iceberg concept). Not doing a root cause analysis means that you do not identify the cause therefore you cannot verify if your actions addressed it and if they are effective (a.k.a. 'band-aid syndrome' that is all so common). In a nutshell, don't waste time categorizing the reason for taking actions, instead spend some time to analyze what actions could have the largest positive impact on the organization and tackle those first.
Now my position might seem at odds with the traditional thinking and difficult to sell. However, always talk money to the executive management, engineering to engineers, less work and an easier job (and rework) to the operators, then you'll be successful. I encoutered difficulties when implementing this approach but nothing but positive results after. I know organizations that do not care anymore if anything is called a major or minor or an opportunity/observation; the question they ask is "How is me taking action going to impact my organization?" and that is where the auditor has to justify the value added of a finding."
Also, if we are to split hairs on requirements, the ISO 9001 standard and all other standards based on it do not 'require' corrective and preventive actions but that the organizations take ACTIONS to eliminate/prevent the cause of existing/potential nonconformities. All these actions should lead to improvement within the organization, which is part of the intent of the standard.
I am not asking that you agree or disagree with my position, just to give it some thought. The least you'll derive from this is stimulation of the brain cells.
In the spirit of discussion a few points to consider.
I have seen many cases where a company has drifted away from seperation of Corrective Actions as required in 8.5.2 from Preventive Actions as required in 8.5.3. They have mixed them to the point that their only Preventive Action activity is what they do to prevent recurrance, which is still part of Corrective Action. They have completely drifted away from dealing with handling potential nonconformities to prevent their occurrance, which is Preventive Action. What you suggest is on thin ice here.
Off topic from the thrust of this thread is the issue about catagorizing or classifying nonconformances into major and minor nonconformances. I have no problem with companies handling internally found nonconformances in that manner. There is nothing in the standard that requires such classifications. When you are dealing with CB audits though, that is another matter. The CB auditor needs to follow the direction of his CB. The CB wants to know immediately when a serious problem is found during an audit, and calling in all major nonconformances is an effective way to handle it.
