Multi-Level CA (corrective action) Process? Levels of investigation, reply deadline

[fuzzy]

First time starting a thread so please be gentle ... I am planning to modify our CA / PA system soon and am wondering if anybody divides their system into kinda A/B levels of investigation / reply deadline / validation where the A level item require the most robust root cause analysis (Five whys, fishbone), short reply deadlines, hard evidence with an intensive validation effort (closeout team?)? For B level issues (IA Audit OFI's , scrap below x $'s) the requirements would be less involved. Any of you cover's slicing your pie differently?

 

[Jim Wynne]

First time starting a thread so please be gentle ... I am planning to modify our CA / PA system soon and am wondering if anybody divides their system into kinda A/B levels of investigation / reply deadline / validation where the A level item require the most robust root cause analysis (Five whys, fishbone), short reply deadlines, hard evidence with an intensive validation effort (closeout team?)? For B level issues (IA Audit OFI's , scrap below x $'s) the requirements would be less involved. Any of you cover's slicing your pie differently?

The effort required to close a CAR should be inherent in the problem, not dictated by presuppositions. In other words, the requirements should be uniform across the board, and if there's a simple solution, there won't be any need to get out the big guns.

 

[Howard Atkins]

In a lot of cases in practice people talk about Corrective action but really mean Correction.
To prevent the system becoming blocked there are some criteria I would use to weed out the simple matters that the containment and correction is enough. Cost, repeaters, etc.
In effect the weight of the non conformancy determines if you are going to enter it into the system.

This what the standard asks for

a) reviewing nonconformities (including customer complaints),
b) determining the causes of nonconformities,
c) evaluating the need for action to ensure that nonconformities do not recur,(my empasis)
d) determining and implementing action needed,

There is no need to implement action in every case.

 

[bpritts]

One of my clients has a 2-level system.

The procedure specifies that:

The first level includes any scrap writeoff or rework.
This level requires a record of disposition only, altho mgt may
do more-- see below.


Second level includes any customer concern or internal audit failure.
This requires the full deal of root cause determination and
corrective/systemic action.

Management can and does "promote" a level 1 item to a level 2,
based on judgement - size of issue, risk of leaking out to the customer,
dollars, recurrences, etc. There is also a semi-annual review of scrap
with a pareto analysis; a few of the top scrap items get "promoted"
to level 2. This was originally done to meet the QS-9000 requirement
for a "prioritized plan for reduction of nonconforming material".


This seems to work pretty well. There are lots of onesy-twosie issues
in the level 1's. When we tried to do a "corrective action", it ended up
a pencilwhipping exercise. That's why we changed the system to eliminate
the true "corrective" aspects of the routine level 1's.

Regards,
Brad

 

[fuzzy]

That's what I'm thinkin...

Bpritts, thank you. That's the draft of the system I was toying with...just have to draw my boundaries for each level in a general enuff way to allow the system some flexibility, yet be specific enough to satisfy some stakeholders who tend to require black / white definitions.