Paragraph 4.14.3 b) - When is a Preventive Action required?

CarolX

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#1
Can someone help me with this section of the standard. I am confused as to many things.
Example:

Paragraph 4.14.3 b) states "determination of the steps needed to deal with any problems requiring preventive action"

My definition of "preventive" was to take action before a problem occurred. I.E.: Maintainence on equipment, calibration of gages, inspection of raw material before use are some of my examples of preventive actions. Taking action to "deal with any problems" is corrective action in my book.

What am I missing here - any help????

Thanks,

CarolX
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
J

Jim Biz

#2
Here's a place to start. Don't be worried about confusion with this one!!

http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum31/HTML/000023.html

If you are familliar with D-FMEA or P-FMEA conducted Prior to a problem occuring and/or 8D 5Y after a reported defect occurance... it will help give you a better idea of the prevent - correct dilema..

Regards
Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim Biz (edited 20 July 2000).]
 

CarolX

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#3
WOUCH - I can see I am not the only one to ever have problems with this one. Thanks for the lead - truly appreciated.

I will continue to hash through this one - should be fun (NOT)!

Regards,
CarolX
 
B

Bryan

#4
Preventive Action or Not

The may be straight forward, but we have had some discussion here so I wanted a outside opinion for clarification.

Example: Parts are rejected from the mfg floor for a nonconformance, some problem with them. Its not a serious trend right now, the rejection of this part. The question would be, Can a Preventive Action be written to have this part that remains in stock, checked and if necessary rejected, so no more are issued to the floor to prevent further rejects which slows production??
Or is this a case that a CAR should be written ??

Thank you for your input
Bryan
 
J

Jim Biz

#5
Just IMHO:
I'd call it corrective: it already happened wether or not it got shipped out or not it was not prevented before it occured.... if/when there are other similar products that may show the same condition in the future then I'd call those actions preventative.

Guess I'm operating on the assumption that the error in reality-found-you or occured prior to a preventative application in place ... that's corrective - any action taken prior to an actual error occuring is preventative

Regards
Jim
 
A

Al Dyer

#6
Jim,

Agree that this instance is a corrective action.

Shouldn't the initial corrective action also identify like proceeses/products that could be affected and therefore corrected?

If the same problem occurs again in the like process that has been corrected, wouldn't that then become another corrective action and open up the effectiveness of the original corrective action.

I think we are on the same wave length:

Corrective Action - Occurred
Preventive Action - Could Occur (FMEA?)
Continuous Improvement - All's well, let's improve it

ASD...
 
D

D.Scott

#7
I sure don't want to get hung up on semantics here and basiclly I agree with Al but I don't think his definitions go far enough to seperate Prevention and Continuous Improvement. To be a Prevention, it must have the same "all's well" characteristic as the C/I. To me the big difference is that the true Prevention has no measureable or goal (other than 0 which has been the state all along - otherwise you would be doing a C/A). There is never an occurance if the Prevention is successful. On the other hand, every C/I has a goal and a measureable (or else it would be called a "Continuous Status-Quo").
Just my opinion but it seems to make life easier here in tracking and the auditors have never raised an objection.
Dave
 
A

Al Dyer

#8
Originally posted by D.Scott:
I sure don't want to get hung up on semantics here and basiclly I agree with Al but I don't think his definitions go far enough to seperate Prevention and Continuous Improvement. To be a Prevention, it must have the same "all's well" characteristic as the C/I. To me the big difference is that the true Prevention has no measureable or goal (other than 0 which has been the state all along - otherwise you would be doing a C/A). There is never an occurance if the Prevention is successful. On the other hand, every C/I has a goal and a measureable (or else it would be called a "Continuous Status-Quo").
Just my opinion but it seems to make life easier here in tracking and the auditors have never raised an objection.
Dave
Dave,

I agree, I did not go far enough into the thought process behind my comment. Here goes,

A hypothetical situation #1:

I use FMEA review and prioritize the RPN's for preventive action projects.

Do I have a measurable? Yes, the reduced RPN (if successful)

Do I gave a goal? Yes, the lowest RPN possible.

Can I have an RPN of "0"? Common sense says no, no process is perfect.

Hypothetical #2:

I am running a daily chart on out internal PPM. The goal (limit) is 25.

1: My daily reading for the last month show I am consistently running in a range of 5-10 PPM. I say, people we can do better. Let's start a "continuous improvement" project.

2: Same as month 1 (5-10 PPM). At the start of month 2 we start to see the daily PPM's creeping up towards 13-18. I say, people, let's start a "preventive action" project. My reasoning is that we are within our goals but we want to prevent the PPM from going any higher.

3: Same as month 1 (5-10 PPM. I look at yesterdays data and see that the PPM is at 50. I say, people, shut down the process and begin a "corrective action" immediately!

I think any auditor worth their salt will see that there is a fine line between preventive action and continuous improvement. If a company documents that they are acting upon their defined measurables and improving their processes and systems there should be little discussion between the fine line between the 2 activities.

ASD...
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#9
Originally posted by Al Dyer:

Jim,

Agree that this instance is a corrective action.

Shouldn't the initial corrective action also identify like proceeses/products that could be affected and therefore corrected?

If the same problem occurs again in the like process that has been corrected, wouldn't that then become another corrective action and open up the effectiveness of the original corrective action.

I think we are on the same wave length:

Corrective Action - Occurred
Preventive Action - Could Occur (FMEA?)
Continuous Improvement - All's well, let's improve it...
Also see: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3179

If your question is:
->The question would be, Can a Preventive Action be written
->to have this part that remains in stock, checked and if
->necessary rejected, so no more are issued to the floor to
->prevent further rejects which slows production??

In so far as whether or not to request a corrective action in this case you have to look at things holistically. If you got bad parts in and it is a rare case - never happened before or maybe it happened last year but a different supplier (or maybe even the same supplier) - and it's not serious (such as it doesn't shut down your line or something) then you probably will not want to ask for a CA. Use common sense. Your system should allow you to write up a nonconformance report which will trigger containment (which would include a stock purge) without requiring a corrective action.

Corrective actions take time and cost money. You ought to have a good reason for one before you request one.

The logic ruling is:
Every corrective action is the result of a nonconformance but not every nonconformance requires a corrective action unless your system was designed so tight it's beyond what makes sense (and it squeaks). I have seen companies drown in corretive actions when the system was designed so tightly that every nonconformance required a formal corrective action. Dumb.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
WCHorn AS9102 Paragraph 5.3-5 - Lapse in Production - FAI Requirements AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 9
E Non-Conformances and the Relevant ISO 9001 Paragraph Nonconformance and Corrective Action 4
S Root Cause - Left 5.6.2 paragraph (f) out of Quality Manual during Stage 1 Audit Nonconformance and Corrective Action 21
M TS 16949 - Request for clarification on the first paragraph of clause 7.5.5.1 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
K Nadcap (AC7107/7 C, paragraph 6.1.b) NCR - Machining Tensile Specimens AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
jasonb067 Testing to ISO 8573 (Compressed Air Package) Classification 4, Paragraph 6.1 Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 8
H What's the meaning of this paragraph from AS9100B: 'Page31----7.6 f)? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 12
R Interpretation of PED Annex 4.3, last paragraph (appropriate quality-assurance system CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
B ISO 9001:2008 - Can any one help me to understand this paragraph? Clause 8.3 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
C Does all gauges mean every gage? Manufacturing Engineering (Paragraph 7.6.2) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
B Evaluate Compliance to AS9100 Paragraph 7.6 AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
K Quality Policy - Potential problem? Adding a Paragraph to Comply ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 27
D Internal Audits and Nonconformances - Clause 8.2.2 Internal Audit (paragraph 4) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
H Confirmation of software - Exactly what the last paragraph of 7.6 is asking for? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
D Determining Necessary Competence for Personnel - ISO 9001 Paragraph 6.2.2 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M Defined retention time of quality records - ISO 9001:2000 Paragraph 4.2.4 Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 10
O ISO 9001 Internal Paragraph Cross References ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 19
J ISO 9001:2000 Paragraph 5.5.1 - Responsibility and Authority ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
O Process Identification - Painless method to comply with ISO 9001 paragraph 4.1 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
C Final Product Audit (QS-9000 Paragraph 4.10.4.2) QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 14
M ISO 9001 - 4.11.1, Paragraph 3 - Test Equipment and Test Software General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
C If it doesn't prevent a non-conformance, is it a preventive action? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
S Are there ISO9001:2015 Requirements for Preventive Maintenance? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 36
R Evaluating the need for preventive action Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 3
GURU SDI Rust preventive oil mixed with kerosene Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 2
B Stakeholder Initiated Corrective and Preventive Action Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
B Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) A Key Process of the Quality Management System Dec 17... Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
Jimmy123 FMEA - Preventive vs Detection Control FMEA and Control Plans 7
D Preventive Maintenance Implementation 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
M Minitab tool to evaluate PM (Preventive Maintenance) process Using Minitab Software 6
M Training in 8D Problem Solving as a Preventive Action? Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 9
J If Corrective and Preventive Action were truly Effective IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
R Preventive Action - confusing ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
T Proactive / Preventive Post Market Surveillance question ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
Q Preventive Action - How to call the prevention when there is not a clause ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
M Preventive Maintenance Spreadsheet in Excel Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 2
somashekar The Preventive Action Demystified ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
Q Evaluating Effectiveness of a Preventive Action after Closure Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 7
A Preventive Action and Risk Assessment Audit Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 5
K CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) - ISO 13485 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
J Software and Methods for Tracking CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) items US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
A Preventive Action or Corrective Action - Paper cuts Nonconformance and Corrective Action 14
H Combined Procedure - Control of Non-conforming Product, Corrective and Preventive Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 14
M Corrective and Preventive Action - Prevent Recurrence is not Preventive Action? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 24
K Definition Correction, Corrective Action and Preventive Action - Definition of terms Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 28
F Software recommendations for corrective and preventive action Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 2
K Corrective and preventive action for Non Conformance on PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 30
B Struggling With Writing PA (Preventive Action) Procedure Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 11
E Can anyone share a Preventive Action Form or Template ? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
H Corrective and Preventive Actions Process Examples IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom