Preventive Action (PA) and Corrective Action (CA) - One or Two Procedures?

[betterlife]

Does CA occur, If the process was followed correctly?
If PA is taking place, why does CA need to happen?

Nice questions. I believe that no system can guarantee zero nonconformities.

It is no doubt expected that the process will be followed correctly, but there are many variables - the process itself, its interaction with other processes, understanding of the concerned personnel, application and monitoring of process controls, determining of process trends etc. Any one of them can vary and might affet the process.

Taking PA ceertainly helps in preventing occurrence of NC, but here again there may be situations which have not been identified. Regarding those identified, the important factor is whether all aspects of the potential problem have been considered and effective actions taken for prevention.

 

[Manix]

One, for sure. Corrective action is reactive and therfore is to correct a prior mistake or issue. Preventative is proactive, concetrates on ensuring the issue does not occur again.

Would you not find that if you keep the two separate, you loose the inherent link which is so important. You may perform corrective action but not then prevent the issue occuring again. Visa versa, you may prevent an occrurence without considering what is required in the short term!?

I think Automotive has this one down to a T with the 8D procedure (not sure if it is correct to call it an automotive procedure!), which never fails us and is flexible enough to be used internally and externally.

Any thoughts?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

One, for sure. Corrective action is reactive and therfore is to correct a prior mistake or issue. Preventative is proactive, concetrates on ensuring the issue does not occur again.

Would you not find that if you keep the two separate, you loose the inherent link which is so important. You may perform corrective action but not then prevent the issue occuring again. Visa versa, you may prevent an occrurence without considering what is required in the short term!?

I think Automotive has this one down to a T with the 8D procedure (not sure if it is correct to call it an automotive procedure!), which never fails us and is flexible enough to be used internally and externally.

Any thoughts?

I agree that it can be one procedure, which I commonally see. And I agree that the Automotive (Ford) 8D is a very good tool. However, step 7, referred to as the "Prevent" step is intended as a "Permanent step" - such as a change to the system documentation or training. It is not intended to serve as a "Preventive Action" as described by ISO/TS cl 8.5.3.

(Actually, in this regard, I think the GM PRR 5 step process is more clear.)

If you review the ISO definitions for Corrective and Preventive Actions, Preventive are to prevent the cause from occuring in the first place. Preventing it from "occuring again" is actually the definition for Corrective Action.

It is not a big deal, as APG points out, but there is a lot of confusion about this, including on this forum. I hesitate to even bring it up again, however, more and more auditors are beginning to understand the distinction, and the RAB and IAOB witness auditors are beating it up.

The more important thing is that the "root cause" of a problem, or potential problem, has been eliminated and thus the situation will not occur.

I'm just trying to help clarify this continuing confusion between the two tools. Similar, but different. Reactive vs. proactive.

I would disagree with the comment about the "inherent link." They are not linked, one does not feed into the other, they are actually opposite sides of the problem solving coin.

 

[Manix]

I would disagree with the comment about the "inherent link." They are not linked, one does not feed into the other, they are actually opposite sides of the problem solving coin.

OK i take on board the ISO definition, but is it not true, that a non-conformance may require "Corrective Action" to imediately correct yet this corrective action may not prevent further occurances?

I think it maybe because I use the 8D procedure so much, but I have just had a non conformance on an audit, that required one action to correct yet a different action to prevent future occurances!

 

[Peter Fraser]

OK i take on board the ISO definition, but is it not true, that a non-conformance may require "Corrective Action" to imediately correct yet this corrective action may not prevent further occurances?

Absolutely not! But the problem is in the (ISO) terminology. "Correction" is what is required at once (ie to fix what is wrong) followed by "corrective action" to avoid the risk of it happening again. So many people get confused by the wording that it makes you think that ISO9000 should have put it another way.

Essentially, "something having gone wrong" is what triggers CA, and "you realising that something might go wrong (but it hasn't happened yet)" triggers PA. The process is the same, it is just the trigger that is different. So why does ISO make it confusing???

1 A problem has arisen, so fix it ("correction")
2 A problem might arise, so avoid it (whether it has happened before or not) ("CA" or "PA")

For both CA and PA, the key is to identify and assess the risk, and take steps to mitigate it.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

OK i take on board the ISO definition, but is it not true, that a non-conformance may require "Corrective Action" to imediately correct yet this corrective action may not prevent further occurances?

I think it maybe because I use the 8D procedure so much, but I have just had a non conformance on an audit, that required one action to correct yet a different action to prevent future occurances!

The immediate (corrective) action is very important, and is generally referred to as containment. The semantics don't really matter, of course, but this immediate action is more oriented to stopping the bleeding, but generally doesn't prevent the root cause from reoccurring.

I strongly support the idea that the terms and titles are not near as important as actually doing the investigations and actions. But it doesn't hurt to know what the various component parts are of corrective actions and preventive actions.

 

[tristan]

I strongly support the idea that the terms and titles are not near as important as actually doing the investigations and actions. But it doesn't hurt to know what the various component parts are of corrective actions and preventive actions.

hello guys, would this be the right place to discuss 8D versus DMAIC (6-sigma)? which is better, in the context of SMEs new to ISO?

 

[Manix]

Thanks guys,

I have more insight now into these terms, and it is clear that the 8D has clouded things a little by following PA after CA.

So PA is a before the event and CA is a reaction after the event. You could almost say that CA comes in two forms:

Immediate CA (Stopping the bleeding as it was put)

Long Term CA (Ensuring the bleeding does not occur again)

Whereas PA should be seen as something that anticipates the event of bleeding, identifies the potential causes of this event and takes action.

Although I agree that the actual terms are not as important as the actions taken, I do feel that is these terms are going to be used in ISO standards, then they should have very clear and meaningful definitions, clearly, these terms have differing meanings to different people, as this thread suggests!

 

[CarolX]

Intent of this thread

hello guys, would this be the right place to discuss 8D versus DMAIC (6-sigma)? which is better, in the context of SMEs new to ISO?

Hi tristan,

The best thing would be to start a new thread. The original intent of this thread (started by yours truly) was to poll users as to how CA and PA were addressed procedurally.

Some great discussions have been had through the years (this thread goes back to 2003) and has lots of great information. But if you want a discussion of your particular subject, just start a new thread.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Thanks guys,

...you could almost say that CA comes in two forms:

Immediate CA (Stopping the bleeding as it was put)

Long Term CA (Ensuring the bleeding does not occur again)

Although I agree that the actual terms are not as important as the actions taken, I do feel that if these terms are going to be used in ISO standards, then they should have very clear and meaningful definitions, clearly, these terms have differing meanings to different people, as this thread suggests!

The Immediate CA is often called Containment or Short Term CA. It is a very important part of the 8D format, but for some reason, ISO does not specifically require it.

The official ISO definitions are pretty clear between CA and PA, but some old dogs don't want to accept the definitions as written. That is what leads to differing opinions, IMO.

You've got it, however!