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

[SteelMaiden]

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

Say I want to add rubber protection pads to a fixture to prevent nicks/scratches on parts.Should I have to (or need to) send the PA to my QA director for review,then he passes it on to the department head,then back to him for review/exceptance or rejection.What do you think?

In the interest of making sure that 1) your preventive action does not negatively impact downstream operations, 2) preventive actions are assessed for possible implementation (or similar implementation) elsewhere in your facility, why would you NOT send it through your QA Director (or some other "gatekeeper") to help keep the lines of communication open?

Now, in your scenario of protection pads, it might not be a problem, but in my business if someone decides to turn the cooling water down on a new grade to improve something, we might want to look at the downside, or scale build-up, to see the negative impact.

I think that the biggest misunderstanding we perpetuate about preventive actions is that they are somehow less worthy of scrutiny than their cousin corrective actions. The impact of preventive actions to the bottom line can be as great as corrective actions, or greater (because if you fix it before it breaks, you aren't going to pay the customer).

Now, that being said, you most certainly may find that 2 procedures are useful. It makes no difference within the ISO requirements, 1, 2 or 20, as long as you have documented procedures that cover all the requirements. Do what works best for you and your company.

 

[Jim Wynne]

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

In the interest of making sure that 1) your preventive action does not negatively impact downstream operations, 2) preventive actions are assessed for possible implementation (or similar implementation) elsewhere in your facility, why would you NOT send it through your QA Director (or some other "gatekeeper") to help keep the lines of communication open?

Now, in your scenario of protection pads, it might not be a problem, but in my business if someone decides to turn the cooling water down on a new grade to improve something, we might want to look at the downside, or scale build-up, to see the negative impact.

I think that the biggest misunderstanding we perpetuate about preventive actions is that they are somehow less worthy of scrutiny than their cousin corrective actions. The impact of preventive actions to the bottom line can be as great as corrective actions, or greater (because if you fix it before it breaks, you aren't going to pay the customer).

Yes! The #1 rule in problem solving: Make sure that your "solution" doesn't create a different problem.

 

[qcman]

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

I agree 100% and assumed a complete review of a PA would be taken for granted in my post (it would be).My point is I do a lot of little things everyday that would fall under preventive action but I guess nothing says I have to write everything up.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

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

I agree 100% and assumed a complete review of a PA would be taken for granted in my post (it would be).My point is I do a lot of little things everyday that would fall under preventive action but I guess nothing says I have to write everything up.

CA or PA should be appropriate to the magnitude of the risk and issues.

The little stuff should just be done. If it takes longer to fill out the form than to do the action, just do it.

I suggest the CA or PA form should be used to help you determine the cause and appropriate actions. So, if you know the cause, and the actions are obvious, and it is not a big issue, just do it. Save the paperwork for when it serves a purpose.

 

[Ajit Basrur]

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

CA or PA should be appropriate to the magnitude of the risk and issues.

The little stuff should just be done. If it takes longer to fill out the form than to do the action, just do it.

Well said

 

[Juliana - 2008]

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

Now, that being said, you most certainly may find that 2 procedures are useful. It makes no difference within the ISO requirements, 1, 2 or 20, as long as you have documented procedures that cover all the requirements. Do what works best for you and your company.

Our Registration Auditor required 2 procedures so we developed 2. Company Management never understood nor accepted Preventive Action as a seperate entity; "its not how WE do things - not our culture". We maintained our registration less than 18 months. We would have done much better with only one procedure. We still "maintain" a Quality Management System - but now its going "Lean". Guess what managment decided was waste in our "Lean Quality Management System"?

 

[Rezzi]

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

Our Registration Auditor required 2 procedures so we developed 2. Company Management never understood nor accepted Preventive Action as a seperate entity; "its not how WE do things - not our culture". We maintained our registration less than 18 months. We would have done much better with only one procedure. We still "maintain" a Quality Management System - but now its going "Lean". Guess what managment decided was waste in our "Lean Quality Management System"?

I think the best you can do as a start is to require that your registrar sends you a new auditor. The auditor may recommend 2 separate procedures and if its true as you mention that the auditor actually required you to have 2 separate procedures, you should then report that to the registrar so that they can do something and to implement corrective actions regarding their issue with incompetent auditors.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

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

Our Registration Auditor required 2 procedures so we developed 2. Company Management never understood nor accepted Preventive Action as a seperate entity; "its not how WE do things - not our culture". We maintained our registration less than 18 months. We would have done much better with only one procedure. We still "maintain" a Quality Management System - but now its going "Lean". Guess what managment decided was waste in our "Lean Quality Management System"?

Your comment actually has two things going on.

1. I agree that the auditor should not have required 2 procedures. He overstepped. 1 or 2 would meet the requirement either way.

2. However, this statement:

"Company Management never understood nor accepted Preventive Action as a seperate entity; "its not how WE do things..."

is not right. Preventive Action is a separate entity. They are two different kinds of projects. Please reread the definitions in ISO 9000:2000. Preventive actions prevent the occurrance of a root cause.
Corrective actions prevent the REoccurrance of a root cause.

The reason why one procedure can address both is because they are similar. But you still need two sections, or some way to explain the difference between the two.

 

[Juliana - 2008]

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

Although the process developers understood the nuances between these two processes, many in management could not see the benefit of preventive action, especially documenting preventive action. They felt that it was a hindrance to change (no one need explain how it would benefit, I know and have talked myself blue in the face - that's when I hear that "It's not our culture"). Following this thread got me wondering how or if we could have written preventive and corrective action together to get more acceptance and utilization. I will keep it in mind for the future since it is now a moot point - top managment changed and almost the first thing done was to drop our Quality Management System registration and the requirement to follow some of the procedures they didn't see a need for, preventive action was one. At the moment those of us still involved in what is called a quality managment system are doing our best to keep the system as close to the standard as we can and we wait to see what will happen with the next change in managment.

 

[Jim Wynne]

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

Although the process developers understood the nuances between these two processes, many in management could not see the benefit of preventive action, especially documenting preventive action. They felt that it was a hindrance to change (no one need explain how it would benefit, I know and have talked myself blue in the face - that's when I hear that "It's not our culture"). Following this thread got me wondering how or if we could have written preventive and corrective action together to get more acceptance and utilization. I will keep it in mind for the future since it is now a moot point - top managment changed and almost the first thing done was to drop our Quality Management System registration and the requirement to follow some of the procedures they didn't see a need for, preventive action was one. At the moment those of us still involved in what is called a quality managment system are doing our best to keep the system as close to the standard as we can and we wait to see what will happen with the next change in managment.

Sometimes you can lead 'em to water, but... In a similar situation I once suggested to a clueless manager that since a preventive action process wasn't necessary, we could get rid of all of the maintenance done on machines, just wait for them to break down, and save a lot of money. I also suggested that he could save some money personally by no longer changing the oil in his car. Somehow I wasn't able to convince him that processes break down just like machines do, and often with similar consequences. Fortunately he wasn't in a position of authority on the subject, and I was able to work around him, but there's always at least one.