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

[katschance]

Hijilling,
If I combine both corrective and preventive actions into one procedure, what should I be aware of to cover both?

 

[katschance]

It seems to me that a preventive action can stand alone without a nonconformance. Is that correct?
Thanks
Kathy

 

[katschance]

Well said Kevin and others.

We also use one documented procedure to outline both processes with identification and linkage to other initiatives set up by management which also result in corrective or preventive actions (a rose by any other name).

Regarless of any guidance from registrar or consultants each company/organization must evaluate what works best for them. If what someone else would 'Like to see' doesn't work for you - DO NOT DO IT! Just be able to justify sound business reasons for your decision and most will back down.

From my experiences I think there are many unnoticed 'preventive' actions done regularly. As is often the case the paperwork trail and linkage to show improvement is the toughest to provide.

By nature of the focus regarding nonconformances (in either product or processes, they quite obviously get more attention and include supporting documentation).

Actions taken when changing equipment, products, personnel, etc...usually involve multiple run throughs to ensure process runs safely and smoothly producing good product and many efforts will quite naturally go undocumented and often unrealized as preventive actions.

If you have a good company culture and good employees (regarless of position from shop floor to executive office) they will want to work smarter not harder and will add value to the process as they can. Many if you stop and take an interest will tell you "Hey, I changed the way this flows because I saw that _______ might happen and it would _______ (impacting) the product/process".

That's preventive action but quite often isn't enough of a 'WOW' to catch attention and as I said earlier often goes unnoticed.

IMHO this is fine as long as:
1) you identified in personnel training what is critical and cannot be changed without approval (usually well defined between control plan and process and product specs),
2) the person actually has the skills and information to be sure the change won't impact a subsequent process or the product, and
3) communications, at least between all personnel in the process, take place to use best practices across all shifts.

Okay, I'm getting carried away which is so easy to do! My appologies all.

My best to all,
Eileen

Eileen, if I write 2 separate procedures, does that mean paperwork has to be done everytime there is a preventive action such as you suggested earlier?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Hijilling,
If I combine both corrective and preventive actions into one procedure, what should I be aware of to cover both?

I'm not sure I understand your question. I will attempt to answer.

Whether you do one procedure or two, please keep in mind these are two different activities.

One would perform either a CA or a PA. They have the same steps, but they are not the same function. One is a reactive action, one is a proactive action.

The reason they can be one procedure is they follow the same steps, and many people use a common form. However, even if it is one procedure, it can have two sections, one for CA and one for PA.

Hope that helps.

 

[JaneB]

The auditor and I had a long discussion about this very subject. He presented a very different approach (management friendly possibly).

That's wonderful. Sounds like you have a good and fair auditor, who is willing to discuss issues, and sounds keen to see that the company understands the meaning of the Standard, and willing to assist and promote that understanding. The system must be management-friendly - if it isn't, it's going to struggle.

He concedes that most managers (especially upper levels) won't be open to documenting strict preventative actions.

Frequently true if it means they have to start doing something quite different or in addition to from what they are already doing, & even more so if they're doing a good/reasonable job already!

I have implemented these kinds of procedures for many companies, as I found very, very few senior/executive managers who are keen on filling in forms. Usually the more senior, the less they want to. And often it isn't because they aren't doing this stuff, it's because they have a different method that doesn't involve a form.

If there's a better alternative that works, I think that's reasonable. Filling in forms is only one method. Yes, it's a well-known method, and yes, it's often used and yes some auditors like it because it's very familiar and known to them, but none of these reasons mean it's the only way it can be done.

I cannot think of any managers I've encountered who, once they understand, are averse to the need to have some records to demonstrate, or to improve their records if necessary. (If they remain averse, of course, then they will need to reconsider their desire to become or remain certified.)

He recommended a more "open" prevenative action procedure that doesn't require the use of a strict form when conducting preventative actions. This does not exempt us from requiring documentation as objective evidence..however makes it much easier to have documentation (at least for us.).

Yeah, I'm with him. Great. Really, really pleased to hear it, & just the sort of system flexibility that's possible, while still of course conforming to the requirements of the Standard. And that's the sort of intelligent, switched on auditor I like to hear about and wish there were more of. The kind of auditor it's almost a pleasure to watch or be audited by.

Mind you, I'm assuming when you say he 'recommended' this, that he actually probably said something along the lines of not being able to consult, but perhaps suggesting that you might consider the idea, or mentioned perhaps other clients who had used this approach, and for you to think about it & see if it might perhaps work in your company.

 

[E Wall]

Eileen, if I write 2 separate procedures, does that mean paperwork has to be done everytime there is a preventive action such as you suggested earlier?

Not to be glib, but that rest entirely on what you mandate when you write your procedure

 

[somerqc]

Jane B,

In short, yes, he did approach it with a "you may want to consider this option that I have seen elsewhere" approach. My auditor has actually been doing this for over 15 years for a major CB in Canada. He is an alum from the same university as me as well! (didn't know this until the pre-assessment audit).

You are right. He is very fair and understands that a business needs to run using the system therefore flexibility and understanding management is critical.

Feb 14-16 are the big days around here! :mg:

 

[katschance]

I'm not sure I understand your question. I will attempt to answer.

Whether you do one procedure or two, please keep in mind these are two different activities.

One would perform either a CA or a PA. They have the same steps, but they are not the same function. One is a reactive action, one is a proactive action.

The reason they can be one procedure is they follow the same steps, and many people use a common form. However, even if it is one procedure, it can have two sections, one for CA and one for PA.

Hope that helps.

That is what I needed to hear. Thank you.
Kathy

 

[Manix]

WOW, this has to be on of the longest running threads around here.

I would certainly like to thank all that have taken part, because although it did get mighty confusing with everyone seeming to have a slightly different take, I feel that the message is getting across and I now know how I should approach this.

I have a notice up by my desk that simply states:

If your action is REACTIVE then it is CORRECTIVE

If your action is PROACTIVE then it is PREVENTATIVE

I know that is a quote from someone on this thread, but I am not sure who!

I think the important part of this thread is not the way in which you approach this (one or two procedures) but how you interpret the meaning of both, as I have stated above. However, do keep in mind that combining the two can lead to confusion of the definition. Remember permanent corrective action, is still just that, corrective.

Thanks everyone, this has thrown clarity on the subject for me at least.

 

[Nadeem A.]

If your action is REACTIVE then it is CORRECTIVE

If your action is PROACTIVE then it is PREVENTATIVE

I know that is a quote from someone on this thread, but I am not sure who!

I think the important part of this thread is not the way in which you approach this (one or two procedures) but how you interpret the meaning of both, as I have stated above. However, do keep in mind that combining the two can lead to confusion of the definition. Remember permanent corrective action, is still just that, corrective.

I like the simple way of interpreting Corrective/Preventive action. However, there is one more term "Correction" which also comes under "REACTIVE" mode. There is a little difference between Corrective Action and Correction.

We can divide the two as follows:

Quick Fix Reactive Action (Not fixing the root cause) = CORRECTION
Root Cause Eliminating Action (In Reactive Mode) = CORRECTIVE ACTION