Preventive Action should not / cannot be taken when rectifying a problem

[Bev D]

So, why do so many quality professionals struggle with a clear application and auditability aspects of preventive actions?

(emphasis added)

This part of the thread is somewhat off topic from the original post and poll - although a logical extension of it as Preventive Action is - in my experience - one of the most difficult aspects of the standard. I think that the quote from Sidney articulates two of the primary nucleation points for debate and confusion.

Clear application: there are so many different ways of taking preventive actions. From "risk management" to FMEAs to mistake proofing to 5S to hiring competant people. Which does the standard mean? While I understand that the standard doesn't want to be proscriptive, the placement and wording put it in the neighborhood of Corrective Action. And true preventive actions are much more diverse in style, substance and tools than CA...

Auditable: An easily auditable process is too often one that looks and sounds familiar. Since most CAs are 'issued' or 'raised' and involve fililng out a form to document the actions AND PA is right next to CA, the path of least resistance is to make PAs look and feel like CAs. but they aren't. In my organization we take preventive action all of the time. Some types have specific forms: e.g. change assessments and FMEAs. Some types don't but are documented in other ways: mistake proofing is in the drawings, work instructions and design files, 5S has before and after pictures although these aren't 'quality records'. true PA is complex, to shoe horn it into the CA format for auditability too often emasculates it's power. MY complaint is that too often we make things easy for the auditor rather than enabling the behavior we want...

 

[JaneB]

Anything and everything should not be classed a preventive action as defined in cl 8.5.3. Preventive manitenance should be handled on maintenance forms, because we don't analyze and document root causes. Design and FMEAs have their own section. They don't belong in cl 8.5.3.

Sorry, but this is too manfufacturing specific (and has thus zero application to services as product.)

I think you make a good point about restricting it:

The definitions, and section 8.5.3 clearly describe something that looks like a corrective action - same steps, same form, same concept - but it is applied to potential situations rather than waiting for them to occur. Which is a better thing anyway.

Once that is grasped, the thing is clear. "

Um, maybe. But if that was the case, there wouldn't be one fraction of the debates and confusion that the whole topic brings up and keeps bringing up. To me, saying Nope, that business planning has zero to do with preventive action, but yes, this other action over here does... seems artificial and intensely confusing.

The paradox here, is there is no confusion and debate surrounding corrective action, which is described using almost the same words.

I don't see a paradox. CA is much clearer - problem, fix to prevent recurrence. But good examples of PA (that only fit the limited definitions you want to hold to) are much, much, much harder to find & define.
And as Beverley says: "true preventive actions are much more diverse in style, substance and tools than CA..." Yes, exactly. They are. I'll bet your average quality person can come up with half a dozen examples of CA in seconds, but will struggle to reel off 6 examples of PA in the same timeframe!

It is not that companies do not perform preventive action. It is that they do not understand they are doing them.

Which makes it somewhat confusing for them to have a whole new vocabulary to apply to something they're doing... and learn when it is and when it is not a PA!

Granted, your 'corrective vs proactive' definition is handy. But in practice, it's still a difficult topic, as witness the intense, long and repeated debates on the issue! Keeping saying 'well, it's perfectly clear to me doesn't make it less so for others, I'm afraid.

As both Sidney & Bev have said, there are so many ways of taking PA. And insisting on excluding anything that doesn't fit within the specific definition ISO 9000 gives... to me is somewhat limiting and I don't believe it adds to clarity. (In fact the reverse).


Yes, I agree Sidney leaped to some assumptions about what he concluded what you said meant or led to (never a good idea) bit, but I also think he makes a very good point when he says:

You seem to be surprised with all the fuss around it. In your view, it is very simple. So, why do so many quality professionals struggle with a clear application and auditability aspects of preventive actions? Your dismissal of the issue complexity smacks against the evidence in this forum.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Preventive manitenance should be handled on maintenance forms, because we don't analyze and document root causes. Design and FMEAs have their own section. They don't belong in cl 8.5.3.

I am just going to use this as an example. While you don't agree that preventive maintenance falls under the auspices of preventive action, ISO TC 176 does. As I transposed some of the "examples" offered by ISO in this post, planned preventive maintenance being one of them.

So, as you can see, your understanding of preventive action does not coincide with ISO TC 176's. Personally I don't agree either that preventive maintenance is a good example of application for 8.5.3; but what do I know?

The basic conclusion (I reach) is: if that specific paragraph of the ISO 9001 standard creates so much confusion, dissent and trouble, it should be removed from the standard. When the TC 176 developed the Design Specification document for the ISO 9001:2008 amendment, it included the following guidance:

• the original intent of the standard is maintained.
• the standard is free from cultural bias.
• the standard is written in a style that can be understood by all interested parties, not just quality functional specialists.
• the standard is written in a clear style that can be easily translated into other languages.
• liaison is established with other TCs as required to achieve compatibility, consistency with other management system standards and ISO/CASCO guidelines
• consideration is given to the auditability of all requirements. (This should focus on the need to eliminate or reduce ambiguity rather than produce prescriptive requirements for documents or records that are of minimal value to those implementing the standard).
• requirements are clearly separated from any explanatory guidance information
• the use of cross referencing within the standard enhances user friendliness.
• the standard is written to be unambiguous to give a common understanding that avoids multiple interpretations.
• consistent use of terminology is maintained avoiding the excessive use of quality terms and jargon.
• terminology issues are resolved with the assistance of TC 176/SC 1
• terms that cannot be quantified (“significant”) are avoided
• sentences are kept short to reduce excessive wordiness. Do not make requirement statements so short as to be ambiguous.

I say, judge for yourself if they accomplished it, when it comes to 8.5.3. And, let's not forget the APG Paper on Auditing Preventive Actions.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I am just going to use this as an example. While you don't agree that preventive maintenance falls under the auspices of preventive action, ISO TC 176 does. As I transposed some of the "examples" offered by ISO in this post, planned preventive maintenance being one of them.

So, as you can see, your understanding of preventive action does not coincide with ISO TC 176's. Personally I don't agree either that preventive maintenance is a good example of application for 8.5.3; but what do I know?

The basic conclusion (I reach) is: if that specific paragraph of the ISO 9001 standard creates so much confusion, dissent and trouble, it should be removed from the standard. When the TC 176 developed the Design Specification document for the ISO 9001:2008 amendment, it included the following guidance:


I say, judge for yourself if they accomplished it, when it comes to 8.5.3. And, let's not forget the APG Paper on Auditing Preventive Actions.

Well, at least we agree that the ISO folks could and should do a better job of making things clear...

I certainly agree with the conclusion in the APG article - that the actions are what matter, and auditors shoould not get lost in the labels...(when all else fails, punt?).

In the APG document, the inference I got was that planned maintenance activities are an input. I don't think they intended to imply that changing oil should be written up on a preventive action form. But hey, if that works for someone, I'll let it be.

For now, it is probably time to move on...I'm sure there will be another opportunity to chat about this in the future...

For me, I will encourage clients to
1. design as well as they can to prevent problems,
2. do effective preventive maintenance,
3. correct whatever fails, and,
4. look for potential problems, and proactively try to eliminate the root causes so it does not occur...

It seems to work for them, and I think it meets the standard.

PS: at this point there have been 1627 views to this thread, and 73 replies...thus there were 1554 people wise enough to know not to touch a post on the topic of preventive action...hmmm...

 

[samsung]

I am just going to use this as an example. While you don't agree that preventive maintenance falls under the auspices of preventive action, ISO TC 176 does.

I say, judge for yourself if they accomplished it, when it comes to 8.5.3. And, let's not forget the APG Paper on Auditing Preventive Actions.

But where does this paper indicate that Preventive Maintenance (of machines and other infrastructure) can be considered as a valid Preventive Action per 8.5.3 ? If so why it's so hard to interpret and implement ?

Preventive maintenance (6.3) on and itself is a routine exercise and carried out at fixed/ predefined intervals/ lapse of time period (e.g. 300 Hrs. of machine running or after every thousand km. etc.) whether or not the process has shown some adverse trends. Frequency of the PM is normally based on the manufacturers recommendations or past experience. However during the application of preventive maintenance, PAs can be implemented through some innovation/ design modification/ changes in process parameters etc. etc.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

But where does this paper indicate that Preventive Maintenance (of machines and other infrastructure) can be considered as a valid Preventive Action per 8.5.3 ?

Not in the paper but in the book published by ISO.

 

[Jim Wynne]

But where does this paper indicate that Preventive Maintenance (of machines and other infrastructure) can be considered as a valid Preventive Action per 8.5.3 ? If so why it's so hard to interpret and implement ?

Preventive maintenance (6.3) on and itself is a routine exercise and carried out at fixed/ predefined intervals/ lapse of time period (e.g. 300 Hrs. of machine running or after every thousand km. etc.) whether or not the process has shown some adverse trends. Frequency of the PM is normally based on the manufacturers recommendations or past experience. However during the application of preventive maintenance, PAs can be implemented through some innovation/ design modification/ changes in process parameters etc. etc.

Samsung, I mean no disrespect, but I have no idea how we ever got to a point where doing things that are clearly intended to prevent bad things from happening should not be considered preventive actions. It makes no sense on any level. Charles Babbage said it best: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

 

[samsung]

Samsung, I mean no disrespect, but I have no idea how we ever got to a point where doing things that are clearly intended to prevent bad things from happening should not be considered preventive actions. It makes no sense on any level. Charles Babbage said it best: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Yes I do agree to the fact that one should always find opportunities that can prevent the things from getting bad but what I emphasized in this as well as in some earlier posts is the application of clause 8.5.3 which is intended at improving the things from their present level rather than maintaining the status quo or preventing things from going bad (defensive approach). PA should be considered as an improvement process and should be applied consistently with the process approach to all the processes within the organization using a structured approach.

My reluctance to accepting Preventive Maintenance in lieu of Preventive Action lies in the fact that PM is basically a support process to the core processes which infact is more corrective in nature (it's as preventive as any other corrective action process does). My justification to this contention is like this:

Consider the triggers (inputs) for a Preventive Maintenance activity- it's either based on the OEM recommendations or on the information collected by the organization/ user since last scheduled PM. Most often the collected information, among other things, would be; decrease in Oil level, increased vibration trend, abnormal sound, jamming, rising trends of temp. increase, oil leakage, increase in emission/ discharge level, status of bearings, wear & tear of parts, out of calibration status, obstructed air breathers, loose bolts, welding cracks, shaft/ wheel imbalance, weakening of insulation resistance etc.etc. The purpose of PM exercise is to enable the equipment to regain the status quo. What we do during this exercise is some kind of correction (servicing/ repairing/ replacement/ adjustment) applied to something that has already gone wrong (or is heading towards the undesirable state) in order to compensate for the loss of health of the equipment under consideration. I don't consider it an improvement process for two reasons; first we don't infact undertake PM as long as the equipment hasn't shown sufficient worsening trends and the another reason is that you get the same (naturally degrading) trend after elapse of certain time period. The trend doesn't improve; each time it has to be brought back to its original state by applying certain corrections that we refer to as Preventive Maintenance.

But this isn't the end of it's life cycle. It does provide a lot of input/ information which can be used to implement improvement (preventive) actions through application of innovative thinking, design modification, sharing of knowledge and experience with others in similar business & the likes.

Thanks.

 

[JaneB]

Samsung, I mean no disrespect, but I have no idea how we ever got to a point where doing things that are clearly intended to prevent bad things from happening should not be considered preventive actions. It makes no sense on any level.

Oh, how much I do agree.

I don't mean any disrespect either, Samsung, but if I were foolish enough to present that point of view (which I won't) in an attempt to "explain what PA is and is not", the average person on the workshop floor would scratch their head and think if not utter aloud scathing comments 'them quality folks' and "that ISO stuff"! Along the lines of well, what a complete load of bulldust.
And with good reason, in my opinion.

Quality has to be clear, it has to be sensible and it must make good sense! This point of view does not.

 

[JaneB]

PS: at this point there have been 1627 views to this thread, and 73 replies...thus there were 1554 people wise enough to know not to touch a post on the topic of preventive action...hmmm...

Ah, assumptions, assumptions. Non-reply = wisdom? Hmm. One fact but many possible interpretations thereof.