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

[JaneB]

The APG paper on Preventive Action (thank Sidney for the link, which I have repeated) is well worth reading.

We would all do well to observe the advice in its last sentence:

The auditor should avoid being “side-tracked” by these discussions [whether actions were 'corrective/preventive action'] and concentrate on whether or not the actions were effective. The “labeling” of the actions taken is of secondary importance!

 

[samsung]

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.

Personally I take extreme care and make it a point not to discuss such issues with 'the average person on the workshop floor'. An average person only needs to know what s/he is supposed to do.

But ofcourse I love to discuss them at forums with subject experts.

 

[samsung]

The APG paper on Preventive Action (thank Sidney for the link, which I have repeated) is well worth reading.

The auditor should avoid being “side-tracked” by these discussions [whether actions were 'corrective/preventive action'] and concentrate on whether or not the actions were effective. The “labeling” of the actions taken is of secondary importance!

We would all do well to observe the advice in its last sentence:

This is indeed a great guidance document* created by ISO but let me ask why ISO felt it necessary to add "The “labeling” of the actions taken is of secondary importance!" It's the ISO itself (and nobody else) who, at the first place, clearly 'labelled' & differentiated these actions in their standard. It would have been much better if the same statement (with a 'shall') had been given in the standard itself. Atleast it would have served to possibly 'prevent' such a long and never ending discussion.


*the remaining part of this doc.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The APG paper on Preventive Action (thank Sidney for the link, which I have repeated) is well worth reading.

We would all do well to observe the advice in its last sentence:

The auditor should avoid being “side-tracked” by these discussions [whether actions were 'corrective/preventive action'] and concentrate on whether or not the actions were effective. The “labeling” of the actions taken is of secondary importance!

I think it's worthwhile to reproduce the entire paragraph from which that quote was taken:

There is often significant “philosophical” discussion between the auditor and the organization about where corrective action ends, and where preventive action begins. For example, if a nonconformity is detected in process “A”, are actions taken to avoid future nonconformities in processes “B”, “C” and “D” preventive actions, or simply within the scope of the corrective actions taken for process ”A”? The auditor should avoid being “side-tracked” by these discussions, and concentrate on whether or not the actions were effective. The “labeling” of the actions taken is of secondary importance!

How can an auditor know anything about the effectiveness of actions if he doesn't understand the intent of them? This is an important point because the writers of the standard created the containers into which these actions are expected to fit. If an auditee wants insight from the auditor as to whether the correct containers have been used, this guidance is saying that the question should be avoided, and all that's important is whether or not something desirable has happened.

Note also that the guidance document reduces important procedural questions to the level of "philosophical" navel-gazing, and to directly address them might result in the audit being "side-tracked" [sic].

For my money, this is strong evidence of the idea that the differentiation between corrective and preventive action as mandated by the standard makes no sense and is impenetrable in both a philosophical and practical sense. The standard demands that we take actions to avert undesirable results, and clearly prescribes different containers into which those actions must neatly fit. When a woebegone auditee has evidence of a number of such aversions having taken place but is at an understandable loss as to which container to present them in, ISO advises auditors, who are ostensibly learned authorities in this sort of thing, to avoid the question and move on.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I think it's worthwhile to reproduce the entire paragraph from which that quote was taken:
How can an auditor know anything about the effectiveness of actions if he doesn't understand the intent of them? This is an important point because the writers of the standard created the containers into which these actions are expected to fit. If an auditee wants insight from the auditor as to whether the correct containers have been used, this guidance is saying that the question should be avoided, and all that's important is whether or not something desirable has happened.

Note also that the guidance document reduces important procedural questions to the level of "philosophical" navel-gazing, and to directly address them might result in the audit being "side-tracked" [sic].

For my money, this is strong evidence of the idea that the differentiation between corrective and preventive action as mandated by the standard makes no sense and is impenetrable in both a philosophical and practical sense. The standard demands that we take actions to avert undesirable results, and clearly prescribes different containers into which those actions must neatly fit. When a woebegone auditee has evidence of a number of such aversions having taken place but is at an understandable loss as to which container to present them in, ISO advises auditors, who are ostensibly learned authorities in this sort of thing, to avoid the question and move on.

As usual, great points from Jim. Let's remember that many people who participate in the ISO TC 176 are so removed from the day to day world of a quality professional that one should wonder how the standard development process is carried out. Even further, some of the people in the TC 176 have no good idea of the conformity assessment challenges out there.

So we end up with endless, countless discussions on the preventive action subject. Why? Not because people don't agree that preventing a problem is much better than correcting and preventing recurrence, but pretty much because of the If we do not have Preventive Action, is it an ISO 9001 Nonconformance? question.

ISO TC 176, in it's wisdom, has understood that ISO 9001 is a model for a subset of a holistic quality management system, That is why ISO 9004 goes well beyond some of the basic requirements of ISO 9001. Maybe it is time for 8.5.3 to find a home in ISO 9004 and depart ISO 9001. But, in order for that to happen, the TC 176 subcommittees should be interested in listening the actual users of the document. Instead, they are very concerned with the ISO 9000 ecosystem...:mg:

 

[JaneB]

Personally I take extreme care and make it a point not to discuss such issues with 'the average person on the workshop floor'. An average person only needs to know what s/he is supposed to do.

But ofcourse I love to discuss them at forums with subject experts.

Perhaps we're interpreteting 'average person' differently. My rule of thumb is that if if something cannot be explained to the 'average person'... it's too damned complicated. No, I'm not saying the avergae person will understand all the detail of rocket science, say. But they're eminently capable of understanding what it's about and what its purpose is!

And saying they 'only need to know what they're supposed to do'?
a/everyone can contribute and b/the more people know, usually the greater contribution they can make. Down here, we call the 'only need to know' philosophy the mushroom one... as in 'keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em bullshit'. And it doesn't make for great personnel relations, no matter where you are.

 

[samsung]

Perhaps we're interpreteting 'average person' differently. My rule of thumb is that if if something cannot be explained to the 'average person'... it's too damned complicated. No, I'm not saying the avergae person will understand all the detail of rocket science, say. But they're eminently capable of understanding what it's about and what it's purpose is!

And saying they 'only need to know what they're supposed to do'?
a/everyone can contribute and b/the more people know, usually the greater contribution they can make. Down here, we call the 'only need to know' philosophy the mushroom one... as in 'keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em bullshit'. And it doesn't make for great personnel relations, no matter where you are.

That's OK Jane. I understand your point but what I'm still not sure of is whether you, as a subject expert, agreed or not because something being 'complicated' is altogether different from something being 'non-agreeable' or out of context? It's not a big deal to translate complicated things into simpler terms.

Coming back to your previous post (#79), I wish to have your opinion on what isn't a Preventive Action specifically in the context of section 8 of ISO 9001? Means the things which you don't want to consider as Preventive Actions.

 

[JaneB]

That's OK Jane. I understand your point but what I'm still not sure of is whether you, as a subject expert, agreed or not

Not.

I wish to have your opinion on what isn't a Preventive Action specifically in the context of section 8 of ISO 9001? Means the things which you don't want to consider as Preventive Actions.

Flattered to be asked... but would not even attempt an answer! Sorry, but this is too hypothetical and too broad a question.

Sidney, I used to disagree with your oft-repeated point about removing PA from the Standard... but after all the discussion and a lot of thought, I 've come around to your point of view, and think it's probably better in 9004 than in 9001.

 

[samsung]

... but after all the discussion and a lot of thought, I 've come around to your point of view, and think it's probably better in 9004 than in 9001.

Why should this requirement be removed from ISO 9001?

This (PA) is the requirement of almost all ISO management system standards as well as that of OHSAS.

PA is one of the approaches on which all the PDCA based management system standards are based.

It's also one of the components of improvement processes addressed by almost all the management standards. (one of the 8 fundamental principles).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Why should this requirement be removed from ISO 9001?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But to ask why a few of us believe ISO 9001 would be a better a standard without the current text contained in 8.5.3 is an insult. Simply because it has been explained several times. Disagree as you may, but don't pretend the opposing view has not been substantiated.