QS-9000 Clause 4.2.5 - Prioritized Action Plans

[plush]

Prioritized Action Plans

On a recent internal audit, I was "dinged" because I did not have Prioritized Action Plans in place for processes that demonstrate stability, acceptable capability...in accordance with 4.2.5.

I am working on this now, but am a little unsure on where to start, and how to proceed, while keeping in compliance.

Anybody have any ideas or thoughts....??

------------------

 

[Kevin Mader]

I guess a few questions come to mind:

-What items are you measuring as part of your Continuous Improvement effort? How are they determined?

-Listing these items, which ones are predictable and capable and which ones are not?

-Which cost the Customer and the organization the largest dollars or ill will (by what means do you prioritize or what does the Customer expect)?

-Now review this information. Which items in your organization are "priority items"?

Likely, a few of your top priorities are coming from both the predictable and capable list and the list of unpredictability. While processes with unacceptable process capability/performance require corrective action, an organization needs to maintain and improve processes with less dire needs. The Customer is expecting that you take all things into consideration when prioritizing your CI program. But you also need to be careful about the usefulness of a CI effort. For example, your organization, perhaps as part of Management Review, may decide that resources need to be redirected to new "priorities" (Pareto). The list needs to be relevent, updated when items are added or fall off. Meeting minutes may be one source of showing a registrar prioritization, planning, deployment, measurement, and analysis.

Hope this helps a bit.

Regards,

Kevin

 

[Idotson]

I am the QS-9000 Management Representative for a Job Shop. We also were nailed during our last audit, because we did not have prioritized action plans. The more information I read on this subject, the more confused I become. Here is what we've come up with. I would love some feed back before I send this to the auditor.
Our procedure states," Engineering is responsible for establishing prioritized action plans for further improving processes. Priority is given to processes which demonstrate stability and acceptable capability but show profit losses on the cost out sheets. These actions may include, but are not limited to, and of the following:
Machine Setup Changes
Tooling Improvements or Changes
Process Flow Changes
Combining Process"

I've made a new form,this form has 5 columns, the first is the Plan Description, the second is the Baseline, and the other three are used to record the improvements (Profit percentage and Cpk).

Will this work?

 

[Kevin Mader]

I think so. I might add that you prioritize the "losses" though. A process may show that it is not profitable, but only marginally so. Better to address the larger issues first. You may want to add a short line or so to your SOP. Otherwise, you built in an awareness and action plan. This should satisfy the auditor I think.

Regards,

Kevin

 

[Dawn]

Number 3 here for write-up in Assessment to QS on no prioritized reduction plan. Nothing I have read thus far tells me what to do. This is the one nonconformance I am stuck on. Continuous improvement is a separate issue is it not; so we can't use it as part of teh plan because continuous improvemtn is covered somewhere else in the standard. The auditor told me how do we reduce scrap before it ever hits corrective action. What is our plan? I understand-but don't know what to do. Do we say - OK, everyone no more scrap? HELP!!!

 

[Roger Eastin]

Dawn - Perhaps I am over-simplying the situation, but I believe all you have to do (from an organizational standpoint anyway - the execution of it may be a different matter) is develop a Pareto of your, say, top ten scrap producers and identify ways that you are going to reduce (not necessarily eliminate) your scrap. You then review your action list periodically to determine the effectiveness of your plan (review scrap indicators) and revise it as necessary.
Continuous improvement can be a separate issue (although 'scrap' is listed as a possibility in the note under 4.2.5.2) as you have said and can really only take place where you are doing variables-type measurements (the standard states anything other than zero defects is corrective action and not continuous improvement). Again, though the action plan should be based on Pareto philosophy developed at your company.

[This message has been edited by Roger Eastin (edited 11 August 1999).]

 

[Kevin Mader]

Dawn,

Continuous Improvement is not specific to an ISO standard or QS requirements. It exists companywide. It is also likely that some of your CI efforts work directly with reduction plans.

Prioritized reduction plans: What needs fixing first. You spoke of scrap, a fairly common measurement of nonconformance tracked by many organizations. I know you know that you can't reduce scrap by telling folks to "stop making scrap" and expect that to work. Deming used the anecdote of the bank tellers' management decreeing that no more shortages (of the individual teller cash drawers) would be tolerated. People will hide the problem (and did), no chance for improvement.

How do you prioritize issues? Need to know what the inputs and outputs are to an issue, understand it. Place them in order of significance (perhaps do this as part of Management Review, by dollars, by amount of ill will). Address the Vital Few by creating action plans (mostly corrective, some preventive). Formalize them.

Do you do Cost of Quality reporting? Is there something in your SOPs that state that you act on reducing these costs and by what manner you prioritize them? It is important to remember that collecting and reporting data is only part of the equation. Folks must act on this data, as appropriate, or the data collection activity will have been a wasted effort.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Kevin

 

[Idotson]

Dawn,
We had alot of problems with this one. We had to look at Action Plans by individual part numbers. We only looked at parts which we ran SPC on, and this SPC had to have a CPK of 1.67 or higher. Then we determined, why would we need to improve the processes. For us it was money, we had capable processes, but the profit was very low on some part numbers. Then we determined what kind of actions we could that to increase the profit without decreasing the CPK (combined steps, improved tooling, etc.). These possible improvments were then prioritized. The actions are done in order and the improvements (hopefully) are recorded.
We have found being very specific with the actions helps. An example might be, change the roughing drill to closer to finish size. Will it make the finish better, thus decreasing a poor finish problem which caused you to scrap 20% of your production last time? Who knows, try it and record the results.

I hope this helps.

 

[Dawn]

A year later and a different auditor and I was told a prioritized reduction plan is nothing more than assuring your hold area has a quick turnaround. The auditor told me this came straight from the AIAG.
Kool, huh? We do both and get benefit from both so I really don't care anymore what the auditor tells me. Thanks!

 

[Al Dyer]

Dawn,

Good for you, maybe time to look for a new auditor? I have never read or heard of the AIAG giving such an explicit ruling.

In MHO, it is all out wrong when trying to meet the intent of continuous improvement.

Prioritized reduction plan means getting rid of scrap in a timely manner? What Registrar does he/she work for? I could give a guess, but this is Sunday, my day of rest. (like the others aren't)

ASD...