Reviewing corrective action - How to ensure that root cause analysis is correct

#1
Would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions about how to structure the review of corrective actions to ensure that root cause analysis has been thorough.

We are kicking around a couple of ideas, including establishing a corrective action board to review corrective actions records. This same board would be available to help CA owners when they have questions.

We are now conducting classes on root cause analysis and we do audit closed CAs for implementation and effectiveness.


Thanks.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
A corrective action board is an appropriate vehicle. I would keep it relatively small and would probably have a solid mix of content experts and managers. The conflict with all managers is that they tend to worry about cost or disruptions to the process more than the viability and applicability of the corrective action and all content experts will have the opposite issue...

you may also consider requiring a presentation of data and/or evidence from the analysis demosnrtating that the root cause has been verified by more than opinion.

A third suggestion is to re-review corrective actions several months after implementation to review the effectiveness of the corrective action (did they really get to root cause?) and the permanence of the solution.
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
Right On Bev. . . . and I just love it when suppliers give me new Corrective Actions with different "root Causes" for recurrent issues . . . this tells me that they stopped right after they found "a" potential cause. . .but did not dig deeper and determine if a) they had the real "root" cause, b) if there were multiple causal systems in effect, or c) if there could be different system breakdowns that could cause the same effect. . . independently.

I've seem all three cases. . . the real root cause, in almost every rejection I have seen, boils down, at some level, to management issues. . . not process or operator effect

Now that comment should spur a little debate. . .
 
M

Michaelar

#4
Corrective Actions

Does anyone else find that the customers really doesn't ask themselves the 5W, they don't dig deep enough into their root cause and then the wonder why they have re occurence.
 
#5
Thanks for ideas

Bev - thanks for the ideas; I will pass them on to the groups working this issue. Appreciate the quick response

Michaelar - this is one reason that we are looking for another way to review our internal and supplier CAs. The process we have right now is not working. And as for the 5 whys, no one here questions the effectiveness of this technique, but for the life of me I cannot get people to do it. Instead, I get sheepish grins and a shrug of the shoulder.

Taz - I find that, with rare exception, the root cause winds up at the feet of management. And usually it has to do with planning -- we do not take the time to be sufficiently thorough. When I tried to introduce SIPOCs into our planning process, I got and still get a lot of push back not because of its effectiveness, but the time it takes. Same with internal PPAPs.

Right now I am trying to develop some data on time spend on planning versus cost of poor quality later on when the process is uderway. Lots of stories, but no data yet.

Again. thanks to all
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#6
Michaelar said:
Does anyone else find that the customers really doesn't ask themselves the 5W, they don't dig deep enough into their root cause and then the wonder why they have re occurence.
Do you mean "customers" or "suppliers" in this statement?

As a customer, I frequently inserted myself into the CAR process at a supplier to assure we were all on the same track in terms of finding the true root cause and a cost-effective solution.

When the shoe was on the other foot and I was the supplier, I made sure my customer (if he initiated the CAR) was kept up to date throughout the process.

If it was an in-house CAR that affected the customer in terms of delivery or product recall, we kept him in the loop as well. If there were no visible effect to the customer, we only informed them if terms of contract (PPAP?) required or if the corrective action required a change in Control Plan which we jointly developed with customer.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Reviewing Corrective Action Effectiveness ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
M Reviewing Corrective Action Status for effective Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 5
J Reviewing Effectiveness of Corrective Actions ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
F Process Review - What is the ISO requirement for reviewing SOPs and quality documentation? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
K ISO 13485 section 5.3 Quality Policy - No framework for establishing and reviewing quality objectives ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
K Reviewing a supplier's ISO 9001 certificate issued for a future date Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
V Periodic review criteria for reviewing/updating SOPs US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
H Extra checks to do when reviewing the batch records for release of products Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 2
G Reviewing Process Effectiveness and Efficiency IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
T Process for Reviewing Internal Data Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 1
A Need help with a Kappa Study (MSA) - Reviewing x-ray Images Six Sigma 11
J Cpk & Ppk - Reviewing a PPAP Package - Some questions Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
A Reviewing All Incidents for Trends & Opportunities Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 5
A Audit NC for not collecting/reviewing feedback from Internal Customers ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
A Reviewing Documents - FDA Time Requirements? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
Douglas E. Purdy What does 8.5.2 & 8.5.3 "reviewing ... action taken" mean? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
H Clause 4.2 (d) intent - Framework for setting and reviewing environmental objectives Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 7
R Reviewing Documentation in preparation for an Audit General Auditing Discussions 5
Q Errors in the AIAG's SPC manual? Need help reviewing charts. Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
Crusader 7.2.1 "Determine Requirements" vs. 7.2.2 "Reviewing Requirements" - Differences? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
S ISO/TC 176 SC2 is now reviewing some minor changes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
K Questions about defining/tracking/reviewing our goals/objectives - 8.4.1 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
C Current Receiving Inspection activities - Reviewing, revising and improving Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
R Methods of Reviewing Calibration Intervals Calibration Frequency (Interval) 2
D Hit for not reviewing System Suitability in Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 6
R Not every INCIDENT report will lead to a corrective action EU Medical Device Regulations 6
L Separate Corrective Action and Preventive Action Procedures ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
Q Determining Adverse Effects of Corrective/Preventive Actions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
T AS9100D Clause 10.2.1g Supplier Corrective Action for each and every nonconformity? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
R Non conformance (NC) or Corrective & Preventive action (CAPA) CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 7
D Corrective Action Timing - IATF CB Deadline IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
R AS 9100D - Containment and Corrective action AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
P Customer Corrective Action Requests in OASIS? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
C Corrective action for failure in documents control ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
G Assignable cause/corrective action list for SPC Software Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
S Can we provide training plan as corrective action for IATF 16949 Non conformity? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
P Corrective Action Response for Missed bumps on brake press Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
B Stakeholder Initiated Corrective and Preventive Action Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
B Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) A Key Process of the Quality Management System Dec 17... Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
I When exactly can a corrective action be closed? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
M Risk and Corrective actions - Currently no FMEA's - Car systems Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines 8
L What to do if a Corrective Action requires several extensions Nonconformance and Corrective Action 7
qualprod Best criteria to measure Corrective Action effectiveness - Poor Maintenance ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
Ashok sunder Is it possible to reduce Risk likelihood and impact Post control Ranking after corrective action taken for risk? FMEA and Control Plans 1
E CAR (Corrective Action Report) with questionable Root Cause ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
qualprod Do we have to document all corrections and corrective actions in ISO 9001 10.2.2 ? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 43
B How to reply NCR on ineffectiveness of corrective action during IATF external audit? This is repeated issue whereby some mistake was done. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
G Differences - Nonconformances vs CAPA, Corrections vs Corrective Actions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 16
I AS9100D Non-conformance for 10.2.1 b 2 and 10.2.1. b 3 e and f - Corrective Action AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
F Vigilance Reporting - Requirements for manufacturer Field Corrective Actions (FCAs) Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom