Verification of Corrective Actions based on Quantities

beaser3

Involved In Discussions
#1
Hi,

My company is working on improving our 8-D process and one area that we feel we need to strengthen is the verification process. When the issue is part quality related, different 8-D team leaders base their closure off of different things. Some use 3 runs to verify (regardless of run size) some use a percentage of parts based off of EAU quantities, some say one run is enough, etc. I am wondering if anyone has any best practices that they could share on this topic?

Thanks in advance.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Emmyd

Involved In Discussions
#2
It depends, there is not a standard quantity that we use to release from containment. We see how serious the issue is for our customer and we base the added inspection quantity/time based on that. Sometimes it is one or 2 runs, sometimes a quantity. If we have had multiple rejections in the past for the same issue (say oily parts) we may change our processes to always wipe parts. Sometimes our customers specify how long or how many pieces. It really depends on the situation, the cost of the rejection and the impact to the customer.
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#3
While inspection results are definitely acceptable, you are not limited to them. You could also use the results of SPC and capability studies.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#4
Don't get me started. Oh, wait--you did get me started. :bigwave: IMHO, the execrable 8D format should be taken out in the woods and put out of its misery. It just begs for ambiguity and subjective reasoning. Some tips:


  1. Be judicious in your use of CA requests. If you require a PPM level (another thing I hate) of your suppliers of say, 200, don't demand CA for an incident that doesn't break the PPM threshold. You can't, on the one hand, say that a certain level of defects is acceptable and then on the other hand demand CA for an obviously one-off incident.
  2. Look carefully at the identification of the root cause and what was done to stop it from happening or somehow neutralize it. That's what you want to know, after all. Does it make sense? Has the supplier demonstrated that the cause can be turned on and off?
  3. Don't make judgments on things you're not qualified to evaluate. If the supplier's response reads like Mandarin to you (and you don't speak or read Chinese), you're probably not qualified to sit in judgment. Get someone who is.
  4. There is no such thing as a "best practice" that will fit all situations. Complex problems require special, knowledgeable appraisal. You can't look in a reference book to find an answer.
  5. If you can't trust your suppliers to do conscientious CA, you need different suppliers or you need to make allowances when you have no influence.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#5
The verification 'quantity' should be based on the defect rate and/or cycle of the excursion. That is really the only way to determine if the Problem has actually been eliminated or reduced.

Other responders are correct that there is no one single mathematical rule that can be applied. We must apply the correct statistical thinking. And the correct physics thinking in understanding the causal mechanism and understanding that the proposed solutions will prevent re-occurrence of that causal mechanism.

A low defect rate will require higher sample sizes.
For defects that cycle, the control chart should demonstrate a minimum of 3 full cycle time periods before closing the action.
 

somashekar

Staff member
Admin
#6
The applied corrective action when based on a process change, you will be interested to see the effectiveness of stability of new established process. This may depend on your consumption and the MOQ and your agreement with the part supplier.
If you want him to process the large quantity and make to you several deliveries, then in reality all the deliveries combines to one run. So it comes down to your risk evaluation and time should not be a limiting factor.
 

beaser3

Involved In Discussions
#7
Hi Jim,


I agree with your comments. The question is actually regarding our corrective action verifications for issues noted by our customers so we would be the supplier. I think, as stated by others, the verification will be dependent on situation but wanted to see if there is another, more standardized way to look at it.

Thanks to all for the responses!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
K Paperless Corrective Actions - Sign Offs for Responsibilities such as Verification Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 32
P Corrective Action Verification for Low Volume Production Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
C Verification of CA (Corrective Action) for infrequent job? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
P Is special CA (Corrective Action) verification step necessary? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
J Corrective Action Effectiveness and Results Verification Question Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
A CPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Verification and Validation Process Steps Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
M Using Statistics for corrective action verification activities Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
A Root Cause Verification - Corrective Action Effectiveness, or Root Cause Verification Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 24
H CAPA effectiveness verification methods for different types of CA Nonconformance and Corrective Action 2
J Managing design verification regression testing of design changes Design and Development of Products and Processes 0
M Validation of Data verification tool per 21 CFR 820 Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 1
placebo_master Risks of executing a verification protocol against existing data ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
placebo_master Verification Protocols - when to implement them (and when to skip in lieu of a report) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
I Software (SaMD) mobile application verification testing: objective evidence Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 2
M Reference part calibration or verification General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 12
J Verification of purchased product / supplier questionnaires ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
H Verification of the purchased products which are services, like continuous IT services ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
K Why does load cell supplier requires force verification General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
D Use Error Risk Controls and Control Verification ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 6
M Software verification and validation AS9100 AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
E Calibration/Verification Report Durometer ISO 17025 related Discussions 2
S 7.1.5.2.1 Calibration/Verification Records IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
C 8.3.4 Verification and Validation ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
F Compendial method verification Design and Development of Products and Processes 0
H Verification Process for the existing MDS Product IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
J IATF 16949 Calibration/Verification records question ISO 26262 - Road vehicles – Functional safety 6
P Software verification and validation procedure IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 6
Y SaMD Verification and Validation SOP and Plan IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 8
S How to perform verification of the Statistical Analysis Software? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 7
M Sample record for verification performed by importers before placing a device on the market EU Medical Device Regulations 0
N Example for design and development planning,input,output,review,verification,validation and transfer Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 4
S Calibration/Verification of customer fixtures IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
Q Calibration verification records 7.1.5.2.1 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
B AS9100D 7.1.5.2 Calibration or Verification Method using outside cal lab AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
M ISO14971:2019 - Verification of implementation and effectiveness of risk control ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 5
C Stress / Challenge Conditions for Design Verification Testing to Reduce Sample Size 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 11
A Verification protocol example Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
Q Sampling method for Distributor verification activities EU Medical Device Regulations 1
D Design Verification Sample Size vs Repeats Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 9
S IEC 62304 - Software verification cost IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 3
T Laboratory Verification after validation ISO 17025 related Discussions 3
D ISO 13485 - 7.3.6 Design and development verification - Do most folks create a separate SOP? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
T Calibration or Verification -> Cm and Cmk, etc. Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 3
K IEC 62304 compliance - Code reviews as part of verification strategy IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
S Documenting Design Verification Test Results (ISO 9001) Design and Development of Products and Processes 1
C Documentation for items used for Design Verification 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P Design verification driven by new equipment. How is this different than process validation? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
W Seeking Guidance Verification Test Strategy for Class B Medical Devices IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
NDesouza Verification of Supplier RCCAs Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
I IATF 2016 - 8.5.1.4 Verification after shutdown due to COVID19 Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 1

Similar threads

Top Bottom