There was a somewhat similar post on the Elsmar Cove LinkedIn group. I'm copying my reply here for the heck of it.
First off, when a corrective action is started in response to a request for corrective action, a plan and timeline should be set for each stage of that specific corrective action. This is not the same as setting a specific timeline for all corrective actions because each corrective action will be different. That is why I said setting up such a timeline (such as in a procedure) is not realistic. I have seen corrective actions completed in a day or two, whilst others took over a year. For example, replacement or new equipment may be necessary in some instances. In such cases that in its self can delay (or even stop) the progress of a corrective action for reasons such as getting appropriations ($$$) for the equipment.
Some companies do set up "standard" due dates, but it is not realistic to do so. The important thing is for each corrective action to be tracked for continuing progress. Some corrective actions may, for example, take a longer time to verify effectiveness of so are open longer on that aspect alone. Others can be verified as effective more quickly.
What you are describing is *very* typical in my experience. In some (many) companies it is difficult to get management support, not to mention the support of employees on the floor (discipline issues). I have had reasonable success by having a tracking system which is maintained with deadlines appropriate to each specific corrective action. When a deadline is missed "traceable" notices such as emails are sent to the appropriate people (notice I say "people" because typically there are more than one person involved). Failure to follow through can also be fed into internal meetings and ultimately management review.
The unfortunate part is that there are companies which I call "bad personality" companies which are difficult to get things done in and there is a lack of (for example) management support. Ideally everyone will do their job, part of which is (for example) to report their progress or other aspects of their company's corrective action procedure(s)/system.
I have been retained by companies to "clean up" their corrective actions, typically in response to an external audit finding. I set up a tracking system if there isn't one and used "escalation" when a goal isn't met - That is to say if someone does not meet their deadline their supervisor or manager is contacted. Sometimes this leads to an internal meeting as to why the corrective action isn't being followed through on.
Some aspects can be hard to address such as employees not completing required forms or reporting their actions. Again, in a company which I call a "bad personality" company, there is little or no discipline in some areas such as things as simple as completing forms. In such companies they are effectively letting employees do what they want without regard to what the employee's job responsibilities are. If employees do not "take the corrective action seriously" there is an internal discipline problem. I would speak with upper management about the issue. It is not unusual for the person assigned the responsibility to track and follow through on corrective actions to be given the responsibility, but not the authority, to enforce follow through by employees.
As a consultant, in my past several times I have "quit" over their giving me the responsibility but no authority. I went to the person who hired me and I was always persuaded not to quit but it was always on the condition that if I said something had to be done by someone it would be done. That said, as a consultant my reputation is based upon success. I will be blamed for failure (which is always the reason I give if I "quit" a project for a company).
The bottom line is there has to be realistic times set for each phase of each individual corrective action and there has to be a solid tracking mechanism with an escalation path when deadlines are not met without good reason for a delay.
