|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 Auditing
 Corrective actions
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Corrective actions |
|
Mark Smith Forum Contributor Posts: 32 |
posted 20 February 2001 09:29 AM
  
Last week we had our annual ISO surveillance audit and one of the non-conformances written up was the fact that our SOP for corrective actions states that " Data identifying needs for CA/PA may originate from one of the following sources: Inspection and Test Records MRB Reports Audit Findings Customer Complaints Service Reports Employee Feedback" but the work instruction for Corrective actions states in the SCOPE section The auditor saw a conflict but I argued that corrective actions can exist but not be named as such. For instance, the act of having an MRB review and disposition non-conforming materials is in itself a corrective action for dealing with the presence of non-conforming material. In my opinion , there would be no added value in also assigning a corrective action request to this effort. comments? IP: Logged |
|
Dan Larsen Forum Contributor Posts: 137 |
posted 20 February 2001 05:24 PM
I also see a conflict. CA involves a lot more steps than is typically applied to a quick response to a customer complaint or a single reject. Most often, these involve a "quick fix" to resolve the immediate issue. I think your response to the finding should include a change in the wording for your instruction. The action taken on the individual issues in each of the items you're quoting is, to me, "containment" and not full CA (careful root cause analysis and long term action). The trend information from each of the systems you quoted can and should be used for corrective/preventive actions. For example, you can respond to each individual customer complaint (containment) and your system could stop there. But if you get a lot of complaints of the same type (trend analysis), you may want to initiate a corrective/preventive action to reduce the total number of customer complaints. I use this approach with most of my clients. I tend to keep the reject/complaint systems separate from CA to avoid the need for a full blown audit system. The info from these systems is then evaluated for trends that can be moved to the CA system. IP: Logged |
|
David Mullins Forum Contributor Posts: 248 |
posted 20 February 2001 06:29 PM
I don't know about conflict, I'd say more like contradiction. This looks pretty messy, so I'd say your auditor was quite correct to make mention of the contradictions contained in the documentation of this fundamental area. The quote from the WI also suggests you are overdoing the number of procedures - can't you roll some together? I wouldn't recommend having disparate CA/PA guidelines. ------------------ IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
