Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
articles:misuse_of_corrective_action_system [2021/06/21 17:29] – rrandall | articles:misuse_of_corrective_action_system [2023/04/19 20:25] (current) – [Case Study - Misuse of a Corrective Action System] rrandall | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ : | {{ : | ||
- | ====== Misuse of a Corrective Action System ====== | + | ====== |
- | I was recently | + | I was visiting a new client where I noticed that many of the issues identified in the company’s Corrective Action system were NOT actually nonconformities. When asked about this, the Quality Manager explained that it was their practice to input all “Observations” and any “Opportunities For Improvement” identified from audits (whether internal or external) into their corrective action system. |
I explained that the definition of a “corrective action” requires there to be a nonconformity: | I explained that the definition of a “corrective action” requires there to be a nonconformity: | ||
- | < | + | < |
**corrective action** \\ | **corrective action** \\ | ||
action to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent recurrence \\ | action to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent recurrence \\ | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Note 2 to entry: Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action (3.12.1) is taken to prevent occurrence.</ | Note 2 to entry: Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action (3.12.1) is taken to prevent occurrence.</ | ||
- | Choosing to ignore this definition, the Quality Manager explained | + | Choosing to ignore this definition, the Quality Manager explained |
- | I was certain that there must be some misunderstanding. The Quality Manager explained that, in his experience, every CB auditor that he had dealt with, who had issued “Observations” or “Opportunities For Improvement” had specifically stated an // | + | I was certain that there must be some misunderstanding. The Quality Manager explained that, in his experience, every CB auditor that he had dealt with, who had issued “Observations” or “Opportunities For Improvement”, had specifically stated an // |
- | This indicated an obvious history of CB auditors “soft grading” (i.e., identifying nonconformities as “Observations” or “Opportunities For Improvement” either to avoid the administrative work of reviewing and approving corrective actions or to avoid being perceived as a “bad guy” for issuing nonconformities). | + | This indicated an obvious history of CB auditors “soft grading” (i.e., identifying nonconformities as “Observations” or “Opportunities For Improvement”) either to avoid the administrative work of reviewing and approving corrective actions or to avoid being perceived as a “bad guy” for issuing nonconformities. |
- | As a result of this “soft grading”, the CB auditors had not only encouraged, but forced the company to misuse their corrective action system. This has resulted in a database containing dozens of “corrective actions” | + | As a result of this “soft grading”, the CB auditors had not only encouraged, but forced the company to misuse their corrective action system! Consequently, |
- | Even more disturbing is that two (2) of the sites overseen by the Quality Manager are ISO 9001 registered, and one is AS9100 registered. From his perspective, | + | Upon locating and reviewing |
- | I explained that, eventually, when a CB auditor observes that the company' | + | I explained that, eventually, when a CB auditor observes that the company' |
+ | |||
+ | The Quality Manager ignored this warning... insisting that this was how their CB wanted them to use their corrective action system. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Conclusion: A poor auditor can actually impede quality within an organization. | ||
- | The Quality Manager ignored this warning... insisting that this was how their CB wanted to use their corrective action system. | ||