Posts Tagged ‘repeat’

Too much time to document corrective actions? Consider the long term benefit!

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

Reason # 4 in our Top Ten Countdown of quality system mistakes-

#4 – Corrective actions aren’t documented!

When conducting internal audits, we often see third party registrar reports that contain a nonconformance finding for not documenting corrective actions as stated in the company’s written procedures. The usual response is that there just isn’t enough time to document issues when they can be solved (or perceived as solved) within a short period of time. Although this may seem true on the surface, after a little investigative auditing, we often find that some of those issues that were “fixed” on the fly are coming back repeatedly either in the same area or in other areas of the business.

Although it is easy to rationalize the behavior of making simple quick process corrections without going through the formal documentation route, the end result is almost always the same. Since the issue was not documented and many other areas of the company were not aware of the problem, not to mention the solution (which may or may not be long term), the problem keeps raising its ugly head.

There is tremendous value when a corrective action is properly documented, true root cause is determined and long term solutions are communicated to all functions of the organization. These “extra steps” that can, on the surface, seem troublesome and time consuming but can actually save both time and money by reducing or eliminating repeat nonconforming issues. Please keep in mind we are not suggesting the documentation of every little operational issue that requires simple adjustment during the course of doing business. We are talking about those issues that can affect the customer and/or have an effect on internal processes.

For information on how to effectively document corrective actions, contact the experts at G3 Solutions.

Writing a corrective action when “It wasn’t our fault!”

Friday, March 26th, 2010

When dealing with quality system standards such as ISO 9001, it is important to remember the emphasis put on continual improvement.

A recent event at a client location involved a customer complaint that turned out to be a supplier issue. When encouraged to write an internal corrective action, someone within the organization made the remark “Why should we write a corrective action if it wasn’t our fault? It was a supplier issue!”

At first thought, it sounds like a valid point. The whole situation was caused by the supplier. The organization did everything correctly according to their procedures. They also have a robust supplier management program that, as most felt, would provide a solid system to notify the supplier and request a root cause determination as to how the incident can be avoided in the future.

So why a corrective action? First, every incident involving a customer complaint truly is a golden opportunity to make sure it won’t repeat – no matter who is at fault. If it can happen once, it can happen again. And although people within the organization know that this time it isn’t the company’s fault, there is a high probability that the customer doesn’t care. All the customer knows is that they used a company to supply a product or service and something went wrong. The customer is also probably wondering “If this supplier is used again, what other headaches and heartburn will we encounter?” This can and probably will affect the customer perception of the organization (reference ISO 9001 clause 8.2.1 – Customer Satisfaction).

Secondly, we can’t forget Note 3 in ISO 9001 clause 4.1 – General Requirements that states “Ensuring control over outsourced processes does not absolve the organization of the responsibility of conformity to all customer, statutory and regulatory requirements.” Sure, the supplier got it wrong, but we are still responsible for the product or service we promised to the customer.

Finally, the fact that the organization followed all of their procedures is good, but how do they know that the procedures are right? Have changes in the organization occurred since the procedures were written and reviewed? And if the answer is yes, do our procedures allow for the flexibility of dealing with those changes? There probably is much to examine, explore and revise if changes in operations have been made.

Again, continual improvement should always be the emphasis when the customer isn’t happy. In the end, taking this approach can be the difference between happy or irate customers – not to mention repeat or lost revenue.