Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA) - A Definitive Discussion

Rob Nix said:

The ISO standard on the matter is as muddy as it gets. Daniel, Merrriam, and the rest of the Webster family would go bonkers in this field.

It is no wonder that people outside the Quality field consider us nuts. We often use vernacular that is strange to the outsider. The use of “correction”, “corrective action” and “preventive action is a good example.

Click to expand...

Rob,

What's wrong with the ISO 9000-2000 definitions? They seem reasonably clear to me -- especially relative to some of the stuff ISO defines.

ddhartma said:

In-fact let me take the opportunity to say that this is a good illustration of C.I. Lewis' discussions on "Common Concepts" or the lack thereof. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there really is a lack of common concept when it comes to discussions related to corrective -Vs- preventive, in that we all seemingly have our own definitions.

Click to expand...

I recall, Dave, through a vaguely alcoholic and smoke filled haze, my days in the University when the Philosophy majors used to destroy us poor Science and Engineering types by shouting
"Define your terms!"
whenever we had the audacity to venture an opinion on ANY topic in the saloon across the street from our campus.

We would take the challenge literally and spend twenty or thirty minutes trying to give gilt-edged (if slightly slurred) definitions only to be interrupted and shouted down again to define something like "war."

Except he is too young to have been there, Slick Willy's statement of
"it depends on the meaning of what 'is' is."
sounds almost exactly like those Philosophy majors about the Viet Nam "activity" during the early 1960's.

Now here we are again, trying to put definitive labels on processes which are fluid and changing in every organization.

One of the saving graces of ISO Standards is the "escape" concept of "as it applies to the organization and to satisfying its customer's requirements."

Perhaps we'll reach that day when we get a bunch of Cliff's Notes for each Standard to help us get through them the same way we got through Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis (is it really cheating?)

Wes Bucey said:

I recall, Dave, through a vaguely alcoholic and smoke filled haze, my days in the University when the Philosophy majors used to destroy us poor Science and Engineering types by shouting
"Define your terms!"

Perhaps we'll reach that day when we get a bunch of Cliff's Notes for each Standard to help us get through them the same way we got through Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis (is it really cheating?)

Click to expand...

Wes,

In this particular case, did ISO not "define [their] terms"? In this case, isn't ISO 9000-2000 your "Cliff's Notes"? What is wrong with the ISO definitions in this case? -- I think they are pretty clear. Maybe I only think I understand it but I really don't.

Mike,

Twice you've mentioned the 'clarity of the ISO terms'. Please define them here along with where you got them from. It might help get us all "on the same page".

Rob Nix said:

Mike,

Twice you've mentioned the 'clarity of the ISO terms'. Please define them here along with where you got them from. It might help get us all "on the same page".

Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed you guys had a copy of ISO 9000-2000, and I shouldn't oughta done that.

I hope this is not copyright violation - if it is a moderator can delete it:

3.6.4
preventive action
action to eliminate the cause of a potential nonconformity (3.6.2) or other undesirable potential situation
NOTE 1 There can be more than one cause for a potential nonconformity.
NOTE 2 Preventive action is taken to prevent occurrence whereas corrective action (3.6.5) is taken to prevent recurrence.

3.6.5
corrective action
action to eliminate the cause of a detected nonconformity (3.6.2) or other undesirable situation
NOTE 1 There can be more than one cause for a nonconformity.
NOTE 2 Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action (3.6.4) is taken to prevent occurrence.
NOTE 3 There is a distinction between correction (3.6.6) and corrective action.

3.6.6
correction
action to eliminate a detected nonconformity (3.6.2)
NOTE 1 A correction can be made in conjunction with a corrective action (3.6.5).
NOTE 2 A correction can be, for example, rework (3.6.7) or regrade (3.6.8).

Now, I can see where there might be some debate in some circumstances about when an action is corrective or preventive. For example, let's say you make red wagons. Your customer, who buys only large size red wagons, complains that the wheels are falling off. You investigate and find that the cotter pins you were using are defective -- too soft.

IMO...

If you replace the defective cotter pins (with new and better ones) on the customer's large wagons, that is correction.

If you use only the new cotter pins on all future large red wagons you produce, that is corrective action.

If you decide to also use only the new cotter pins on the little and medium size red wagons as well, even though there has never yet been a case of a wheel falling off of them, that is preventive action, IMO. Some could argue, I suppose, that it is CA since the issues are so similar, but IMO it is PA.

Comments?

Mike,

Your original assumption was correct. In fact I've got too many standards: ISO-9000:2000, 9001, 9004, TS16949, QS, TE Supplement, AIAG manuals, and all the other reference manuals.

Also, your (red wagons) analogy is a good one. And I believe it is also the point Dan Nelson tries to make in the article that caused me to resurrect this issue. My problem is that Mr. Nelson's article epitomizes the myopia we Quality professional's develop when hair-splitting definitions. His article's subtitle is "Don't confuse the preventive aspects of corrective actions". WHY? will we lose our contracts? develop a rare disease? cause our registrar to choke on his doughnut?

It's just not that important!!! Although it has run a rather lengthy thread here.

Sometimes I feel like we're all 'Monk' (from the TV series) and everyone else is the Police Chief.

Mike S. said:

If you decide to also use only the new cotter pins on the little and medium size red wagons as well, even though there has never yet been a case of a wheel falling off of them, that is preventive action, IMO. Some could argue, I suppose, that it is CA since the issues are so similar, but IMO it is PA.

Comments?

Click to expand...

Mike,

This is exactly the type of scenario that I have seen brought up time and again here as well as in other forums, where common understanding breaks down. Is it preventive to pass the fix on to similar products, or is it a continuation of the corrective action?

I believe that just as Rob and Wes have pointed out, it's just not that important for us to quibble over. After all if within our organizations we can develop a common understanding that's really all that matters (and even then if there are questionable situations that arise, what difference does it make what we call the action). The important factor is did we do anything to take care of the identified weakness/nonconformance. We can pidgeon-hole the action for our internal reports however we feel like on that particular day.

Really I'm not going to loose my certification or (more importantly) my customers just because I called an action preventive that they felt was corrective, or vise versa.

Maybe we should just refer to both as "Continual Improvement" actions - the subcategory that ISO 9001 puts them both in.

Rob said "My problem is that Mr. Nelson's article epitomizes the myopia we Quality professional's develop when hair-splitting definitions. His article's subtitle is "Don't confuse the preventive aspects of corrective actions". WHY? will we lose our contracts? develop a rare disease? cause our registrar to choke on his doughnut? It's just not that important!!!"

Had I been eating a doughnut when I read this I may have choked on it, though!

DD said "Is it preventive to pass the fix on to similar products, or is it a continuation of the corrective action? I believe that just as Rob and Wes have pointed out, it's just not that important for us to quibble over. After all if within our organizations we can develop a common understanding that's really all that matters (and even then if there are questionable situations that arise, what difference does it make what we call the action). The important factor is did we do anything to take care of the identified weakness/nonconformance. We can pidgeon-hole the action for our internal reports however we feel like on that particular day."

Agreed.

There are grey areas here, but any registrar that raises a fuss over such things is an idiot. If they raise it with me they had better give me a reference guide with very clear examples of what is PA and what is CA in their view, and even then I won't be too happy with them.

Is the Australian Standard Different?

Mike S. said:

Sorry, I assumed you guys had a copy of ISO 9000-2000, and I shouldn't oughta done that.

I hope this is not copyright violation - if it is a moderator can delete it:

3.6.4
preventive action
action to eliminate the cause of a potential nonconformity (3.6.2) or other undesirable potential situation
NOTE 1 There can be more than one cause for a potential nonconformity.
NOTE 2 Preventive action is taken to prevent occurrence whereas corrective action (3.6.5) is taken to prevent recurrence.

3.6.5
corrective action
action to eliminate the cause of a detected nonconformity (3.6.2) or other undesirable situation
NOTE 1 There can be more than one cause for a nonconformity.
NOTE 2 Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action (3.6.4) is taken to prevent occurrence.
NOTE 3 There is a distinction between correction (3.6.6) and corrective action.

3.6.6
correction
action to eliminate a detected nonconformity (3.6.2)
NOTE 1 A correction can be made in conjunction with a corrective action (3.6.5).
NOTE 2 A correction can be, for example, rework (3.6.7) or regrade (3.6.8).

Click to expand...

Mike,

My copy of ISO9K2K does not use these reference numbers nor does it have all of these notes. I am at home at the moment but I know that my CAPA stuff in the manual is prefixed by the number 8 not 3. I think the numbers 8.5 Improvement with sub paragraphs 8.5.1 Continual Improvement, 8.5.2 Corrective Action and 8.5.3 Preventative Action. Am I wrong or is the Australian Standard different? I'll have to check this out tomorrow.

Greg B