Continual Improvement as Result of Corrective Action?

tlarosa said:

A process that is meeting a Cpk of greater than 1.33, for example, could still be targeted for improvement to greater than 1.67, for example. I see this as true improvement.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's a particularly good example, because Cpk is not a very good indicator of anything. Whether or not an "improvement" from 1.33 to 1.67 would be worthwhile depends on facts not in evidence here. Nothing is improved if unnecessary changes are made.

Mike S. said:

If ISO says improvement can include corrective action, then in the context of ISO it can. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to me. If you have a hole in your roof and you fix it, wouldn't you say that was an improvement?

Click to expand...

tiarosa said:

I would not say that it is an improvement. It is fixing a defect.

Click to expand...

Context and scope are key...

Situation | There's a hole in the roof.

Correction | Cover hole.

Corrective Action | Identify why there is a hole in the roof and address causes that are actionable, including assessing what needs to be done to reduce the likelihood of a hole reappearing - this could include maintenance/inspection activities, a change in roofing material, etc.

Improvement | Move to a basement apartment where there is, technically, no roof to think about ever again.

Basements have water leak problems too. If anything they have more flooding issues than higher levels. And some of them are from roof leaks that just continued downward.

Correcting a nonconformity is not improving the system (for satisfying or delighting customers).

Removing its causes from the system is late but still an improvement.

Preventing a nonconformity from occurring could be an even better improvement.

Jim Wynne said:

We're talking about improvements in general here, and if you're searching for things to improve, why wouldn't you review all of the relevant information, including past corrective actions? No one is saying that past corrective actions must be used to inform improvement efforts; it's just given as a potential source for information.

Click to expand...

I am not writing about using past corrective actions for improvement efforts. I am writing about a current failure that needs to have corrective actions applied. This is still considered "improvement" in ISO 9001:2015 terminology.

Jim Wynne said:

I don't think that's a particularly good example, because Cpk is not a very good indicator of anything. Whether or not an "improvement" from 1.33 to 1.67 would be worthwhile depends on facts not in evidence here. Nothing is improved if unnecessary changes are made.

Click to expand...

The assumption is that the improvement from 1.33 to 1.67 has some benefit.

tlarosa said:

The assumption is that the improvement from 1.33 to 1.67 has some benefit.

Click to expand...

But does it offer value? If it costs more to improve a process than what the actual gain is, I'd argue that there is no value-added improvement.

Philosophically maintaining a system can be considered continual improvement due to the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.

ill see my way out, thank you.

Exactly Ed, we spend our lives countering the forces of disorder.

Here is the original post:

tlarosa said:

Why is it written in ISO 9001:2015 that continual improvement includes corrective action? I thought that continual improvement referred to making something good even better. With corrective action, on the other hand, there was a failure.

Click to expand...

The note you referred to says, in full: NOTE: Examples of improvement can include correction, corrective action, continual improvement, breakthrough change, innovation, and re-organization.

First, the note doesn't say "continual improvement includes corrective action" as you stated, it says "improvement can include...corrective action...."

Why? Because the committee decided so. It seems within reason to me. There are lots of things in ISO 9001 I don't like or necessarily agree with, but I have to live with it. This particular issues seems to be a very minor one that, to me, falls into the "so what?" category.