-
2
- #1
geesaman.d
Mechanical
- Nov 18, 2021
- 360
Tossing this out for discussion, the corrective action / preventative action process and how it can drag a business process into the trash.
It seems common for mistakes of moderate severity to coincide with situations where the implications are amplified. The cost ends up being outsized. Then when senior management gets involved, the declaration is made: "This must never happen again!". Improvements to the process are proposed that greatly reduce the severity or cost in the future, but are rejected because they don't meet the standard of "never". Finally, a new process is agreed upon (extra review or signoff, extra checklist, etc) and a new burdensome step is added to every transaction for years to come.
And yet, the process is really a skeleton of a process with oversized bandages protecting a handful of spots, with each spot being one of these CAPAs. Risky business persists, with the risky transactions finding ways to bypass the bulky bandaged spots, and the individuals handling the transactions are too busy forcing the transactions through the checklists and approval processes to actually observe and think. The company doesn't stop getting burned and doubles down with bigger, thicker bandages. The process becomes covered in bandages and lacks agility. (Now our process is a mummy - honestly I apologize for this analogy). The company loses to competitors who are smaller, more thoughtful, and less burdened by bloated processes.
I'm a huge fan of the CAPA process. It's the overuse of absolutism that ruins it. When a CAPA adds cost or lead time to every transaction, the real question is where to best draw the line. How do you fight process bloat? How do you advocate a little moderation to executives who are making a name for themselves as being the one who "put that issue to bed forever"?
It seems common for mistakes of moderate severity to coincide with situations where the implications are amplified. The cost ends up being outsized. Then when senior management gets involved, the declaration is made: "This must never happen again!". Improvements to the process are proposed that greatly reduce the severity or cost in the future, but are rejected because they don't meet the standard of "never". Finally, a new process is agreed upon (extra review or signoff, extra checklist, etc) and a new burdensome step is added to every transaction for years to come.
And yet, the process is really a skeleton of a process with oversized bandages protecting a handful of spots, with each spot being one of these CAPAs. Risky business persists, with the risky transactions finding ways to bypass the bulky bandaged spots, and the individuals handling the transactions are too busy forcing the transactions through the checklists and approval processes to actually observe and think. The company doesn't stop getting burned and doubles down with bigger, thicker bandages. The process becomes covered in bandages and lacks agility. (Now our process is a mummy - honestly I apologize for this analogy). The company loses to competitors who are smaller, more thoughtful, and less burdened by bloated processes.
I'm a huge fan of the CAPA process. It's the overuse of absolutism that ruins it. When a CAPA adds cost or lead time to every transaction, the real question is where to best draw the line. How do you fight process bloat? How do you advocate a little moderation to executives who are making a name for themselves as being the one who "put that issue to bed forever"?