4 replies to this topic

[D-D]

Mentioned three times, getting to the root cause of issues is obviously flavour of the new standard. So, say the auditor is reviewing the complaints list for example and finds more than one complaint related to the same thing. If that picks up a non-conformance, what sort of corrective action would need to be submitted...?

[Pava]

Hey,



I guess you need to submit the corrective actions that you might take in near future , According to me you need to Assure the Auditor that the action is bieng delt ans so and so action is beign taken up . Like if u could explain your problem in detail there might be very prescise answers for your question ..





Pavan

[Charles.C]

Dear D-D,

The typical Corrective Action form includes a section for "Root cause" aspect. Perhaps yr form doesn't.

For example, a typical corrective action for a critical limit of temperature is to adjust a process setting, eg heating power / conveyor speed. Obviously if the problem frequently re-occurs when it had been OK, some basic parameter has probably changed, eg the heater quality or thermometer calibration or short-sighted operator or ??? Finding the "or" is the root cause requirement. Or showing it was just a random occurrence.

For yr example, suppose the (assumed genuine) complaint was flavour, the root cause is presumably from the supplier (raw material) or yr own handling (somewhere).

Typical generic steps for RC requirements are reviewing the related data / chronology etc and then investigating "accordingly".

Rgds / Charles.C

[D-D]

Already anticipated that one Charles and recently updated the corrective action form and complaint form to formally document root cause.

I am thinking about things like damage caused by transport companies. This is going to be inevitable but there are some we cannot change even if there are repeat issues. Then there are human errors or more worryingly, carelessness. There is only so much re-training you can do, especially when it is obvious what went wrong and you just want people to pay attention to what they are doing.

[Charles.C]

I am thinking about things like damage caused by transport companies. This is going to be inevitable but there are some we cannot change even if there are repeat issues. Then there are human errors or more worryingly, carelessness. There is only so much re-training you can do, especially when it is obvious what went wrong and you just want people to pay attention to what they are doing.

This is the reason for the "likelihood of occurrence" component.
haccp-wise, one could hypothesise that "no (reported) accidents is good news" or equivalently that events reasonably beyond yr control are not within yr scope. Insurance companies are the experts on this.

Also, unless internally proven otherwise, you are (haccp) entitled to assume that Prerequisite operations will have/achieve a low risk. If they are in fact the root cause, better to know before the audit.!

Rgds / Charles.C