In BRC do we need to include our Root Cause Analysis method?

Hi All,

Happy Friday :happydance:

.

I am not sure if we have to mention our Root Cause Analysis Method in our procedure or not ?

Thank you

Atessa

Hi Atessa,

Which procedure is that ?

Hi Atessa,

 

Which procedure is that ?

We need Root cause analysis for our NCRs or Continues improvement and Costumer complaint handling .

I have root cause analysis step for my NCRs register and it has  mentioned  procedure , but I don’t know if I have to mention wich method I am using in my related procedures or no ?

We need Root cause analysis for our NCRs or Continues improvement and Costumer complaint handling .

I have root cause analysis step for my NCRs register and it has  mentioned  procedure , but I don’t know if I have to mention wich method I am using in my related procedures or no ?

Hi Atessa,

 

Which procedure is that ?

I

Hi Atessa,

 

Which procedure is that ?

And one more question is

based on Understanding root cause analysis guideline we can find different methods to go through the non-conformance and find its root cause. Do we need to follow one method for ever or we can change it each time?

Hi Atessa,

i guess there are a variety of options for this.

I couldn't quite work out if you actually have an SOP for "root cause analysis" or not ? If not, there are several threads here with generic SOPs attached ranging from basic to elegant. Some people must enjoy drawing fishbones.

I tend to use an ad hoc (numbered) Procedure stated to be  "based on"  a referenced standard method. I then link this number as desired. Auditors like cross-refs. One incidental objective is to minimise the opportunity for an auditor to delve into undesirable nooks and crannies. :smile:

In practice (as per yr 2nd query), the applied procedure, inevitably IMO, varies case-by-case when you get to the nitty-gritty. Auditors want to see that you've dug down through the surface and involved (often dragged) in all the pertinent people to get to a "Root".

 I append the result of the RCA to a box on the C.action form with details on a cross-linked sheet, which inc. the SOP number. Auditors just love numbers.

Hi Atessa,

 

i guess there are a variety of options for this.

 

I couldn't quite work out if you actually have an SOP for "root cause analysis" or not ? If not, there are several threads here with generic SOPs attached ranging from basic to elegant. Some people must enjoy drawing fishbones.

I tend to use an ad hoc (numbered) Procedure stated to be  "based on"  a referenced standard method. I then link this number as desired. Auditors like cross-refs. One incidental objective is to minimise the opportunity for an auditor to delve into undesirable nooks and crannies. :smile:

 

In practice (as per yr 2nd query), the applied procedure, inevitably IMO, varies case-by-case when you get to the nitty-gritty. Auditors want to see that you've dug down through the surface and involved (often dragged) in all the pertinent people to get to a "Root".

 

 I append the result of the RCA to a box on the C.action form with details on a cross-linked sheet, which inc. the SOP number. Auditors just love numbers.

I have done my sop s. But I wasn’t sure if I have to mention my method in my NCR procedure. A bit tricky ;)

Anyway I will mention my method in my Procedures ( where it needs)  and will provide a record for it, to be on a safe side ;)

Thank you and have a nice weeeeeeekend

I would simply mention root cause action in relevant procedures.

How you do RCA may be different for different problems...could be the five why's or fishbone or whatever.

There should be records always.  If you had a box on the NCR report "root cause" - it may just be a statement in there if an obvious root cause or it could be some text and then refer to an attachment such as a fishbone and report etc.

Thanks a lot. Comprehensive reply... I got my answer now...  Will do the same. 

Also thanks every one who tried to help me out.