A recurrent theme that dominates discussion on the establishment of corrective action programs is the practice of channeling problems through multiple conduits for assessment and resolution. Organizations inadvertently fragment their corrective action process by trying to address problems and nonconformances using activities scattered throughout diverse processes. Generally the criteria for selecting which kind of corrective action will be done is dependent on the point of origin – the function or department where the problems are first identified. It’s not uncommon to see organizations have two or three different corrective action processes. Internal audit findings get handled by the quality manager or the function that oversees audits. Issues dealing with incoming products and material are directed to the purchasing department. Returned defective material is handled through the process for dispositioning nonconforming product. In-process errors get fixed, maybe get recorded and often result in the ubiquitous “train the operator” type activities. Customer complaints get handled by whoever answers the phone with whatever means they have at their disposal. Any additional investigation into root cause and possible corrective action remain within the department.

 …