March's Soapbox argues that the definitions and guidelines for preventative actions in ISO 9001 are vague. There are, in fact, many actions that are not immediately obvious that could be defined as preventative.  Do you agree? Disagree?

 

 

So much feedback to think about.

 

Are people frightened to speak up about this and other Quality Issues ?

 

Returning to the question and to quote Prof Joad 'it all depends ...' - it depends who is reading the ISO 9001 standard. If a trained, educated knowledgable person reads it they will see many references to activities which can lead to prevention (incurring prevention costs) rather than cure (incurring failure costs). However other people reading it will read differently and come away most probably with as little understanding as they started with - many of course couldn't care less as long as the certificate is on the wall to show visitors and investors....

Paul Henry Brinklow,

Chartered Engineer,

CertEd,MA,PgDip,MSc,CEng,MIET,MCQI,FIfL.

 

Paul

Are you sure you have the correct reference here. I could not find the word prevention in Paul Hardiman's article.

However, I agree with Martin, it does seem we are forever debating the meaning of corrective and preventive action indicating that most people in the quality profession don't refresh their knowledge and consequently draw on beliefs formed years ago that are now outdated. The same people most probably have not converted to the metric system.

We have not made progress if we accept new ideas but lock our minds in the status quo of yesteryear.

---

Best Regards

David Hoyle Hon.FCQI