The difference between effective and ineffective quality event management systems often comes down to knowing whether to implement corrective and preventive actions (CAPA).
Any company that launches a CAPA for every quality issue that occurs, regardless of the magnitude of the impact, will quickly find its quality event management system inundated with paperwork and without the resources to adequately respond. If data from each quality event — such as inputs from customer complaints, nonconformity reports, management reviews, audit findings, out of specifications (OOS), deviations and so forth — is deemed to be worthy of a CAPA, “death by CAPA” inevitably occurs.
Ken Peterson, a widely regarded expert consultant who specializes in CAPA, risk assessment and quality event management systems, has made it his life’s mission to help companies avoid death by CAPA. For decades he has lent his quality event management expertise to a long list of successful global companies like Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Kodak, IBM and leading quality event management software provider MasterControl.
Peterson outlines the best practices for quality event management systems that he’s refined over decades in a free three-part webinar series sponsored by MasterControl. In the first installment of the series, Peterson offers useful five risk assessment guidelines that can help companies navigate the handling of quality events.
Using the Five W technique, organizations can gauge the magnitude and specifics of quality events in order to better resolve them. A quality event management system’s reliability in leading to resolutions, according to Peterson, hinges upon its users’ ability to ask and answer the right questions. Adequately answering each of the Five W questions will streamline the organization’s process of getting to the heart of troublesome issues and determining the risks those problems pose.
Peterson stresses the importance of using cause analysis when investigating quality events. Determining a root cause entails asking key questions such as:
These types of questions should provoke further investigation. If the problem appears to be of unknown origin, a tangible cause must be determined.
Choosing the wrong process — or even the right process at the wrong time — can cause further and more severe problems down the road, according to Peterson. In the webinar series, he goes into detail about the following problem-solving methods and explains how there are pros and cons to each, depending on the situation:
After the appropriate problem-solving technique has been identified and applied to the quality issue at hand, Peterson recommends that organizations pursue the following five sequential steps to investigate cause — if possible, by leveraging a robust quality event management software solution:
Once you think the most likely cause of the problem has been identified, Peterson warns, it must match up with the data in your quality event management system to be considered the true root cause. If the presumed cause you’ve identified doesn’t explain the data, it can’t be correct and the investigation must continue.
This is just a broad overview of the in-depth observations about effective quality event management systems that are shared in the three webinars. You can start learning more about investigations into the causes of your quality events and discover new methods for improving quality event management systems by viewing the first webinar in the series here.