Slide 1: Slides not contractual, for information only as of June 2015
The following slides are not contractual in nature and are for information purposes only as of June 2015. 1 ©2015, Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Slide 2: Corrective Action Acceptance Webinar 9
Corrective Action Acceptance Webinar 9 2 ©2015, Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Slide 3: Areas Covered
Areas Covered • Summary of Webinars 1-7 • Overview of Webinar 8 • CAR Responses - General – Acceptable – Unacceptable – Dealing with Responses • Overview CAR Form • Type CAR Responses • CAR Scenarios • References • Q&A 3
Slide 4: Continuing the Series
Continuing the Series • Webinar 1: Command Media Expectations • Webinar 2: CA Internal Procedures • Webinar 3: CAR Levels & Criteria • Webinar 4: CAR Writing • Webinar 5: Containment • Webinar 6: DCMA CARs • Webinar 7: Root Cause analysis Summary 4
Slide 5: Webinar 8 – Corrective Action Summary
Webinar 8 – Corrective Action Summary • Creating the Corrective Action Plan – Generate and Implement Solution – Verify Results and Document – Monitor and Measure Corrective Action Process • Closing the Corrective Action Plan Continuing the Series 5
Slide 6: What is Corrective Action?
What is Corrective Action? Corrective Action is the implementation of a solution(s) that result in the reduction/elimination of an identified nonconforming issue/event that is normally associated with a corrective action plan (CAP). It has the ability to be measured and validated Defined Action 6
Slide 7: Corrective Action Request Form Summary of Required Information
Corrective Action Request Form Summary of Required Information • Related LM Aero CAR number • Date of CAR initiation & due date • Submitted By (Company name) • LM Supplier ID Number • Name of Submitter • Date of Response Transmitted • Part number/Service Affected. • At least one industry recognized
Slide 8: Fish Bone Diagram
Fish Bone Diagram Considered an effective tool in help identifying the root cause of a single non-conformance condition* Recognized Industry Tools Identifying the Root Cause 8
Slide 9: Cause Map Analysis
Cause Map Analysis Specific Goal to Defining Specific Deviations Recognized Industry Tools 9
Slide 10: 5-Why Analysis
5-Why Analysis The engine will not start. • Why? - The battery is dead. (first) • Why? - The generator is not functioning. (second) • Why? – The shaft is sheared. (third) • Why? - The generator was well beyond its recommended service life according to FRACAS and was not replaced. (fourth) • Why? – T
Slide 11: Corrective Action Response Requirements
Corrective Action Response Requirements • Does the Corrective Action response address system process non conformance, by means of an adequate Root Cause? • Understand the process prior to accepting the CA and root cause. • Does the response ensure no re-occurrence? • Can the result be measured and v
Slide 12: Evaluating the Response
Evaluating the Response The supplier response should be evaluated in accordance with requirements. Has the: • Root cause been effectively identified • Corrective action improved the process and prevented recurrence If Acceptable • Establish validation follow-up date within 30 days of C/A effectivity
Slide 13: Dealing with Supplier Rejected Responses
Dealing with Supplier Rejected Responses Rejections • Extend CAR due date when supplier provides adequate justification or inability to meet due date • Reject CAR, if supplier is non-responsive to CAR or the CAP does not contain the required RCCA to prevent recurrence • Provide justification and rea
Slide 14: Dealing with Supplier Request for Extensions
Dealing with Supplier Request for Extensions Some Conditions to Extend • Issue has been expanded • The need to gather additional information • Time/event driven circumstances Some Conditions not to Extend • Slipped through the cracks • Convenience • Failure to respond The Expectation is no delinquen
Slide 15: Verification & Validation
Verification & Validation • Verification – Confirmation by means of reviewing the objective evidence to ensure that specified requirements have been fulfilled • Validation – Ensure that the same nonconformance has not re-occurred by means of appropriate documentation • Verify that the actions have b
Slide 16: Types of CA Responses
Responses Types of CA Responses • Good – This satisfies all the LM requirements and CAP requirements with minimal waste of time and expense • Poor – This does not satisfy LM requirements nor that of the CAP. Could be considered open ended • Ugly - This dysfunctional approach that eventually satisfie
Slide 17: The Good
The Good • Request Number (-Rev): 11111 • (Level 1 - Excluded from Rating) • Findings: 1 • Issue Date: 02/05/2010 • Date Due: 03/22/2010 • Part Number: 121212-1 • Tool Number: Not applicable • Tool Code: Not applicable • Defect Code: Hardware Discrepancy • Program: XXXXX Non Conformance • Requiremen
Slide 18: The Good
The Good • Corrective Action Acceptable: Yes • Cause Code: NDT Processing Error • Root Cause Analysis: 1. Planning was not part of Contract Review process at the time of PO acceptance. 2. Inadequate review by Engineering during shop traveler review process 3. No current procedural requirement for sp
Slide 19: The Bad
The Bad • Request Number (-Rev): 22222-2 • (Level 1 - Excluded from Rating) • Findings: 1 • Issue Date: 02/05/2010 • Date Due: 03/22/2010 • Part Number: XXXXX • Tool Number: Not applicable • Tool Code: Not applicable • Defect Code: Identification incorrect • Program: XXXXX Non Conformance • Requirem
Slide 20: The Bad
The Bad • Corrective Action Acceptable: Yes • Cause Code: Material Handling • Root Cause Analysis: Confusion caused by too many units on inspection shelves (example - units waiting for data pack, contracts issues, etc.). • Supplier Corrective Action: Set up data pack review shelves in team leads are
Slide 21: The Ugly
The Ugly • Request Number (-Rev): 33333-3 • (Level 2 – Included in Rating) • Findings: 1 • Issue Date: 02/05/2010 • Date Due: 03/22/2010 • Part Number: XXXX • Tool Number: Not applicable • Tool Code: Not applicable • Defect Code: Hardware Discrepancy • Program: XXXX Non Conformance • Requirement Doc
Slide 22: The Ugly
The Ugly • Corrective Action Acceptable: Yes • Cause Code: Acceptance Test Inadequate • Root Cause Analysis: A formal Quality Inspection Plan had not been developed, which include visual inspection requirements • Supplier Corrective Action: A Quality Inspection Plan has been created that includes di
Slide 23: Scenario One – Uncontrolled Materials
Scenario One – Uncontrolled Materials An auditor has reviewed the control of non-conforming material at a supplier. The supplier has a separate secured area where all non-conforming material is stored until the material is dispositioned. During the review of the room, it is noticed that the material
Slide 24: Scenario 1 – Uncontrolled Materials
Scenario 1 – Uncontrolled Materials Which would be the most effective corrective action? Option 1: The supplier gives sufficient reason on why the current system is compliant/effective. Making the statement that there has been no recorded events of scrap material being utilized as a approved deliver
Slide 25: Scenario 1 - Uncontrolled Materials
Scenario 1 - Uncontrolled Materials The most effective course of action for this scenario would be Option 2. It provides a specific measured action that directly addresses the non-conformance. It also provides a validation element as well Option 1 is somewhat argumentative, subject to interpretation
Slide 26: Scenario 2 – The use of tracking tools
Scenario 2 – The use of tracking tools The Management Review procedure has been reviewed. It states they have defined measurable objectives for productivity, Customer satisfaction, and quality. When a request is made to see the measures reviewed during a management review meeting, a member of suppli
Slide 27: Scenario Two
Scenario Two Which would be the most effective corrective action? Option 1: The supplier gives sufficient reason on why the current system is compliant/effective. Making the statement that the plant is operating at an acceptable level. Option 2: The supplier adds provision to review all documents th
Slide 28: Scenario Two
Scenario Two The most effective course of action for this scenario would be Option 2. It provides a specific measured action that directly addresses the non conformance. Option 1 is somewhat argumentative, subject to interpretation and lacks the backing of any meaningful operating procedures that wo
Slide 29: Reference Materials
Reference Materials LM Based • IAQG – Root Cause Analysis and Problem Solving (aligned with IAQG 9136 draft) www.iaqg.org/scmh • AC-1388 – Resolution of Findings and Discrepancies-Corrective Action Process • AC-3031 – Corrective Action Tasks for All LM Aeronautics Manufacturing Programs Supplementar
Slide 30: Topic 10 – CAR Follow-up
Introduction to next Webinar Topic 10 – “CAR Follow-up” Continuing the series 30
Slide 31: Slide 31